Ryan Miller finally 100%, ready for season (NHL.com article)

[Amish Rake Fighter]

Moo

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

We can speculate on the demand for Miller based simply on the salary. Why would he not want to come to Vancouver? That's just a stab in the dark. The assumption that he had no other suitors might be the dumbest part of this whole thing.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I agree somewhat that backups can have better stats then a starter if they play a lot less games the numbers can work out that way. Vasilevskiy and Skapski eg. Vasilevskiy is also a very highly rated prospect.

Darling got starts in the playoffs over Crawford until Crawford got hot!

Talbot got traded for a 1st and 2nd pick.

Lundqvist and Bishop had 10 top stats all year. And were studs on stud defensive teams. And are more in their prime. Miller was a low end #1 goalie last season. He has seen his stats decline every year and is 35 years of age.

Lack had better stats then both Lui and Miller in back to back years. While playing a fair number of games. That is a pattern. You have to look at it case by case.

Come again??? if by 1st and second you mean 2nd and 3rd

When you say case by case you mean you accept the rare cases that support your stance, but ignore any that prove your theory wrong?

Finally I'll leave you with something that proves how little you know

"Lack had better stats then both Lui and Miller in back to back years."

2014

Lack played 41 games and had GAA 2.41 and Save % of .912

Luongo in vancouver played 42 games and had GAA 2.38 and Save % of .917, His number went up when he got traded to florida.

2015

Lack played 41 games and had GAA 2.45 and Save % of .921

Luongo played 61 games and had GAA 2.35 and Save % of .921,

Turns out Lack was never and still isn't better than Luongo if were going by individual stats.

So no, Lack has not had better number than Luongo. That's game over for you. Enough with your nonsenses...

[BlackRedYellow]

Sedintwinpowersactivate: haha... You're right. You always are, and when you're not, everyone else is trolling! Right?

I settle with that my own opinion happens to agree with all the teams GM's. Miller is a better goalie and I'm glad we kept him.

Goodbye my friend!

[homersexual]

Is the debate really Miller vs Lack? I always thought it was Lack vs Markstrom. Personally, I would rather have Miller with Lack as backup. Markstrom is a big question mark for me. We all know he can light it up in the AHL, but for some reason, he seems to be lost when he gets to the NHL, hopefully, that will change. The games he played for the Canucks last year was Brochu like.

That being said, Benning said he could of traded Miller if he wanted to. Depending on what he could of gotten for him, I might of made that move. Would someone (San Jose) offer a 1st rounder (or more) for Miller?

[tyhee]

You didn't get my point. You're compairing goalies (and players) on different teams, which I wasn't! (If I were, I agree that wins is a bad stat since the teams are different!)

If the team (in our case only Vancouver Canucks) plays better with one goalie than another, it's doubtless that they do so because that goalie gives the team a better chance of winning. (Probably thru better goaltending which gives the players more calm and they can focus on their own agendas!)

If a goalie gets more wins with the same team he's the better goalie. It's not always the goalies fault the games might end up 6-5, 7-4 (and bad individual stats) instead of 1-2 or 0-1 (and nice stats).

The team looked more relaxed with Miller in goal, the team won more games with Miller in goal, and that's what I care about. Obviously the hockey operation in Vancouver thought so too.

But if you rather have a goalie with nice individual stats such as save and GAA, and lose the games, please go ahead!

PS This doesn't mean I didn't like Lack, which I do. I just prefer to look at the situation in a sober way, and that is; Miller was better and I'm fine with keeping him on the team instead of Lack!

Actually, I do know your point. I just thought it so small in relevance that nobody would actually believe it made much of a difference.

I'm not going to re-state my reasons from above, but will mention one thing I hadn't dealt with in my previous post. (I'd thought about it but really thought it so unimportant that nobody would think it of much importance.)

"If the team (in our case only Vancouver Canucks) plays better with one goalie than another, it's doubtless that they do so because that goalie gives the team a better chance of winning."

That isn't correct. Sometimes, for example, the team can play better on the first night of a back to back than on the 2nd. Sometimes wins can be obtained against some teams in some circumstances more easily than other teams in other circumstances. Sometimes there are good bounces or bad bounces. There are all sorts of reasons why a team can player better one night than another, or be more successful one night than another, most of which have nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a different or better goalie in net.

[stawns]

Actually, I do know your points.

I just think anyone who is using wins as a goalie stat is clearly and ridiculously wrong.

I'm not going to re-state my reasons from above, but will mention one thing I hadn't dealt with in my previous post.

"If the team (in our case only Vancouver Canucks) plays better with one goalie than another, it's doubtless that they do so because that goalie gives the team a better chance of winning."

