"We could've moved Ryan Miller. There were teams calling on Ryan Miller." - Jim Benning

[Nucks2477]

I would like to point out that your conversation doesn't matter.

But.... I would have liked to move Miller.

[Baggins]

HAHA baggins!! Again, you prove yourself to be ignorant with a low level for comprehension and now, a liar. Trust me, you are not doing yourself any favors with these posts....all you do is prove yourself to be untrustworthy.

Blah. blah, blah. How about cutting out the personal attacks and stick to answering the posts.

Thanks for clarifying "if" for me....however, you used it as an example to say that the younger tandem "could" have been a result "IF" one goalie was 36 and the other being 22. I said that "younger tandem" meant that both goalies were younger....which is how you should have comprehended it. On top of that, I said that the example you gave could have been a possibility for one or maybe a few teams, but the majority it wasn't. And than I asked you to be factual with your statements and to show examples, give a link or some sort of evidence to prove your theory. Which you failed to do. All this because you can't understand or comprehend anything written.... Comprehension FAIL.

No you didn't. Here's what you said and I responded to....

There's only 8 teams in the league who have a goalie tandem averaging 30 years of age or more....Calgary, Carolina, Edmonton, Florida, Nashville, NYR, Ottawa and Vancouver. Not the elites of the league and I would definitely prefer to be grouped with the others.

http://ingoalmag.com/news/canucks-gm-miller-will-for-sure-be-back/

It looks like this "mentoring" thing is overrated....and like a lot of people on CDC like to say, I think the majority of GM's in the league have a better clue than CDC. benning talks about this mentoring crap because it's a good excuse to support his signing of Miller. Nothing else.

Your words, no editing. And no mention of both goalies being younger. I have to ask again, do you actually read what you write?

Now I asked what combined average age of a tandem had to do with mentoring. I gave an example where a combined average age would still be under 30 and lend itself to a mentoring situation. I also gave an example of a situation where both goalies could be under 30 (the Roy reference) and be in a mentoring situation. But there's actually nothing in the article at all mentioning mentoring. I simply questioned your conclusion that mentoring is overrated based on that article about combined average age. You in turn get bent out of shape and hurl insults.

Backup my claim regarding his reputation? Google Lucic.... Laziness PASS.

You made the claim, you back it up. Don't make claims and expect others to do the work for you.

As for you quoting me... YOU LITTLE PIECE OF XXXX!!!! You and Forsbergthegreat are unbelievable! Now your editing quotes and putting words in my mouth...posts to try and prove yourselves right???? There should be some level of honesty and etiquette on this site....this way, posters like you would be banned.

I'm appalled that you say I was backpedaling on what I said and you tried to prove yourself by misquoting me, deleting key words and only using key words to support your argument.

I wrote,

"Experience may "qualify" somebody as a mentor....however, experience alone DOES NOT! There's a lot of players in the NHL with experience and they don't make good mentors....but you believe that every person who has experience is qualified to be a good mentor???? "

And you question my thoughts and say I was backpedaling by editing the quotes to fit your story????

You quote me saying, "experience means squat when it comes to mentoring! Experience DOES NOT qualify someone as a mentor! "ALONE" is the key word here....the one word that you conveniently left out that changes the whole meaning!

AND IF YOU READ THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT I SAID THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS....LIKE ABILITY AND TRUST. QUALIFYING DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING ANYWAYS....PEOPLE ARE QUALIFIED TO BE A TRUSTED ADVISOR, MENTOR OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SUPPLANT IN HERE. THE BIG FACTOR IS CAPABILITY....ARE THEY CAPABLE!

You and Forsberg are UNBELIEVABLE!!! Trust and honesty, FAIL.

I never claimed anything nor am I putting words in your mouth. You're the one making claims without backing them up. Did you not post this......

And another point to argue yours.... experience means squat when it comes to mentoring! Experience DOES NOT qualify someone as a mentor! And Miller doesn't have a history and/or is not known to be a mentor to any keeper.... If anything, he has a reputation of being selfish and throwing his teammates under the bus. So your argument is completely false.

