Ryan Miller is "all in."

[afan]

The first year Miller was in Vancouver, it was Lack who got Vancouver into the playoffs while Miller was injured. In his 2nd year, Vancouver was in the playoff race until Miller returned from his injury in January. The past season, Vancouver was still in the playoff  race before Christmas when Markstrom and Miller got almost equal shares of starts. The team then fell off the cliff, when for no reason Miller was anointed as the no. 1 goalie after Christmas.

 

For 2 consecutive seasons, Markstrom has a much better win percentage in games he started despite getting the second half of back to back games when the team in front of him was tired most of the time.

 

Are JB & fans supporting the re-sign of Miller looking for a nice guy who loves the city or a goalie who can help this team 2 to 3 years down the road? These guys can only see the big saves Miller usually made early in games. But they are blind to the big rebounds and easy goals from screen shots the tired Miller let in late in games. One of the reasons why JB and WD were the worst in the league was because of their favoritism on players that had  past connections with them.

 

Miller is the goalie that the other 30 teams would not want to be in goal. The owner would be foolish to let JB waste his money on a 37 year old faded glory.

[MikeyBoy44]

Pro-Tank = Markstrom

Anti- Tank = Miller

 

Pick your poison. 

[Wilbur]

13 hours ago, MoneypuckOverlord said:

We should trade his negotiation rights for a draft pick if possible like what l a did with Ben bishop.

Doubt any team will do this, especially before the expansion draft.  Dallas made the move when they did because they didn't care if they lost Niemi or Lehtonen.

[73 Percent]

5 hours ago, afan said:

The first year Miller was in Vancouver, it was Lack who got Vancouver into the playoffs while Miller was injured. In his 2nd year, Vancouver was in the playoff race until Miller returned from his injury in January. The past season, Vancouver was still in the playoff  race before Christmas when Markstrom and Miller got almost equal shares of starts. The team then fell off the cliff, when for no reason Miller was anointed as the no. 1 goalie after Christmas.

 

For 2 consecutive seasons, Markstrom has a much better win percentage in games he started despite getting the second half of back to back games when the team in front of him was tired most of the time.

 

Are JB & fans supporting the re-sign of Miller looking for a nice guy who loves the city or a goalie who can help this team 2 to 3 years down the road? These guys can only see the big saves Miller usually made early in games. But they are blind to the big rebounds and easy goals from screen shots the tired Miller let in late in games. One of the reasons why JB and WD were the worst in the league was because of their favoritism on players that had  past connections with them.

 

Miller is the goalie that the other 30 teams would not want to be in goal. The owner would be foolish to let JB waste his money on a 37 year old faded glory.

Boi you are about to get a free lesson here.

 

 

Miller went down on Feb 24th we were second in our division with 73 pts. 

 

Lack played 20 games during Miller's injury.

 

In those 20 games he only had 11 wins. 

 

9 of those games he let in 4 or more goals. 

 

Do your research before you make ridiculous claims from 2 years ago hoping people forgot. 

[cuporbust]

2 hours ago, 73 Percent said:

Boi you are about to get a free lesson here.

 

 

Miller went down on Feb 24th we were second in our division with 73 pts. 

 

Lack played 20 games during Miller's injury.

 

In those 20 games he only had 11 wins. 

 

9 of those games he let in 4 or more goals. 

 

Do your research before you make ridiculous claims from 2 years ago hoping people forgot. 

Was just going to rip into this guy , but I think you took care of his post for me. Lol. Good post. 

[73 Percent]

8 minutes ago, cuporbust said:

Was just going to rip into this guy , but I think you took care of his post for me. Lol. Good post. 

Oh man I like stopped in my tracks to start shredding him. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

Resigning Miller is a good bridge to transition Markstrom and eventually Demko.

 

Demko isn't ready at 21. If we bring him along like Schneider, he'll get two more seasons in Utica to really work on his game. Markstrom's 27 and should be transitioned to starter during Miller's final years here. So by the time Miller leaves, we have Markstrom at 29-30 and Demko at 23-24. 

