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

[snipes2539]

He would be good on a contender as a 3rd liner I don't get the hate. His cap hit is only 2.5

I don't hate Higgins, I just hate how he's used here. He keeps being put in situations where he's expected to score, and he just can't, not with any consistency to be depended on at least.

But he's a great depth bottom 6 player, will leave his heart on the ice every shift and I expect him to be a great rental at the deadline, decent cap hit for that role, expiring contract, good option for a team looking to make a deep run and looking for more support in the bottom 6.

[Mustapha]

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.

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.

Actually, Lack's numbers were fairly consistent in 13-14 especially when you consider

1.) The team falling apart horribly

2.) Lack had recently recovered from hip surgery.

You don't have as much mobility at first after going thru a procedure like that, and it affects a goalie's ability to prepare and be in game shape.(Tuukka Rask had a similar issue when he came back from injury)

Lack wasn't Patrick Roy in 2014, but that team was so poor in the defensive zone I doubt many guys could have done anything about it.

2015 was a different story. Eddie won some big games on a mediocre Canucks team that had a decimated blue line to get them into the playoffs, but because he won't be an 'elite' starter ( which is pure speculation) he doesn't deserve a shot .

Miller hasn't been an 'elite' guy in quite some time, but again, he's Benning's guy. That's why Eddie got moved.

[Jack Fig]

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.

Smokey, once again you nailed it...right down the line.

I'm going ahead and nominating you for Poster Of The Month. The cheeseburger platter voucher will pretty much be yours.

[Baggins]

Miller hasn't been an 'elite' guy in quite some time, but again, he's Benning's guy. That's why Eddie got moved.

I think that's pure fiction. An excuse for those that liked Lack. He traded Bonino who he traded for. Benning doesn't strike me as the type to keep a player simply because he brought him in. He's willing to make moves that aren't popular. To say he won't trade a player he signed is just plain stupid imo.

One thing most overlook as well is Miller had to change the way he played goal last year. He's always been one of those that move out to cut the angle. The Canucks way is stay in the paint. When you have to change the way you play your position it's really not much different than coming back from a serious injury. It takes time to adapt.

Lack on the other hand was playing behind a familiar team in a familiar system. Unfortunately it's a little too simple to say a goalie played poorly because of the team but when he plays well it's his doing. I've seen this far too many times and see it as a cop out.

I personally think Markstrom has the higher ceiling. Lack was expendable despite being likeable. I see him as a Cloutier. Pretty good goalie that has some great games but ultimately will never be top tier. My opinion.

Btw, had we gone with Lack would we have been one hip injury away from a lottery pick? Just sayin'.

[GreyHatnDart]

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

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

We've had a similar argument before. It doesn't matter what you and I believe. It matters what Benning believes is best for the team moving forward, and to him, that's Miller.

For the most part I saw the team play more confidently in front of Miller. For what reason I don't know. The small edge Lack had over Miller IMO isn't as big of a difference maker as Millers calm demeanour in the net. Sure he had bad games, but so did Lack. Overall, the Canucks generated more scoring with Miller between the pipes, possibly because they felt they could play a little looser knowing he was back there.

[Dr. Crossbar]

We've had a similar argument before. It doesn't matter what you and I believe. It matters what Benning believes is best for the team moving forward, and to him, that's Miller.

For the most part I saw the team play more confidently in front of Miller. For what reason I don't know. The small edge Lack had over Miller IMO isn't as big of a difference maker as Millers calm demeanour in the net. Sure he had bad games, but so did Lack. Overall, the Canucks generated more scoring with Miller between the pipes, possibly because they felt they could play a little looser knowing he was back there.

Have to agree about the calm demeanour. It was absolutely noticeable when Miller replaced Lack in Game 4 of the playoffs. It was palpable in the room where I was watching the game.

[RUPERTKBD]

We've had a similar argument before. It doesn't matter what you and I believe. It matters what Benning believes is best for the team moving forward, and to him, that's Miller.

For the most part I saw the team play more confidently in front of Miller. For what reason I don't know. The small edge Lack had over Miller IMO isn't as big of a difference maker as Millers calm demeanour in the net. Sure he had bad games, but so did Lack. Overall, the Canucks generated more scoring with Miller between the pipes, possibly because they felt they could play a little looser knowing he was back there.

All of that is fair and comes down to a difference of opinion. My opinion is that whatever edge Miller might have had was not as important as keeping the guy who's career arc is trending upwards.

Miller's play has been on the decline and while it's possible that he experiences a renaissance this upcoming season, it's not what usually occurs with goaltenders of his age.