"Experience means squat when it comes to mentoring". Your words. No editing. Now it's "Experience "may" qualify somebody as a mentor". That certainly appears to be backpedaling to me. Then you go on to claim Miller has a reputation with nothing to back up the claim.

I'm simply questioning what you're posting.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

People like you....don't add any flavor to CDC. If you have nothing of importance to say, just sit there and read other people's post and don't comment....I'm sure you can.

But....people like you.....with....awesome....writing skills.....provide a smorgasbord...of flavour.....I am sure I am not the only one.....breathlessly reading.....your really interesting drawn-out argument.....such nice concise posts.

I am trashing what you said. I understood and criticized it. You can call that an "ignorant comment", but that speaks to your language skills. I'm sorry that you didn't think this was a place where someone would shxt on your views. It is.

[RUPERTKBD]

Pretty much. Talking about a regrettable signing from last year is one thing, but crying over this Lack decision is pretty dumb, from all angles. When I said eruption of idiocy I was talking more generally about the incoherent lamentations over Lack, Kassian, Matthias, Sbisa, the calls for Benning's head, and the declarations of bafflement at the plan, the claims of insider knowledge of the draft floor dealings, the whining that we fired the guys we have been ripping to shreds for years, wanting to be the next Edmonton,etc.

To sum up the goalie thing.

#1. You don't sign guys and trade them next year.

#2. You don't keep three goalies

#3. You don't lose a high pedigree prospect for nothing

#4. A nice starter-mentor/back-up-successor set-up is perfect. Scotty Bowman will tell you that a 1A/1B situation is not good.

#5. I really doubt there was a market for Miller (agree to disagree, we can't prove anything)

#6 You can't just wish yourself a better deal (see Luongo, Talbot)

#7 Lack was not very good in the playoffs, and only played his best half the time in the reg season

#8 Be sentimental, don't ask the GM to be.

#9 Markstrom may not work out, but I'd rather gamble on developing a number one than hang out to an average guy that is freely available. Luckily, professional assessors agree with me.

1 - Why not? If it's about giving the team the best chance to compete for a Cup (which won't happen during Miller's tenure) you do what you have to.

2 - Agreed. Which is why the older, more expensive goalie with poorer stats should have been moved.

3 - I'm not sure who this "high pedigree" player is, or why we'd "lose him for nothing", but that' s pretty much exactly what happened with Lack

4 - It's pretty good, but I don't think it's the vitally important thing that you do. I think it's more important to keep the better, cheaper, younger players.

5 - Benning himself said he could have traded Miller. Pretty much proves that there was a market...

6 - You can't, but I don't really see how it could have been worse. I highly doubt that moving Miller would have gotten us a poorer return than Lack did.

7 - Small sample size. Miller wasn't great in the playoffs either. Check out his stats in the final game against the Flames.

8 - Nothing sentimental about wishing the team had kept the better player.

9 - Disagree that Lack is any more "average" than Miller. One professional assessor agrees with you. The one who stuck his neck out and gave a declining asset 6 million dollars per, for three years. It should come as no surprise that he wouldn't want to admit that it was a mistake.

Finally, your continued name calling doesn't hurt me. It's a sign of immaturity and a weak argument when someone can't carry on a discussion without throwing insults in with every post. I have managed to do so for this entire thread and I have said nothing "idiotic". I have provided statistics to back up my opinion and I base any non-quantifiable opinion on my several decades of experience in the game.

I normally don't bother with posters who feel the need for name calling, but I made an exception, because there were actual points mixed in with the vitriol that I wanted to address. If you think you can avoid the insults, we can carry on with the conversation.

Otherwise, I think this will be my last response to one of your posts.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

Well thank god for politeness. It really helps you keep a veneer of reasonableness. Hiowever, your opinion is bratty and disregards key factors.

