chickenman92 Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 39 minutes ago, Monty said: You are correct, one goalie must be exposed. I wonder if we can expose Cloutier? He's under contract isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said: And now for the take on this signing, the morning muppets of TMZ 1040: "Oh, but Markstrom is going to have to adjust to the new equipment regulations, and if he struggles then Willie's going to have to decide and might have to put Miller in but he's known for having big equipment and then Willie's job might be in jeopardy and and and..." It's the same for EVERY GOALIE on EVERY TEAM across the league! You know what's scary? Matt Murray is known for using smaller pads already. I think this guy is going to excel with the new regulations. But as for your last point I think you're right, it's an even playing field... Most changes should be felt universally across the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 2 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: I'd expect so. And I wouldn't be thinking of Miller as their #1. But he could certainly provide some "cover" for a younger starting goalie. Also might be good for an expansion squad to have some experience in their net and in the room. But mostly it's about the locality and that Vegas (given both his wife's career, the weather, and some of the "fun factor"/entertainment) might be a place where Miller would be happy to play out his final years. And, of course, it solves a problem for us. But it is a "crazy idea" like I said from the jump. But possibly one worth a phone call or two? O re-sign Bachman for a cheap 1 year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 17 hours ago, Lonny_Bohonos_14 said: Either re-sign Bachman or grab a goalie off of waivers (there were a few options last year). OR we go out and trade for a back-up/1B to play with Markstrom (who will get exposed). Option C would be the riskiest, but we will need another NHL caliber goalie for 2017/18. A team like Dallas may be willing to lose Niemi for a late pick. He is currently signed through 17/18 at 4.5 per. I'm pretty sure that we have to expose three skaters no matter what, but I don't think that we're required to expose a goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 18 hours ago, chickenman92 said: - Reimer, a career 13 games OVER .500. I'd say that means Reimer wins more than he loses - Markstrom, a career 16 games UNDER .500. I'd say that means he loses more than he wins. And I think you can make the argument that over their careers they've had similar types of teams in front of them. Like I said before, there's a lot of risk for the Canucks in this deal. Markstrom hasn't proven he can be a winning No. 1 goalie in the NHL. And if he can't step up, Benning just committed s lot of money to s backup. Reimer is a proven loser. He is a failed starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 14 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said: Let's compare career #s.... Lack 116GP 2.54GAA . 912 save% 46W Markstrom83GP3.00GAA . .904save% 26W I guess lack is a year or two older though... btw, check out the career save %. A lil FYI as well, markstroms career save % is good for 67th amongst active goalies with 10 gp or more. Averages always tell the whole story. They're very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckledraggin Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 41 minutes ago, J.R. said: O re-sign Bachman for a cheap 1 year? I'd rather the Canucks signed someone who could actually play a backup role if he were ever called upon to do so. Bachman is tiny and he wasn't even good in the AHL last year. We might need to look overseas to find a backup who could play, but who we wouldn't mind losing to expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 1 minute ago, canuckledraggin said: I'd rather the Canucks signed someone who could actually play a backup role if he were ever called upon to do so. Bachman is tiny and he wasn't even good in the AHL last year. We might need to look overseas to find a backup who could play, but who we wouldn't mind losing to expansion. Oh re-signing him would very much be for the AHL. I expect we'll be moving Miller at the deadline for a younger backup of some variety and likely signing another, then making one available. That or re-signing miller and making him available. Backups are relatively easy to find/acquire anyway...not really worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoosh Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 23 hours ago, DeNiro said: Half the people on here couldn't run a lemonade stand let alone an 800 million dollar franchise. It's better to not take things on here too seriously. I know, I know. I let my feelings get the best of me and had a bit of an outburst there. I'm coming up on 11 years at CDC, so I should know by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 3 hours ago, gurn said: Lack was traded to a different team, with different goalie coaches who wanted him to play differently. I expect him to have a much better year , now he has had time to adjust. Fair enough, but do you really think he is near the same caliber as Markstrom? I'm really not an authority, but the difference is pretty obvious to me. I've been wrong often enough though. The difference in goalie coaching is huge, for sure. That's why Markstrom's career numbers don't mean much - Florida didn't even have a goalie coach when they rushed him into the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 15 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said: There's a few of them Brian Elliot Being the most recent. Ward at 3.3, Gibson at 2.3, Lehner at 2.5, Griess @ 1.5, Jones @ 3 Basically the best of the best. Gibson's deal looks pretty good, but those aren't UFA years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 5 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: Here's a crazy idea: I actually think Vegas could be a great fit for Miller (and his wife would be extremely happy with its relative proximity to L.A.). Maybe we should try to work with him and his agent and try to get Vegas on board with the idea. Possibly even get their management's ideas about how they'd want the contract to look. And then extend Miller with the intention of him getting claimed in the expansion draft. I think that's what will happen. If they don't claim him, and I doubt they will, since much better goalies will be exposed, then we get another year with Demko in the minors, which he'll likely need anyway. The only question is whether we can afford it, and how much of a haircut will he agree to, if any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviewonder20 Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 But in 3 years: (from the prospects development camp) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck15 Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 On 7/7/2016 at 1:09 PM, HC20.0 said: 2 hours ago, steviewonder20 said: But in 3 years: Well done Benning! you outgm'd yourself...#futureGoalie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boddy604 Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 8 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: And now for the take on this signing, the morning muppets of TMZ 1040: "Oh, but Markstrom is going to have to adjust to the new equipment regulations, and if he struggles then Willie's going to have to decide and might have to put Miller in but he's known for having big equipment and then Willie's job might be in jeopardy and and and..." It's the same for EVERY GOALIE on EVERY TEAM across the league! With Muller it's a legitimate concern. I don't see it as much with Markstrom. Miller is like 6'3 and 170 lbs. The guy is SKINNY. Like... below healthy BMI skinny. Form fitting equipment is gonna open up a LOT of space on him. Markstrom though is a big boy, I don't think there should be as much concern there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arsenalian Posted July 9, 2016 Share Posted July 9, 2016 22 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said: So you figure after 1 year he'd be entitled to the same money as Price, Crawford,Quick, Fleury, Rinne,Holtby? There's 13 teams with their starting goalie making 4.3 or less. The ones that make more have won a Vezina or a Cup, or have multiple 35+ win seasons. Contracts signed years ago in completely different markets. Yes it happens all the time, player has breakout year before they hit UFA and their price goes sky high, regardless of if deserved or not. So locking him up for 3 years of his UFA at what is a reasonable price, in today's market makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrible.dee Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 On 7/7/2016 at 6:06 PM, kloubek said: EXCUSES: despite having a horrible defense in front of him. FANTASY, THIS HASN'T HAPPENED : and is likely going to have numbers on the top half of #1 goalies this coming season MORE FANTASY HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THIS?:2/3 to half the price of those same goalies for the next three years. But yet you feel this was such a bad signing that you post almost twice in a row about how horrible of a signing this is? Troll, or idiot. Pick one. Well, since every point you make, you support with either fantasy or excuses, that is to say: You claim this signing is a great thing based on events that you make excuses for or simply have not happened yet.............. I would say the "pick" you concern yourself with should be whether to focus on a career at McDonald's or Burger King, any other job would probably require you to be able to tell the difference between what has actually occurred and that which has not. As I have told others on this board, don't pursue a career in law, you would be eaten alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 59 minutes ago, terrible.dee said: Question answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.