I can get on board with that.
Still not over the Lack trade though. I should be reading Lack/Markstrom in goal.
I'll have to slightly disagree with this.
Management must have felt VERY confident in
1) Markstrom's ability to take over the crease within two years
2) Markstrom ultimately becoming a better goalie than Eddie Lack.
Time will tell obviously, but I am of the opinion that the above two points will hold true.
The problem in keeping Lack is that you'd have to sign him for 3+ years - probably around 3.5-4 million....if we're being optimistic (my guess is that Lack would have wanted at least 4-5 years). With Miller, at least his contract expires in two seasons.
And I do think that having some kind of pedigree at a high level is a factor. Miller played in the 2010 Olympic finals and that experience is something you can't ignore. Whether we like it or not, Miller did have a brief stretch there where he was an elite goalie. That experience helps if the Canucks manage to make the playoffs (and don't use last season as an example as Miller entered Game 5 still injured and rusty after a long layoff).
I think Benning made the right move in keeping Miller and parting ways with Eddie Lack. Lack would have wanted term, and given management's apparent confidence in Markstrom, signing Lack to a long term deal wouldn't have made sense.