#1 You don't trade your new signings because it hurts future signings. (duh)

#2 Oh yeah, everyone wants Miller. That's why you are sick about his contract. Aren't you the one saying he is overpriced garbage that only one GM would have signed?

#3 Way to play dumb. Markstrom has a high pedigree (not knowing this doesn't make you look good). Losing him for nothing is called waivers (again, don't be proud of your confusion).

#4 No you can't just go young and cheap. There is a mental aspect, and having two shaky young guys is not good. I don't expect something so unquantifiable to appeal to you.

#5 Benning said that his starting goalie has value, is not a piece of crap, and is not simply what they were stuck with. It is so weird that he would say that. Must be because half the league offered him firsts for Miller.

#6 You can keep saying that the 66th overall is nothing, even though we saw players that are highly valued garner late first and second rounders. Why don't you just pretend there was a better deal? If 66th is so bad, what makes the return for Talbot so special?

#7 I am not comparing him to an injured goalie. I am saying he played poorly. Why would we bank on that? The outrage over this would totally make sense if Lack was twice as good as he is.

#8 Nothing sentimental about loving Eddie? Be honest.

#9 Your assessment of Miller and Lack is worthless. I am talking about the multiple coaches and advisors that help Benning. Real professionals think Markstrom is worth a shot, and that Lack is average. You can tell me that Allan Bester was the best, I can tell that Georges Vezina was....no one cares about our take on this. Real NHL people don't just look at GAA and SV%, which are really misleading. If that's all it took to understand a goalie, even you could work for the Nucks.

If you think they never should have signed Miller, that's reasonable. if you think he could or should have been traded, or that Lack was worth more, I think you are dreaming.

Now if I put a few IMHO's and Good Day Sirs, all of you babies can lay off the Ned Flanders routine.

[TheCammer]

1 - Why not? If it's about giving the team the best chance to compete for a Cup (which won't happen during Miller's tenure) you do what you have to.

2 - Agreed. Which is why the older, more expensive goalie with poorer stats should have been moved.

3 - I'm not sure who this "high pedigree" player is, or why we'd "lose him for nothing", but that' s pretty much exactly what happened with Lack

4 - It's pretty good, but I don't think it's the vitally important thing that you do. I think it's more important to keep the better, cheaper, younger players.

5 - Benning himself said he could have traded Miller. Pretty much proves that there was a market...

6 - You can't, but I don't really see how it could have been worse. I highly doubt that moving Miller would have gotten us a poorer return than Lack did.

7 - Small sample size. Miller wasn't great in the playoffs either. Check out his stats in the final game against the Flames.

8 - Nothing sentimental about wishing the team had kept the better player.

9 - Disagree that Lack is any more "average" than Miller. One professional assessor agrees with you. The one who stuck his neck out and gave a declining asset 6 million dollars per, for three years. It should come as no surprise that he wouldn't want to admit that it was a mistake.

Finally, your continued name calling doesn't hurt me. It's a sign of immaturity and a weak argument when someone can't carry on a discussion without throwing insults in with every post. I have managed to do so for this entire thread and I have said nothing "idiotic". I have provided statistics to back up my opinion and I base any non-quantifiable opinion on my several decades of experience in the game.

I normally don't bother with posters who feel the need for name calling, but I made an exception, because there were actual points mixed in with the vitriol that I wanted to address. If you think you can avoid the insults, we can carry on with the conversation.

Otherwise, I think this will be my last response to one of your posts.

#1 The future free agents may not sign here knowing you are willing to flip them

#2 Due to not wanting to flip an FA the next year, the 3rd goalie needed to be Lack or Markstrom

#3 Markstrom was considered a high pedigree goalie when he was drafted. Lack did not have the same reputation hence being an undrafted signing

#4 We did keep the better, cheaper player in Markstrom. He will get an opportunity to work with a Vezina trophy winner and Olympic MVP

#5 Yes, people asked about Miller. Any decent GM in the league knew we needed to move a goalie. It doesn't mean Benning liked what was offered and he has been crystal clear he prefers an experienced netminder. What don't you get?