Add in the fact that he's more expensive than Lack and the likelihood that the team is not a contender any time in the near future and it leads me to believe that management made the wrong choice.

Furthermore, I understand that my opinion "doesn't matter" and Benning's does, but this is a forum for discussion and one of the things usually discussed is management decisions. There certainly is precedent for GMs making poor decisions and the fact that Benning's and my opinion don't coincide, doesn't automatically mean that I'm incorrect is my assessment.

As I said in another thread, management disagreed with me a couple of years ago when I said that John Tortorella was a bad signing.

[elvis15]

...

Btw, had we gone with Lack would we have been one hip injury away from a lottery pick? Just sayin'.

You get the point though that it'd be harder for an older goalie to deal with further injuries, particularly one who just had an injury that kept him out for a couple months. He'll probably be fine, but in the event any of the two starters we went with got injured, would you rather have had it happen to a younger goalie who could rebound and play with this team longer term, or an older goalie who might run out a part of his term on IR and still end up in the same result standings wise?

Lots of opinions and angles, we know the route Benning chose. We'll see how it plays out though and if Miller seems to have any marked difference in his time here or if we could have used that cap differently.

All of that is fair and comes down to a difference of opinion. My opinion is that whatever edge Miller might have had was not as important as keeping the guy who's career arc is trending upwards.

Miller's play has been on the decline and while it's possible that he experiences a renaissance this upcoming season, it's not what usually occurs with goaltenders of his age.

Add in the fact that he's more expensive than Lack and the likelihood that the team is not a contender any time in the near future and it leads me to believe that management made the wrong choice.

Furthermore, I understand that my opinion "doesn't matter" and Benning's does, but this is a forum for discussion and one of the things usually discussed is management decisions. There certainly is precedent for GMs making poor decisions and the fact that Benning's and my opinion don't coincide, doesn't automatically mean that I'm incorrect is my assessment.

As I said in another thread, management disagreed with me a couple of years ago when I said that John Tortorella was a bad signing.

I usually pull the Milbury card whenever someone says, "well, the pros must be right," but I wasn't a fan of the Torts hiring either and that example is far more relevant. Even the pros are wrong sometimes. Maybe this is one of them.

Also, as far as the calm demeanour with Miller in net, I noticed something different with Lack in net. The team seemed to play with more energy and urgency when Lack was in. Different sides of the same coin though - they both brought something to the team.

[GreyHatnDart]

All of that is fair and comes down to a difference of opinion. My opinion is that whatever edge Miller might have had was not as important as keeping the guy who's career arc is trending upwards.

Miller's play has been on the decline and while it's possible that he experiences a renaissance this upcoming season, it's not what usually occurs with goaltenders of his age.

Add in the fact that he's more expensive than Lack and the likelihood that the team is not a contender any time in the near future and it leads me to believe that management made the wrong choice.

Furthermore, I understand that my opinion "doesn't matter" and Benning's does, but this is a forum for discussion and one of the things usually discussed is management decisions. There certainly is precedent for GMs making poor decisions and the fact that Benning's and my opinion don't coincide, doesn't automatically mean that I'm incorrect is my assessment.

As I said in another thread, management disagreed with me a couple of years ago when I said that John Tortorella was a bad signing.

Not disagreeing and that's the best thing about this forum. I can honestly say I've learned a ton of knowledge since joining last May, mostly due to a lot of the intelligent posters around here.

I definitely understand where you're coming from in regards to Miller vs Lack. From a strictly business POV, if I have two employees who bring the same thing to the table but one costs me a whole lot more every year, it's a no brainer. I get that. I'm just saying, from the games I watched last season, when Miller was in net, the team looked calmer and more poised.

Benning is following through with what he thinks is the best way to have 2 goaltenders... A steady grizzled vet, and an up and coming stud. Obviously there's question marks in both Miller and Markstrom's game, but until next season is over we don't know for sure if this is sound management or pure stupidity. Obviously I'm hoping for the former, and if the latter happens, I'll happily eat my words.

[ilduce39]

I think with the influx of younger players over the next 2 years Benning wants a proven vet who won't get rattled with the ups and downs of a season. Miller also strikes me as more of a leader than Eddie, loveable scamp that he is.

Again, I see this pointing to Jim addressing the psyche and character of the team as young guys are brought along rather than contract value.

[RUPERTKBD]

Not disagreeing and that's the best thing about this forum. I can honestly say I've learned a ton of knowledge since joining last May, mostly due to a lot of the intelligent posters around here.