That isn't correct. Sometimes, for example, the team can play better on the first night of a back to back than on the 2nd. Sometimes wins can be obtained against some teams in some circumstances more easily than other teams in other circumstances. Sometimes there are good bounces or bad bounces. There are all sorts of reasons why a team can player better one night than another, or be more successful one night than another, most of which have nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a different or better goalie in net.

The win stat for a goalie may not indicate individual performance, but whT it does show is how the team plays in front of him, and that is a measure of their confidence in their last line of defense.

[BlackRedYellow]

Actually, I do know your point. I just thought it so small in relevance that nobody would actually believe it made much of a difference.

I'm not going to re-state my reasons from above, but will mention one thing I hadn't dealt with in my previous post. (I'd thought about it but really thought it so unimportant that nobody would think it of much importance.)

"If the team (in our case only Vancouver Canucks) plays better with one goalie than another, it's doubtless that they do so because that goalie gives the team a better chance of winning."

That isn't correct. Sometimes, for example, the team can play better on the first night of a back to back than on the 2nd. Sometimes wins can be obtained against some teams in some circumstances more easily than other teams in other circumstances. Sometimes there are good bounces or bad bounces. There are all sorts of reasons why a team can player better one night than another, or be more successful one night than another, most of which have nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a different or better goalie in net.

So you're actually saying that all Miller's wins were just luck? And all Lack's win were skill?

Really?

I can agree that a couple of games (per season) can be won/lost due to some reasons that you state, fine... but when two goalies almost share one whole season, NO, it's not fluke! (In my opinion. But I do understand that you do not agree.)

[Junkyard Dog]

Miller brings a calming veteran presence and is a good puck handler which in return gave the players in front of him confidence knowing they can trust their last line of defense. It would explain why the team plays better in front of Miller, they have the confidence to take chances offensively.

I find that the Canucks were playing a tighter defensive game in front of Lack. It would explain the lack of goal scoring we get whenever Lack is in net which in return would force Lack's play to decide outcomes of games, a lot of the times. Not the best way for the team in front of the goalie to play IMO since it did not garner as much wins.

To sum it up Canucks in front of Miller > Canucks in front of Lack. I am sure as Lack gets more experience he will bring that calming veteran presence but it won't happen overnight.

It will probably be the same with Markstrom until he has gotten his fair share of experience.

[Mustapha]

IMO, Benning's relationship with Miller was the key reason Lack was traded, bar none. Hell, it was also the reason the Canucks signed Miller in the first place.

Lack had a good season and showed he deserved more starts than he had been getting before the Miller injury. Ryan Miller wants the crease, and unlike Markstrom, Lack would have been pushing to take more and more ice from Miller.

I am willing to bet that Miller wants to hand pick his starts and give Markstrom mop-up duty on the multiple back-to-backs the Canucks get. Barring injury, I will be shocked if Markstrom starts more than 20 games all season.

I have nothing against Miller personally, he is still a good NHL goaltender, but he falls into the trap of most of the other Benning acquisitions: Most of them are decent players (Sbisa/Dorsett/Sutter/Prust) but they are either being paid too much money or the Canucks gave up too many assets for them.

[Crabcakes]

IMO, Benning's relationship with Miller was the key reason Lack was traded, bar none. Hell, it was also the reason the Canucks signed Miller in the first place.

Lack had a good season and showed he deserved more starts than he had been getting before the Miller injury. Ryan Miller wants the crease, and unlike Markstrom, Lack would have been pushing to take more and more ice from Miller.

I am willing to bet that Miller wants to hand pick his starts and give Markstrom mop-up duty on the multiple back-to-backs the Canucks get. Barring injury, I will be shocked if Markstrom starts more than 20 games all season.

I have nothing against Miller personally, he is still a good NHL goaltender, but he falls into the trap of most of the other Benning acquisitions: Most of them are decent players (Sbisa/Dorsett/Sutter/Prust) but they are either being paid too much money or the Canucks gave up too many assets for them.

I think that Benning has a plan and he sometimes overpays to make it happen (in terms of salary or assets given up in a trade).

I don't think that Benning has an agenda that he's not telling us about. He's a very smart man, he's just not complicated. If there is a fault with him it's that he will respond to a direct question with the truth too readily and say too much.

If he want's Miller as his number one, it's for the reason he said. He likes to have a veteran who the team can rely on so that a young defense can develop. He prefers this type of a veteran paired with a younger developing back up who will one day take over starting duties.

Benning likes Markstrom over Lack because he's younger (and fit's his model better) and because he thinks he is mentally stronger (based on last years Utica play off run).

That's what Benning thinks. I reserve judgement myself. Lack has a great work ethic (he was working on his puck tracking 4 days after the Canucks were eliminated last season) and he bounces back with good games after poor games so he's mentally tough too. It remains to be seen whether Benning made the best decision by trading Lack. But to suggest that he's making decisions for reasons other than the best interest of the Canucks is dead wrong.