#6 Lack got us what other GM's thought he was worth. If Brisbois was targeted as they have been saying then they achieved what they wanted in making the move

#7 Miller was coming back from injury and playing at less than 100%. Great leadership to try and step in and help your team when you aren't completely healthy

#8 We kept the better player. One years' stats aren't everything you measure a player by. Experience, leadership, skills and intangibles all come into play. Twitter skills do not.

#9 No, lots of professional assessors agree or our return for Lack would have been higher. He was not even in the top 4 consideration set of teams looking for a goalie. How can you not see that?

I liked Eddie Lack. Very charming and witty young man. Decent NHL goalie as well. The team (including goalie coach Rollie Melanson) made an assessment of the situation and decided Lack was expendable. Personally taking into consideration all the various factors I think they made the right call. Would I have preferred a better return? Of course, but that is all teams were willing to pay.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Let's settle this....answer these simple questions. Should be reasonably straight-forward and it should resolve the "real" points that I made and we can stop with this BS that you're making up.

1) Miller is not now, nor was he ever, considered a mentor. He has a reputation as being selfish, throwing his teammates under the bus and being disruptive to his previous teams. benning talks about his mentoring abilities and CDC does as well....mentoring is blown way out of proportion with this organization and Miller doesn't have a history of being a good mentor. If he does, provide the evidence.

2) Miller did not play better than Lack and he doesn't deserve the colossal contract benning gave him. Considering what both Miller and Lack are getting paid and their performances last season...who is the best option? Obvious things to take into consideration; performance, stats, age, contract, health, cap hit, potential, etc.

3) Out of all the goalies traded this summer, Lack's deal would be considered one of the worst. If benning believes that Lack doesn't have the potential to be #1, why not trade him in the West?

4) If benning couldn't get a better offer for Lack, why did he trade him and not trade Miller? His narrative was to go young and have a competitive team and Miller's age, declining abilities and huge contract go completely against this. That 6 million cap could make this team much more competitive if we used it towards improving our D or scoring... Is this team better off with spending 6,000,00 of it's cap on a goalie or on our D / O?

5) Considering we have a backup that has been great in the AHL and underperformed in the NHL, which goalie would be better to lead this team. A goalie who is young and healthy and in his prime OR an older, declining goalie who has a history of getting injured? Consider the situation we will be in if Markstrom needs more time to adjust.

Ok I’ll bite. But under two conditions, You realize that these have been answered over and over in this thread. And once I give you these responses, you have to actually think about the reasoning. I can already tell your cemented your feet on one side and won’t give second of the day to actually think about the light on the other side but here are your answers.

1)Miller is a reliable vet. He can handle the pressure of the Vancouver market, he experience and performance takes pressure off the back up. As long as Miller is on the team he’s the number one goalie and the backup can focus on having fun, enjoying the game, learning and not feel the weight of the team as it’s placed on Miller shoulders. Even if Miller gets injured, the crease is still his.

I don’t know where you get your opinion as he’s a disturbance in the dressing room, outside of a sound bite where he called out Lucic (not his teammate). In 2010 he was also in the running for the five finalist for the Mark Messier NHL Leadership Award. His personality brings a calmness to the locker room. Teammate know that mentally, even if he lets in a bad goal, he’s not going to break down. This is a great person to look up to if you’re an upcoming goalie. You get to see how they mentally prepare for each game and how they can shut everything else out.

https://twitter.com/jenroth125/status/165999738913697792

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ebner-ryan-miller-brings-an-ocean-of-calm-to-the-canucks-crease/article21471371/

http://ingoalmag.com/olympics/quiet-goalie-miller-calming-young-american-olympians/

2)When Miller got signed he was better than Lack. Lack had shown that he was not ready to be a number one goalie as his play began to slip as the season went on, He himself even admitted he wasn’t ready and went out in the summer to train and improve his stamina.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=757683

So Canucks didn’t have any leverage. They had a 26 year old goalie who just proved that he couldn’t get it down, and a 24 year old that had shown he wasn’t ready for the mental side of NHL. They needed a goalie, and they needed a proven vet, as the goal was to make the playoffs. Miller was the best option on the market, and he started out the season with a incredible record that put canucks on the right path to bounce back from the previous year. No miller and canucks could have found themselves in a hole early and not have come out of it to make the playoffs.