 

That just makes better sense from a development standpoint. Plus all of our other young guys get a couple more years under their belts before our future goalie joins the team.

 

The season after Miller leaves would be the start of our turn-around. 

 

Given where we are, I can also see going with a Markstrom/Bachman combo as well. I'm curious about that. But if Markstrom goes down for any length of time, Bachman becomes our starter and then Demko gets thrust into the lineup. I just don't think Demko is ready for that next season. 

 

I think Benning's going to go with what he knows in goal ... ie: Miller ... rather than look to acquire a cheaper UFA. And by the sound of things in that interview, it looks like Miller wants to go with what he knows. 

 

 

[JM_]

2 hours ago, 73 Percent said:

Boi you are about to get a free lesson here.

 

 

Miller went down on Feb 24th we were second in our division with 73 pts. 

 

Lack played 20 games during Miller's injury.

 

In those 20 games he only had 11 wins. 

 

9 of those games he let in 4 or more goals. 

 

Do your research before you make ridiculous claims from 2 years ago hoping people forgot. 

ridiculous claims eh... it occurs to me that we could probably get Eddie back when Carolina puts him on waivers at the start of this season.... he'd be a cheap backup for Marky and he'd be so happy to be here he'd probably play really well 

[VanGnome]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Resigning Miller is a good bridge to transition Markstrom and eventually Demko.

 

Demko isn't ready at 21. If we bring him along like Schneider, he'll get two more seasons in Utica to really work on his game. Markstrom's 27 and should be transitioned to starter during Miller's final years here. So by the time Miller leaves, we have Markstrom at 29-30 and Demko at 23-24. 

 

That just makes better sense from a development standpoint. Plus all of our other young guys get a couple more years under their belts before our future goalie joins the team.

 

The season after Miller leaves would be the start of our turn-around. 

 

Given where we are, I can also see going with a Markstrom/Bachman combo as well. I'm curious about that. But if Markstrom goes down for any length of time, Bachman becomes our starter and then Demko gets thrust into the lineup. I just don't think Demko is ready for that next season. 

 

I think Benning's going to go with what he knows in goal ... ie: Miller ... rather than look to acquire a cheaper UFA. And by the sound of things in that interview, it looks like Miller wants to go with what he knows. 

 

 

Maybe we leave it up to the players. Many didn't think Bo was ready during his rookie season, and look how he did. It's all up to the individual, look at Virtanen for example. I think Demko may be more ready than many are willing to admit given the time he spent playing College hockey.

[MeanSeanBean]

Just now, S'all Good Man said:

ridiculous claims eh... it occurs to me that we could probably get Eddie back when Carolina puts him on waivers at the start of this season.... he'd be a cheap backup for Marky and he'd be so happy to be here he'd probably play really well 

Not gonna lie, I would support this. Lack backing Marky for a year or 2 while we transition. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Resigning Miller is a good bridge to transition Markstrom and eventually Demko.

 

Demko isn't ready at 21. If we bring him along like Schneider, he'll get two more seasons in Utica to really work on his game. Markstrom's 27 and should be transitioned to starter during Miller's final years here. So by the time Miller leaves, we have Markstrom at 29-30 and Demko at 23-24. 

 

That just makes better sense from a development standpoint. Plus all of our other young guys get a couple more years under their belts before our future goalie joins the team.

 

The season after Miller leaves would be the start of our turn-around. 

 

Given where we are, I can also see going with a Markstrom/Bachman combo as well. I'm curious about that. But if Markstrom goes down for any length of time, Bachman becomes our starter and then Demko gets thrust into the lineup. I just don't think Demko is ready for that next season. 

 

I think Benning's going to go with what he knows in goal ... ie: Miller ... rather than look to acquire a cheaper UFA. And by the sound of things in that interview, it looks like Miller wants to go with what he knows. 

