Eddie Lack vs. Ryan Miller - who do we keep moving forward?
- Thread starter Horse McHindu
- Start date
- Status
So should we be trading Tanev, Bonino, and every other asset over age 26 for whatever we can get?
If management was doing a total rebuild/tank, fine, this line of reasoning might make a bit of sense. But they aren't, and the plan is to make the playoffs next year and we'll be making moves this summer with that goal in mind. And to compete for the playoffs every year.
So by management's own strategy ... they're trading the guy most likely to help them be competitive both now and in the long term. Again, just completely backwards.
If you're not interested in semantics debates, why did you go out of your way to start one?
When a guy throws up a save % in the .920s, it's pretty standard to say he provided his team with 'excellent goaltending'. I don't see why you're so troubled by this.
From the moment Ryan Miller went down injured, thrusting Lack into the starters role he stopped 647 out 697 shots on goal, good enough for a .928.
That was excellent, isn't it, because Schneider and his elite posted .925
I believe Schneider is a better goalie, but there is no need to diminish Eddie's achievements, he was EXCELLENT down the stretch for this team.
They rose from 12th overall in the league to 8th under this time frame. He excelled.
*edit* not to mention the insane workload he was handling during that time, and the fact that in 4 less games he still faced more rubber than Miller.
But but but we can get a second round pick!
Let's just ignore that the second round pick comes at the cost of the organizations best goaltender, at the cost of cap space etc etc etc. It's a second round pick and that's awesome.
I don't disagree with the team needing more picks. They do. But you don't generate them by moving your still young, yes still young, capable starting goaltender that has a very real chance of contributing beyond what his cap hit will be. That is simply the opposite of good asset management. It doesn't even matter if a team is going for a cup or a tank or a controlled rebuild. It's straight up the wrong decision for any team direction.
But I think Benning painted himself into that corner, and/or is too stubborn to admit his mistake with Miller (a mistake numerous people saw coming) so recoup what you can from Lack I guess, but no way in hell should Benning be lauded for such a move because it isn't the right move. It is like the Luongo-Schneider situation and while the "wrong" decision may have been made Gillis did in the end make damn sure he was getting a foundational piece for the future. I don't believe Benning will get that for Lack.
Last edited:
banme*
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2014
- 2,573
- 0
Tanev is 2 years younger and (again IMO) more valuable than Lack long term, AKA I'm more confident that he'll be more valuable to the team 3-5 years down the road than Lack will be. On the other hand, Bonino (although I really really like Bonino unlike most here, I thought he was a very capable 2C) would be a good candidate to move for value if we were to replace him with a stop gap (Soderberg? Move Horvat up if we feel he's ready and sign a 3C?) for the right offer, same deal as Lack. I don't think for a second that Miller would provide the same level of goaltending, but I'm confident enough that he would do an adequate job that Id be willing to move Lack for the right offer.
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Boozer
Disagree with what? We both stated that we didn't like the Miller signing.
Do you mean we disagree about the idea of tanking? If that's the case then yes, but if anything, Miller's play did not inflate their totals, Lack's did. If we ran with Lack since the beginning, we probably would've finished even higher if you go by the numbers each goalie put up.
If you're on team tank, you should probably like the Miller signing. Average, old goalie being overpaid and taking up cap space which is forcing us to use younger prospects on ELCs to fit under the cap.
I'm certainly not on team tank, I was not a fan of the signing though, for the reasons I stated in my first post.
Add to the fact he did this while playing nearly every single game, even back to backs, with one of the worst travel schedule in the league. I think the only one who played that much was Dubnyk but we can all agree Minny has a much better D than us and he saw a lot less pucks than Eddie.
I didn't. I took issue with you exaggerating how good he is.
It used to be. Now, it's pretty standard to ***** about anything less than .920.
That's a streak of excellent goaltending. Does that make him an excellent goalie? I don't think so.
Here is your direct quote:
I just find it funny that this "streak" of "excellent" goaltending, also came when his work load was higher than any other starter in the leagues, like abnormally higher than most workhorse goalies face ever.
It's truly incredibly you want to diss Lack's .921 and Ryan Miller has ONE season in his entire career over .918.
So now you're saying he has been excellent but is not excellent, correct?
I just find it funny that this "streak" of "excellent" goaltending, also came when his work load was higher than any other starter in the leagues, like abnormally higher than most workhorse goalies face ever.
I thought it was .915, seems you're moving the Goal Post's again. .915 was average I thought, or at least that's what you used to use.
It's truly incredibly you want to diss Lack's .921 and Ryan Miller has ONE season in his entire career over .918.
This whole discussion is ridiculous.
I generally consider 'average' for a #1 goalie to be in the .915-.918 range. Last year, the 'average' of the 30 #1 guys was .917.
Saying a guy posting a .920 save % is providing 'excellent goaltending' is hardly controversial. Luongo was at that same .921 last year and you heard it constantly from media and fans.
I can understand those who think he's goofy and doesn't look the greatest in net, but he performed EXCELLENTLY as the starter on this team and his .928 was a period of EXCELLENT play by him, during a time where he was handling the heaviest workload in the entire league, imagine if he'd gotten some rest in there. Could have very well been in the .930's, but that's hypothetical, all we have is the raw 647 of 697. Again, excellent play.
I'm not sure how one can deem a period as excellent play, but then say he's never performed excellently. Am I playing on semantics? Maybe, but all I'm going on is the words I see.