Still to this day you can’t argue that Lack is better, Yes he put up a good string of 20 games. But if 20 games is all it takes to be a considered a better goalie, than is Talbot better than Lundqvist? Is Hammond the best goalie in the NHL? If I’m in a must win situation and I have to choose between the two. I and everyone outside of Vancouver takes Miller every time.

3) Back to the trade value, something you don’t understand and I don’t think can ever grasp the concept is that 5 goalies got moved to 5 teams this offseason, but all teams and goalies are in different circumstances. Lenher and Jones were both traded on being young and having high potential. SJ and Buffalo were more interested in future potential than they were in 27 year old goalies heading into their prime, so you can’t really compare the returns they got. Would MTL have paid a 1^st for Jones? How come they wouldn’t have? Really focus on that. I know it’s hard but try really, really hard to understand why MTL wouldn’t pay that price, if you can figure that out now try relating that to the same situation why Buffalo wouldn’t have paid a 1^st for Lack.

Benning never said he didn’t believe Lack could be a number one. He said teams viewed him as a backup. There’s a big difference between the two. Players that are good, DO get traded. It’s not as if teams only trade away the players that they think suck. Did Gillis think Cory was never going to be a number one when he traded him. Did he decided he didn’t want to trade Cory within the division as well even though there was a better offer? At the end of the day, canucks had 3 goalies and one HAD to be moved. Lack was the one. It has zero to do with Benning not believing Lack couldn’t be a number one. It has to do with Canucks had better options already in their system for their short and long term goals.

4) Miller serves a purpose. Canucks felt the more confident in the now with Miller and stronger in the future with Markstrom. That solves Vancouver’s goaltending issues, it’s simple, it’s not that complicated. Benning saying going young doesn’t mean we are getting rid of everyone over the age of 30. It means that they believe the players that are going to be part of the canucks long term plan are going to get more opportunity. Players they don’t see as part of that plan (young or old) are going to get moved. Canucks are going younger, Horvat, Kenins, Vey, Baertschi, Corrado, Clendening. We now have an average age of 27. I would say that’s getting younger.

“That 6 million cap could make this team much more competitive if we used it towards improving our D or scoring” Here’s where your thought process fails. This is your black and white world, but you truly have to think two or three steps beyond that. Considering the Lack situation it is funny you can’t see the implications. I’ll simplify it for you.

- 6 mill doesn’t = better player, you have to think about who’s on the market that could actually help our roster.

- How much overvalue will canucks have to pay to sign a UFA.

- How much term will be needed to give that player

- Does that player fit in the long term plans of the club

- Which RFA does if for Canucks to move/loss to waivers

For D, Canucks have two players on the cusp of becoming impacts NHL (very similar to Lacks situation last year). Signing another D, takes up a roster spot and just pushes these two player down the depth chart (just like Miller did to Lack). In the short term it might make the team more competitive, but in the Long term these two player could very well become better than the overpriced UFA. So does going out and signing a Franson, Green, or Ehrhoff really improve this team? Short term, sure but overall, I’d say no, especially if we consider Clendening and Corrado as part of our long term plan.

5)Miller has a history of getting injured? Last season was the second season since his rookie year that he played less than 70% of the games a season. In 2012 Lack missed half of his AHL season due to injury, Does he have a history of being injured to? In 2013 Gillis decided to go with a 25 year old goalie with zero NHL experience as a backup. What if Luongo would have got hurt and we had to rely on this goalie who’s a complete question mark in the NHL.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/lack-looks-forward-to-filling-in-for-injured-luongo-with-vancouver-canucks-1.1609819

[RUPERTKBD]

bratty

(duh)

dumb.

u babies

[aGENT]

Honestly, I think that stats do tell us a lot but there is also much value in the unquantifiable Johnny Toews is the best example I can think of. Decent numbers but when the rubber hits the road, I would take him to lead my team over Crosby hands down.