 

 

my issue with this is tho that if Markstrom isn't the #1 to start the season then when? He's an expensive backup at best then. I suppose if he tanks then we have a boat anchor contract for 2 more years but if he's solid then he's a very reasonable cap hit until Demko's ready. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

14 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Maybe we leave it up to the players. Many didn't think Bo was ready during his rookie season, and look how he did. It's all up to the individual, look at Virtanen for example. I think Demko may be more ready than many are willing to admit given the time he spent playing College hockey.

I agree he may be more ready than many think because of his time in College. You can point to Stecher, Hutton, Boeser as examples. Since he's a goalie, though, it's different. There's more pressure, demands, positional learning, and expectations. That's why historically it takes more time to develop goalies.

 

With a young guy that's going to be our goalie of the future, especially given where we are right now, there's no sense in having him get shelled at the NHL unnecessarily when he can be learning to dominate in the A. You want to know your goalie of the future is truly ready rather than have him cost you games and potentially ruin his confidence.

 

Plus, it's not like the team is ready to make a push to do anything. 

 

That said, it is totally up to him. I'd like to see him come into camp and play lights out during preseason. Ideally I'd like to see him play lights out in Utica next season. 

[kloubek]

52 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

my issue with this is tho that if Markstrom isn't the #1 to start the season then when? He's an expensive backup at best then. I suppose if he tanks then we have a boat anchor contract for 2 more years but if he's solid then he's a very reasonable cap hit until Demko's ready. 

You're right - he's a damn expensive backup.  Should he excel and say we have Miller signed for 2 more years, that ended up being a big waste of money.

But what if he doesn't excel?  What if he buckles under the pressure of being a #1?  What if the contract Benning gave him was in retrospect a huge overpayment as some believe it was?  Well then we basically kill any confidence he has and end up with two backups splitting all the starts, and that certainly won't do anything for us in the W column which ownership has been wanting through this "soft rebuild".  By sharing the duties with Miller, that is alleviated.  Finally, as long as the pressure is contained and not overwhelming, I believe goalies tend to play better when they feel pushed.  I believe that Miller still wants to prove he has it, and Markstrom will feel pushed to earn his starts instead of having it handed to him.

As you can tell, I would be happy to see Miller back again.  But let's not kid ourselves - while he was generally very solid he isn't quite the goalie he used to be and the extra one or two years of age probably won't help.  I certainly hope he doesn't expect the same 6m he made in his last contract or he can absolutely walk.  But matching around what Markstrom is going to make in the 3.5-4m range I think is a solid investment against risk.  

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, kloubek said:

You're right - he's a damn expensive backup.  Should he excel and say we have Miller signed for 2 more years, that ended up being a big waste of money.

But what if he doesn't excel?  What if he buckles under the pressure of being a #1?  What if the contract Benning gave him was in retrospect a huge overpayment as some believe it was?  Well then we basically kill any confidence he has and end up with two backups splitting all the starts, and that certainly won't do anything for us in the W column which ownership has been wanting through this "soft rebuild".  By sharing the duties with Miller, that is alleviated.  Finally, as long as the pressure is contained and not overwhelming, I believe goalies tend to play better when they feel pushed.  I believe that Miller still wants to prove he has it, and Markstrom will feel pushed to earn his starts instead of having it handed to him.

As you can tell, I would be happy to see Miller back again.  But let's not kid ourselves - while he was generally very solid he isn't quite the goalie he used to be and the extra one or two years of age probably won't help.  I certainly hope he doesn't expect the same 6m he made in his last contract or he can absolutely walk.  But matching around what Markstrom is going to make in the 3.5-4m range I think is a solid investment against risk.  

As long as its 1 year only. Two years would be a mistake, for a number of reasons. Over 35 contract rules being #1, and #2 Miller would be the oldest starter next year other than Lu (assuming Lu starts).  If Jim did that I think I'd have a hard time supporting his negotiation skills. 

 

Honestly though there are going to be a lot of free agent goalies next year that could be good partners with Marky and won't be paid that high (https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents/2018/Sv/all/goalies/ufa) so if Miller demands more than a one year deal Jim has to let him walk. 

