Proposal: Bring Lack Back

[TheWolf*]

I'm all for Lack coming back. Drop Miller, give the #1 to Markstrom and bring in Lack as the back up.

 

[mathonwy]

I'm sure I'm misreading this, but it sounds like you still feel Benning made a mistake trading Lack. Pretty obvious with hindsight that using some cap space to add Miller and then acquiring 2 picks for Lack was almost perfectly played by GMJB. Would have been perfect if he could have acquired a pick for Miller at the deadline, but I haven't heard even the most negative of the "dim jim" crowd hold that against Benningas there simply wasn't a market.

I'd have no issues adding an asset along with Lack (or just doing dump for dump). But have to say, when it comes to the Lack / Miller controversy from 3 years ago, pretty decisive win for GMJB over the dim jims. Which raises the question, what is the appropriate nickname for posters whose read of the situation was so much, eh, dimmer than the Dim Jim himself?

I understand your confusion as I wasn't very clear on this point but its kind of interesting that your default response includes indirectly attacking other posters as opposed to rational discussion.

I suppose I could engage but as I really don't understand your motives, I will instead retreat.

 

[M2Beezy]

No thanks. Sadly ditching Lack is probably one of Bennings better reads.

Agreed. Didnt like the trade at the time in favouring to keep on Miller but it was the right decision but then again maybe we would of finished 30th in 2015-16 and gotten Matthews but then again just hindsight i guess

 

[RandV]

We don't know yet what's going to happen but considering he hasn't extended it could be that Miller wants to go somewhere else, or at least wants to wait and see if he can get a job with one of the California teams this summer.

If that's the case then we're going to need a goalie to pair with Markstrom, so if Carolina is giving him away it may as well be Lack. He fits the bill and has a good working relation with Markstrom. Especially if we can get a pick for taking his contract, maybe recoup the 5th we lose for Larsen.

 

[Hit the post]

Which raises the question, what is the appropriate nickname for posters whose read of the situation was so much, eh, dimmer than the Dim Jim himself?

"Dude couldn't hit the broad side of a barn let alone the post"

Course I didn't sign Eriksson to that long-term $6 million dollar contract either.



Congrats to Jim for topping the Pizza contract.

 

[earl grey]

Absolutely, I'd do any deal like this that had a higher pick and or a good prospect coming back with the contract (provided the contract is 1-2 yrs max).


I've read in this thread people saying no, and I must ask - do you not understand how to acquire assets for a rebuild?

 

[TheWolf*]

Price suggested Tanev for Drouin and Callahan as a cap dump. Jimbo needs to start using cap space to acquire younger assets, rather than to waste it on (taking a page out of the Linden school of speak) the Sutters, the Sbisa's, the Dorsetts, the Ericksson's.

Sekeres also said that he knows, from an inside source, that the Canucks were never high on Sam Reinhart and that they would never try to acquire him - given that they do not think he would work well playing at home....whatever that means.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Signing Eddie Lack would make sense for Vancouver

To Van: Lack and a 3rd round pick

To Car: 7th round pick

Logic ... Carolina just signed Darling to a 4 year contract. They already have Ward and Lack signed for next year. And the Hurricanes have three 2nd round picks and two 3rd round picks in next years draft. They could easily part with a 3rd rounder to unload Lack from the books.
Vancouver is in need of a backup goalie. They could bring a familiar face back, along with an extra pick. If Lack doesn't work out with the big club, Vancouver could swap him with Bachman in Utica.

This will sound odd coming from me given the fact that I was adamant about keeping Miller over Lack two seasons ago, but bringing Lack back would actually make sense for the following reasons:

1) Lack will come very cheap. I always knew Lack wasn't a "real' #1 goalie which is why I didn't want him here over Miller two seasons ago. Signing Lack at the time would have come at the expense of an overpayment on our end (given the season Lack had in 2014/2015). This time around, Lack will be grateful that he'll still have an NHL job.

2) Lack is better than what he showed this past season. Buy low sell high. Period. Granted, Lack was poo in Carolina, but he'll likely be much better in Vancouver. Familiar surroundings plus lowered expectations. Signing Lack long term at a low cost might be a shrewd move on Vancouver's part.

3) When playing well, Lack can be a great back-up option. Whether it's for Markstrom or Demko.

4) Signing Lack and letting Miller go can allow the Canucks to weaponize cap space, while also giving Marksrom a legit shot at being "the guy." On top of this, Markstrom and Lack are friends.

If the Canucks are unable to re-sign Miller, then making a play for Lack might be the next best thing.

 

[The Drop]

Price suggested Tanev for Drouin and Callahan as a cap dump. Jimbo needs to start using cap space to acquire younger assets, rather than to waste it on (taking a page out of the Linden school of speak) the Sutters, the Sbisa's, the Dorsetts, the Ericksson's.

Sekeres also said that he knows, from an inside source, that the Canucks were never high on Sam Reinhart and that they would never try to acquire him - given that they do not think he would work well playing at home....whatever that means.

We essentially took cap dumps in Sutter Sbisa and Eriksson. Except we didn't receive anything for them either.