Now if you really want to tie your brain in knots with a thought exercise, imagine they swap teams and ask yourself the same question...

[RUPERTKBD]

#1 The future free agents may not sign here knowing you are willing to flip them

#2 Due to not wanting to flip an FA the next year, the 3rd goalie needed to be Lack or Markstrom

#3 Markstrom was considered a high pedigree goalie when he was drafted. Lack did not have the same reputation hence being an undrafted signing

#4 We did keep the better, cheaper player in Markstrom. He will get an opportunity to work with a Vezina trophy winner and Olympic MVP

#5 Yes, people asked about Miller. Any decent GM in the league knew we needed to move a goalie. It doesn't mean Benning liked what was offered and he has been crystal clear he prefers an experienced netminder. What don't you get?

#6 Lack got us what other GM's thought he was worth. If Brisbois was targeted as they have been saying then they achieved what they wanted in making the move

#7 Miller was coming back from injury and playing at less than 100%. Great leadership to try and step in and help your team when you aren't completely healthy

#8 We kept the better player. One years' stats aren't everything you measure a player by. Experience, leadership, skills and intangibles all come into play. Twitter skills do not.

#9 No, lots of professional assessors agree or our return for Lack would have been higher. He was not even in the top 4 consideration set of teams looking for a goalie. How can you not see that?

I liked Eddie Lack. Very charming and witty young man. Decent NHL goalie as well. The team (including goalie coach Rollie Melanson) made an assessment of the situation and decided Lack was expendable. Personally taking into consideration all the various factors I think they made the right call. Would I have preferred a better return? Of course, but that is all teams were willing to pay.

All of this is opinion. We'll see who's correct after next season....

Also, I completely "get" that Benning prefers an experienced netminder. I just think he chose the wrong one.

You think they made the right call and I think they made the wrong call. (In fact I've said many times that they never should have signed Miller in the first place.) We'll agree to disagree on that, but time will tell which one of us was right.

[TheCammer]

All of this is opinion. We'll see who's correct after next season....

Also, I completely "get" that Benning prefers an experienced netminder. I just think he chose the wrong one.

You think they made the right call and I think they made the wrong call. (In fact I've said many times that they never should have signed Miller in the first place.) We'll agree to disagree on that, but time will tell which one of us was right.

Fair enough.

[Crabcakes]

Now if you really want to tie your brain in knots with a thought exercise, imagine they swap teams and ask yourself the same question...

Ha ha, yes the Hawks are the better team. But I think that when the going gets tough, nobody can dig down and find a way to win like Toews.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Now if you really want to tie your brain in knots with a thought exercise, imagine they swap teams and ask yourself the same question...

Or better yet, think about if the pens didn't decide to skip picking toews in the 2006 draft when they picked Jordan Staal 2nd overall.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

[Mustapha]

Some people will tell you that Ryan Miller was crucial in Vancouver's dominance over the Oilers last season.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling the Canucks days of dominating any other team in the Pacific are over.

To be honest, I feel like the team is one Miller knee injury away from a lottery pick, maybe the Canucks will finally select 1st overall for once in their history...another first for Linden and Co.!

Maybe I will be proven wrong, but I am not sold on Markstrom. As for Miller, I really don't understand the logic with this 'need' to keep the old guy for 'mentorship'

Guys like Rinne and Lundqvist were simply given the job and they made the most of it. Some NHL teams actually let their goalie prospects play. In Vancouver, they get knocked for not having the experience, even though the last two goalies traded were stuck behind 30-something goalies with albatross contracts.