I definitely understand where you're coming from in regards to Miller vs Lack. From a strictly business POV, if I have two employees who bring the same thing to the table but one costs me a whole lot more every year, it's a no brainer. I get that. I'm just saying, from the games I watched last season, when Miller was in net, the team looked calmer and more poised.

Benning is following through with what he thinks is the best way to have 2 goaltenders... A steady grizzled vet, and an up and coming stud. Obviously there's question marks in both Miller and Markstrom's game, but until next season is over we don't know for sure if this is sound management or pure stupidity. Obviously I'm hoping for the former, and if the latter happens, I'll happily eat my words.

For me it's not even about next year. it's further down the road than that.

I don't believe that the Canucks are going to be true Cup contenders for a while, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me to keep a high-priced, declining asset who's likely going to be gone in two years. To me, it makes far more sense to keep the younger, cheaper asset, who's numbers have been getting better. If the next year or two are a "learning experience" for him, so be it. (FTR: I don't buy the mantra of a season or two of losing "ruining" a player's development.)

I also don't buy the assertion that the league sees Lack as a career backup. I'm betting he challenges Ward for the starter's role in Carolina and sooner or later, will take on that job for the 'Canes.

[elvis15]

^^ And it looks like that might be their plan as well, where Lack will play alongside Ward if he does well enough and then they can have him take over as Ward moves to UFA.

Next year is just development and hopefully playing with the right attitude. Even if we're losing, so long as we're competing it should be enough of a successful environment for everyone to develop further, helped along by the remaining vets.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

^^ And it looks like that might be their plan as well, where Lack will play alongside Ward if he does well enough and then they can have him take over as Ward moves to UFA.

Next year is just development and hopefully playing with the right attitude. Even if we're losing, so long as we're competing it should be enough of a successful environment for everyone to develop further, helped along by the remaining vets.

That's pretty much what I've read/heard from Carolina fans. They're expecting Lack and Ward to compete for the starter's role. And most opinions I've seen from Canes fans predict Lack will seize the #1 spot before the end of the 2015-16 season.

And when you look at how Carolina is managing their contracts, and what people out there are saying about when the decisions expected to be made on the two UFA goaltenders' extensions, it looks like their front office is choosing to allow Lack and Ward to go head-to-head for the future starting job. Either Lack proves himself as a clear #1 or Ward steps up in the face of a younger challenger. Win-win for them (unless both goalies fail--which seems unlikely).

[Maniwaki Canuck]

^^ I like Lack's chances in that scenario.

[Jack Fig]

(FTR: I don't buy the mantra of a season or two of losing "ruining" a player's development.)

I agree, if a little losing ruins a young guy, he was never going to make it anyway.

[snucks]

At least this will silence the "Miller was untradable, terrible contract, Benning screwed up" nonsense. Now it will simply be more moaning that Benning didn't trade him.

Things people simply do not understand, or refuse to accept:

1. Any contract or player is tradeable

2. This (every) team needs a proven #1 goaltender, and that was not Lack

3. Building a team based on the popularity of players is not a formula for success on the ice

What if a player is too small. This team seems just like a minor hockey rep team run by a few parents and wimpy coaches.

[Baggins]

I agree, if a little losing ruins a young guy, he was never going to make it anyway.

Ruin a guy may be a tad much. A complete loss of confidence is certainly a possibility though. Slower development is as well. Having veterans to look up to can speed up development by being an example of what it takes to succeed.

[The Weasel]

I'm sure they were calling on him. He's alright, but I bet it was for a crap return and we'd have to retain a lot of Miller's salary for it to happen. In other words, Jim Benning is probably talking crap. He's just trying to defend his actions by saying that Miller is still a sought-after commodity.

[elvis15]

Ruin a guy may be a tad much. A complete loss of confidence is certainly a possibility though. Slower development is as well. Having veterans to look up to can speed up development by being an example of what it takes to succeed.

It all depends on how you lose. The Sabres of the last couple years for instance are an example of something that'd be hard for a prospect to play through, and Edmonton has had a history of losing (not far off of the Leafs, actually), but the stronger prospects will survive that. There will be some that would have been on the bubble that maybe would have made it or done better on a team with more support and success. But there will always be players that just weren't going to make it, maybe even if they got the perfect experience.

I think Benning certainly wants to keep a positive outlook even if we aren't winning. I can understand that's his reasoning for a move like Miller over Lack, I just don't agree there'd be a significant change in results between the two especially if you factor in the options extra cap might give us.