[Junkyard Dog]

Lack's statistics in games started are almost the exact same as Miller's.

in 35 games started(I've counted the NYI game as one when Lack replaced an injured Miller and won) Lack has let in 89 goals on 1023 shots.

Which means in games started Lack has a .913 save percentage and a 2.54 GAA.

In comparison Miller had a .911 save percentage and a 2.53 GGA.

Lack's statistics were padded by coming in relief for Miller(and 1 game for Markstrom) when Miller has faltered. When Lack was having an off night for whatever reason Miller never came in relief probably due to WD wanting to rest Miller. Vise Versa Miller's stats were worsened significantly when he was pulled early in games.

I'll use the playoffs as an example.

Lack had a .886 save percentage and 3.03 GGA. His stats were worsened when he got pulled in game 4. Millers had a .910 save percentage and a 2.31 GGA in the playoffs, his stats were padded because of the 2 periods of play he got when he relieved Lack in game 4.

This begs the question would Lack's numbers be worse than Millers if he was a starter seeing as Lack would get pulled in games he was faltering in which in return would significantly drop his numbers like it did for Miller.

Last season Lack was not pulled once, besides in game 4, because Lack was the backup for the majority of the year and had nearly the exact same stats as Millers in games started besides wins.

[hsedin33]

No one stays 100% for long.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Last season I was comparing RM's performance vs Lu & Schneids(on their respective teams), thinking if it's even close, we pretty much come out ahead.

This yr I'll be eyeing up Markstrom vs Eddie's numbers..hopefully they're similar as well.

Ideally RM has a fine season, & next yr(16/17) we can flip him for perhaps a high 2nd. By then hopefully Markstrom develops into a bonafide starter; whilst Demko keeps progressing into the heir-apparent, real deal.

With Bo Horvat, picks from Eddie & RM, & our 2 young guys emerging, we could come out of all this(that is, what already has been a full decade of superior goaltending) absolute aces.

If it turned out this way, the Miller signing might be revised as a stroke of genius.

[The Weasel]

Miller's alright by me. He has some really good games and some really crappy ones where he lets in some brutal goals. Pretty much what you expect from most above average goaltenders. I'll take Lu any day of the week over him, but he's okay. We aren't some legit contender anymore so I'm okay with his level of goaltending.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Interestingly I recall Miller playing his best in seasons when the Buffalo D looked pretty mediocre. He seems to perform better with a loose, run & gun-typo' squad(& that's no typo).

Maybe JB's mediocre-D is a convoluted, creative-destruction, that ensures RM earns his 6M?

[Junkyard Dog]

Miller's only here to help bring up Marky, to some extent, and more importantly help win us games.

Miller is capable of helping us get 35+ wins IMO. Might not be pretty all the time but he gets the job done and gets the goal support.

Hopefully Marky plays well enough to garner 10-15 wins. If that happens maybe we can make the playoffs again.

A big factor in us winning will depend on how well the new players(youth and acquired via UFA or trade) mesh with our current roster.

A lot of question marks... makes for an interesting season.

[Frazzy Desjardins]

I've always liked Miller, since way back in Buffalo during the Maxim Afinogenov days. He was nothing short of amazing in the Olympics. He was the tournament MVP I believe. And I don't think he is that far removed from back then just yet. Another year under the same organization and he's as healthy as he's been in a very long time by the sounds of it.

Goaltending, unlike a lot of people around here, is my least worry.

[Sedin Brothers]

I'm just glad we can move on from the drama.

The worst part of it was easily the offseason. I can't remember the poster (JB I think?) who acted like he knew it all about Miller, and how Lack was so superior, and that the absolute ONLY reason Lack was being traded was because Miller had no value - as if a Vezina winning Silver medalist who has proven to carry mediocre teams to the playoffs was not able to fetch at least a 2nd lol. He was just so neccessant and would not listen to anyone else.

Then when the news came out Miller gained much attention, including from teams like SJ but Benning preferred him, it was funny to see them back-track. "Well, well, I don't know why he would say such a thing. Terrible GM".

That's why I have a hard time lurking message boards, when the fans are so off-base with how the players and personnel feel. Let them play the game before you bash. You know how many teams would love our tandem?

[Crabcakes]

It's so hard to separate good information from bad information from speculation. There are bloggers, there are beat writers and there are columnists. Professional journalists must source their information properly but I think that since Twitter has come along, the standards have dropped. It is confusing sometimes when a beat writer is stating fact and a columnist is stating opinion. With bloggers, all bets are off and they disguise themselves as journalists. Legit newspapers even hire bloggers. Radio "journalists" I class as columnists.

For me, the only truly reliable source of information has become the principal . I listen to Benning and Linden etc carefully and take all the rest with a grain of salt.