Until Miller was hurt, he was getting the lion's share of the starts, regardless of his level of play. There is no meritocracy in the crease in Vancouver, and unless Miller gets hurt again, expect Markstrom to be riding a lot of pine next season.

It would have been much more entertaining to have seen Lack and Markstrom battle for ice time this season, and get some experience along the way. I don't see how this would have been a bad plan, if the goaltending were to falter ( which I highly doubt) , I am sure there is a lineup of washed up goalies who could step in and play out their careers for much less money than Miller.

[luongo_01]

Miller is well past his prime. Can't wait to see Jimbo's reactions when Miller's penchant for "leading, like, the league in wins" regresses.

[GreyHatnDart]

Some people will tell you that Ryan Miller was crucial in Vancouver's dominance over the Oilers last season.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling the Canucks days of dominating any other team in the Pacific are over.

To be honest, I feel like the team is one Miller knee injury away from a lottery pick, maybe the Canucks will finally select 1st overall for once in their history...another first for Linden and Co.!

Maybe I will be proven wrong, but I am not sold on Markstrom. As for Miller, I really don't understand the logic with this 'need' to keep the old guy for 'mentorship'

Guys like Rinne and Lundqvist were simply given the job and they made the most of it. Some NHL teams actually let their goalie prospects play. In Vancouver, they get knocked for not having the experience, even though the last two goalies traded were stuck behind 30-something goalies with albatross contracts.

Until Miller was hurt, he was getting the lion's share of the starts, regardless of his level of play. There is no meritocracy in the crease in Vancouver, and unless Miller gets hurt again, expect Markstrom to be riding a lot of pine next season.

It would have been much more entertaining to have seen Lack and Markstrom battle for ice time this season, and get some experience along the way. I don't see how this would have been a bad plan, if the goaltending were to falter ( which I highly doubt) , I am sure there is a lineup of washed up goalies who could step in and play out their careers for much less money than Miller.

Not saying you, but wasn't most everybody hating on the fact that we've had goalie controversaries here for the last however many years? I'm tired of that to be honest. This is a clear cut starter and back up now, and I'm okay with that.

[Moonshinefe]

I know it's not Benning's fault, but just saying, Cory Schneider was 5th overall in the NHL in save% on one of the worst teams in the entire league.

If only we had a goaltender cheaper than Miller that's years younger and has better stats...

I don't think giving away Lack for a bag of pucks was a great idea either.

[Baggins]

Maybe I will be proven wrong, but I am not sold on Markstrom. As for Miller, I really don't understand the logic with this 'need' to keep the old guy for 'mentorship'

Personally I think the mentor thing is more of a cdc thing than a Benning thing. We have goalie coaches with a great deal of nhl experience with both the Canucks and Comets who can act as mentors. Although having a veteran starter would certainly add to it during games I would think. I tend to believe Benning that he wanted the experienced starter over two guys with limited experience. Neither of them having truly wowed at the nhl level.

Guys like Rinne and Lundqvist were simply given the job and they made the most of it. Some NHL teams actually let their goalie prospects play.

I don't think either were simply given it. Both stole the starting jobs by playing so well there was little choice but to go with them. Can anybody here claim Lack was so outstanding that he absolutely had to be handed the team? Honestly, he wasn't very good after Lou was traded. Which is why Miller was brought in.

Frankly I can see Lack becoming a pretty decent starter but doubt he'll ever be in the elite class. At 27 i can also see him possibly being a career backup.

[RUPERTKBD]

Not saying you, but wasn't most everybody hating on the fact that we've had goalie controversaries here for the last however many years? I'm tired of that to be honest. This is a clear cut starter and back up now, and I'm okay with that.

You don't think Lack would have been the clear cut starter had Miller been traded?

I know it's not Benning's fault, but just saying, Cory Schneider was 5th overall in the NHL in save% on one of the worst teams in the entire league.

If only we had a goaltender cheaper than Miller that's years younger and has better stats...

I don't think giving away Lack for a bag of pucks was a great idea either.

Yeah, if only. But he's in Carolina now....