If Sbisa is gone in expansion, the Canucks need to be a team that takes this type of approach. Sadly they wont

 

[RobertKron]

This will sound odd coming from me given the fact that I was adamant about keeping Miller over Lack two seasons ago, but bringing Lack back would actually make sense for the following reasons:

1) Lack will come very cheap. I always knew Lack wasn't a "real' #1 goalie which is why I didn't want him here over Miller two seasons ago. Signing Lack at the time would have come at the expense of an overpayment on our end (given the season Lack had in 2014/2015). This time around, Lack will be grateful that he'll still have an NHL job.

2) Lack is better than what he showed this past season. Buy low sell high. Period. Granted, Lack was poo in Carolina, but he'll likely be much better in Vancouver. Familiar surroundings plus lowered expectations. Signing Lack long term at a low cost might be a shrewd move on Vancouver's part.

3) When playing well, Lack can be a great back-up option. Whether it's for Markstrom or Demko.

4) Signing Lack and letting Miller go can allow the Canucks to weaponize cap space, while also giving Marksrom a legit shot at being "the guy." On top of this, Markstrom and Lack are friends.

If the Canucks are unable to re-sign Miller, then making a play for Lack might be the next best thing.

How would they sign a guy already under contract?

 

[skyo]

No lack, sick of taco's, ruining my waist.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Lack was a flake. Markie has some flakiness about him. Combine them and profit! Yes! That is the Canuck way!

 

[Huggy]

*starts laughing

 

[Hammer79]

We don't know yet what's going to happen but considering he hasn't extended it could be that Miller wants to go somewhere else, or at least wants to wait and see if he can get a job with one of the California teams this summer.

If that's the case then we're going to need a goalie to pair with Markstrom, so if Carolina is giving him away it may as well be Lack. He fits the bill and has a good working relation with Markstrom. Especially if we can get a pick for taking his contract, maybe recoup the 5th we lose for Larsen.

Maybe Miller is waiting until after the expansion draft to re-sign so that Markstrom doesn't get exposed and taken. Then again, Miller might be looking for another job out west, but where? Dallas badly needs goaltending but they already have $10.4M tied up in two bad goalies. The California teams are all set. Vegas will end up with one of Penguins' goalies so they don't need him either.

 

[lawrence]

he makes a good tank commander to be honest.

 

[Verviticus]

No lack, sick of taco's, ruining my waist.

taco's

 

[Dab]

Although some posters were fuming about it at the time, you'd have to say that the Lack deal is one of the few 'winners' for Jimbo....a third and a seventh is about as good as they could have done.....and unless the 'Canes can unload him in a trade, my guess is he ends up on waivers and can be had for nothing.....a chance Lack even ends up in the AHL next year......maybe the Jets take a chance on him....was a mainstay for the old Moose.

Yes, sadly one of Jim B's best trades. I think Lack makes sense for a team with a workhorse stud but otherwise I think he's likely the third goalie on most teams.

 

[Uhmkay]

Lacks career took a dump because when he arrived to Carolina they tried to change his style and it's backfired tremendously. I think getting back to a goaltending coach he's comfortable with and a style that suits him more that he'd be back to where he was.

If we're getting a 3rd back in the deal, that's just a damn bonus.

 

[VanJack]

Having trouble believing that Lack's 'lack' of success with the Canes was all about his goaltending coach....likes to play deep in his crease, and with the way the game is played now, he's more vulnerable to tips and rebounds...at this point in his career, I think Bachman is a better backup option than Lack.

 

[TheWolf*]

We essentially took cap dumps in Sutter Sbisa and Eriksson. Except we didn't receive anything for them either.

If Sbisa is gone in expansion, the Canucks need to be a team that takes this type of approach. Sadly they wont

Well, I am hoping now that they have confirmed they need to rebuild, that they look at doing this, though I suspect you are right and the opposite will happen.

 

[Jay Cee]

Classic...I love this place

It certainly is the epitome of how hyper polarized it gets around here these days. Casting off a player who has done well vs a player who has not done well and we would be willing to give him away for negative value? OK.

 

[black ace]

Id be open to bringing him back if we needed a veteran in the AHL. That would give him some time to get his game back. But IF we arent going to bring Miller back then I'd prefer something more stable as an NHL back up. Even Bachman looked solid at the end of the year.

But to get a 3rd rounder as well I might do it anyways.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

They won't bring him back.

Usually where theres smoke there is fire and there were some pretty strong allegations that his character and sense of humour wasn't exactly appreciated by all in the dressing room.

 

[TheWolf*]

They won't bring him back.

Usually where theres smoke there is fire and there were some pretty strong allegations that his character and sense of humour wasn't exactly appreciated by all in the dressing room.

Yeah, that's true.

 

[RandV]

Maybe Miller is waiting until after the expansion draft to re-sign so that Markstrom doesn't get exposed and taken. Then again, Miller might be looking for another job out west, but where? Dallas badly needs goaltending but they already have $10.4M tied up in two bad goalies. The California teams are all set. Vegas will end up with one of Penguins' goalies so they don't need him either.

Oops you're right, I forgot about the expansion draft. If Vancouver was going to resign Miller they'd wait until after the draft so Miller or Markstrom don't have to be exposed, even Benning wouldn't mess that up.

Still though, management is usually pretty transparent in what they're going to do, but we've barely heard anything on the goalies. Really it's probably a little bit of both, Benning wants to bring Miller back but Miller probably wants to test the market first. Anaheim's current backup Bernier is a UFA and their starter Gibson is really young. If they show any interest Miller should be gone.