The "has" I was referring to was his NHL career. That's what the context was when MS said that he was an "excellent young goaltender". I would have agreed that was an excellent stretch of goaltending. That's what excellent goaltending is now. I know I can find a similar stretch of good games for Miller but he'll still be below average.
Now who is arguing semantics?
I try not to read too much into those small samples.
No.
A .915 *team overall save percentage consistently gets you into the top half of the league. 75% of those teams make the playoffs.
http://espn.go.com/nhl/statistics/team/_/stat/scoring/sort/savePct/seasontype/2
I'm not "dissing" it. A lot of guys do it now. It's not what it used to be.
No, it would be like saying we should trade Nick Bonino for a 'magic bean' prospect. Something you've repeatedly stated is a must for this organization. You could very well say it's 'patently absurd' to trade a young 2nd line centre making 4th line money for the next 2 seasons as well. Though you never will, because that's not the picture you want to paint here. It's funny how different things sound depending on who gets to be the narrator of the story.
Your descriptions of 2nd Rd picks is also wildly different depending on the story you want to tell. When we're potentially getting a 33rd overall pick, you describe it as some nothing asset that has little chance to ever impact the team. Then when Benning moves a late 2nd Rd pick for a guy like Baertschi you complain how you just can't let go of these high picks and how it can really hurt an organization.
And it's a bit too early to claim Eddie Lack is a .920SV% goalie going forward. Last season he was a .912SV% goalie and very easily could revert back to that .910-.915SV% number again next season, and be right on par with what you get out of a Ryan Miller over the next 2 seasons.
If you can swap Lack for a prospect like Ek-Eriksson, you absolutely have to look at it. Will all come down to where the pick is and who's available. One thing is for certain, the doesn't appear to be much separating 16-36 in this draft. There will be some very good prospects still left on the board in the 1st half of the 2nd Rd - guys that could go as early as 15-16th overall. Coming out of the 3rd straight draft with 2 high end prospects has to be near the top of management list right now, as this organization has to make up for a ton of lost ground from the previous regime. If they don't, we're looking at a long window of poor hockey. I for one don't want to see that.
canucks22
Registered User
I would rather move Miller but I don't think the Canucks are gonna get anything for him. Lack just makes sense to move now because I don't see him coming back next year if the Canucks don't want to commit to him long-term, which I believe they aren't.
Find me the 22 game sample from this season where Ryan Miller posts a .928
He had 45 games to get to .921 to match Eddie (with a lot of soft matchups, but that's not what I'm looking to discuss), he posted .911.
A lot of guys do it now, and we're paying a guy $12m and he's done it one time, 5 seasons ago, at age 29, and we're just hoping he'll be able to post career highs or better than his avg at 35 and 36?
When have I ever said we should trade Bonino?!?
Whether a #2 pick is a good return depends on what is going the other way. Obviously they're a nice little asset. But they don't even remotely carry the value of quality young NHL roster players.
If Benning got a #2 pick for Nicklas Jensen (or Vey or Markstrom or whatever fringe asset) I would praise the hell out of that move.
If Benning took a #2 pick for Lack (or Tanev or Kassian or even Bonino), it's a lousy move. It's trading a sure thing for a 25% chance of a thing.
Trading young roster players for #2 picks is the definition of a loser strategy.
Lack was excellent in 13-14 as well, save for the team collapsing around him, especially on the PK. 13-14 Lack is still a better option than Miller in both the short and long term.
drax0s
Registered User
A 5 year turn-around is a pretty rare thing. Tampa was never in trouble from scoring -- they placed bottom in the league yet were 5th best in goals for. Their big problem was goaltending, which was solved by the Bishop trade and arguably the Boucher firing. They kept their offense (only dropping to 8th best in goals for), but shot up in goals against from 5th worse to 11th best.
IMO, a Tampa-like turnaround isn't likely with Vancouver who needs a LOT more pieces in the next few years than just goaltending.
Last edited:
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
That's not really a good characterization of Tampa's turnaround. It's not like they kept a bunch of guys from 4 years ago and just improved the goaltending. Stamkos and Hedman are the only 2 players on the roster who played for the team in 10-11. Their entire core save for those 2 guys is new.
Though I do agree that at the current rate, Vancouver is more than 5 years away from being a contender again. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way though.
I knew your obligatory Gillis bashing posts was coming.
Yeah, because it's not relevant that we're looking to recoup picks after drafting so horribly over the last half dozen years. Benning tried to mitigate that poor drafting by going after players in the 21-23 year old range, now appears to be focused on recouping those picks in hopes of ensuring he doesn't repeat the same mistakes we've seen from the last few management teams.
With where the Canucks currently sit, that seems like a pretty good idea. The only way people should be up in arms over losing Lack is if they think the Canucks will contend in the next 5 years. I don't see it, but some obviously may disagree.
Yeah, they could get their hands on a couple more top 2 picks like Stamkos/Hedman or the Sedins and put the foundation in place for the next core group. But that's just not very likely with a mandate from ownership to push for the playoffs and having the Sedin twins locked up until they're 37 years of age. This eternal mediocrity that the team could find themselves in isn't going to be that easy to undo.
Vancouver is in a really tough position. It's going to take some wizardry at the draft table to get this team to the top of the mountain again.
me2
Go ahead foot
Wasn't the argument last year Vey for a 2nd was great because you won't get a guy as good as Vey because most 2nds bust? How can we trade Lack for a 2nd since the 2nd is going to be worse than Lack?
- Status