 

 

[Dr. Crossbar]

1 hour ago, S'all Good Man said:

my issue with this is tho that if Markstrom isn't the #1 to start the season then when? He's an expensive backup at best then. I suppose if he tanks then we have a boat anchor contract for 2 more years but if he's solid then he's a very reasonable cap hit until Demko's ready. 

Well, I'm looking at this from where I think the team will be in three years. That's when I see the "start" of our turn-around with Boeser at 23-24, Bo at 25-26, Stecher and Hutton at 27, Granlund at 27, etc. Makes the most sense to see Demko come in at 23-24 and be ready.

 

The reality is, we're in that window of waiting for guys to develop and gain experience. We can't change that. So it raises the question whether we need to start him next season when we still have a couple years before Demko gains more experience.

 

I say, split Markstrom and Miller next season with the goal of giving Marky more games by season's end. Transition Miller to backup the following year, Markstrom starts. Miller leaves, Demko comes up.

 

That just seems like the organic way to go given that we're a couple years away from our youth coming into their own.

 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, I'm looking at this from where I think the team will be in three years. That's when I see the "start" of our turn-around with Boeser at 23-24, Bo at 25-26, Stecher and Hutton at 27, Granlund at 27, etc. Makes the most sense to see Demko come in at 23-24 and be ready.

 

The reality is, we're in that window of waiting for guys to develop and gain experience. We can't change that. So it raises the question whether we need to start him next season when we still have a couple years before Demko gains more experience.

 

I say, split Markstrom and Miller next season with the goal of giving Marky more games by season's end. Transition Miller to backup the following year, Markstrom starts. Miller leaves, Demko comes up.

 

That just seems like the organic way to go given that we're a couple years away from our youth coming into their own.

 

Yah I can see that, but its got to be for 1 year at a time with Miller. Otherwise its too risky for an over 35 contract if he decides to retire, then we still eat the cap hit. 

 

I also wonder if he'll be as motivated to play the way he did. I think he was playing his ass off for a California trade, with that out of the picture I'm not sure he's going to repeat the performance. 

[aGENT]

First choice - take a cap dump goalie another team doesn't want + assets (Niemi).

 

Second choice -  MIller for 1-2 years +/-$4.5m

 

Third choice - Bachman.

 

Fourth choice -  UFA

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, S'all Good Man said:

ridiculous claims eh... it occurs to me that we could probably get Eddie back when Carolina puts him on waivers at the start of this season.... he'd be a cheap backup for Marky and he'd be so happy to be here he'd probably play really well 

Yeah, pretty sure that's not a substantive basis for acquiring players, especially ones already traded away, and who also had a terrible season, and not to mention that now have a concussion history.

 

Miller is by all accounts good in the dressing room as well as a good mentor.  Considering we're down to the last few vets, he may be worth keeping for a year or two still while the transition completes.

[higgyfan]

This years batch of UFA goalies is weak and there aren't any good 'unprotected' goalies for the ED.  Does Ana go with Gibson and let Bernier walk?  Pretty bad asset management there.  Phi re-signs Mason.  The rest are not #1 calibre.  Sooo...

I think LV throws more $ at Ryan than the Canucks would.  Both Bernier and Miller get snapped up pretty quick in the offseason.

 

Realistically, the team needs a goalie that can play at least 35-40 games a season and again, there aren't many UFAs that can do that this year. Brian Elliot would be good, but he's looking at +3m.  I'm thinking Condon @ 1m x 2yrs.

[Dr. Crossbar]

17 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

Yah I can see that, but its got to be for 1 year at a time with Miller. Otherwise its too risky for an over 35 contract if he decides to retire, then we still eat the cap hit. 

 

I also wonder if he'll be as motivated to play the way he did. I think he was playing his ass off for a California trade, with that out of the picture I'm not sure he's going to repeat the performance. 

I see where you're coming from. Not opposed to the 1-year. My gut tells me Benning will go with what he knows, sign him for two so he can focus on D and forwards over the next couple years and not worry about the net.

 

Not so worried about Miller retiring early. Don't think that's in his character given his relationship with Benning and his approach to the game. If he's not so motivated, well, all the better for Markstrom who'll get more starts.