The Torts-Luongo debacle could end up looking like the good old days of Vancouver goaltending if they ditch Lack and Miller takes yet another step back. Doubly so if Markstrom doesn't step it up.
Eddie Lack vs. Ryan Miller - who do we keep moving forward?
- Thread starter Horse McHindu
- Start date
- Status
Nick Lang
Registered User
- May 14, 2015
- 2,039
- 530
I don't think Lack is quite as good as some people are trying to make him out to be. So many are 100% sold. It's quite hard to tell given he hasn't really had a full work load except when it was made his by default through trade and injury.
Although he performed very well in a limited sample size it's still quite a big risk for an organization. You only have one goaltender playing at any one time. I don't get the sense that Management is fully committed to him as a starter moving forward. The problem with Lack is you basically have to chance whether to sign him to a longer contract and make him the starter before he has really proven himself. With Miller he makes a lot more but it's only for two years. It will be hard to justify trading him over Lack when likely neither will be here in 3 years and Lack gives the best and maybe only return since he doesn't have a trade clause.
The move last year to sign Miller was fairly astute, and Miller played very well despite what some people try to claim. Both he and Lack both have solid reasons they should be the starter, one doesn't need to bash either to prove the other. Miller won 29 and lost 15 last year with 6 shutouts. That's awesome. Also, over 25 years of consecutive hockey for 6 teams Miller has never had a losing record, except for his last year in Buffalo on one of the worst teams in history, where he also had a .923 Pct, and was in Vezina discussion.
Either way I hope we get something decent like a package deal for another first rounder.
Although he performed very well in a limited sample size it's still quite a big risk for an organization. You only have one goaltender playing at any one time. I don't get the sense that Management is fully committed to him as a starter moving forward. The problem with Lack is you basically have to chance whether to sign him to a longer contract and make him the starter before he has really proven himself. With Miller he makes a lot more but it's only for two years. It will be hard to justify trading him over Lack when likely neither will be here in 3 years and Lack gives the best and maybe only return since he doesn't have a trade clause.
The move last year to sign Miller was fairly astute, and Miller played very well despite what some people try to claim. Both he and Lack both have solid reasons they should be the starter, one doesn't need to bash either to prove the other. Miller won 29 and lost 15 last year with 6 shutouts. That's awesome. Also, over 25 years of consecutive hockey for 6 teams Miller has never had a losing record, except for his last year in Buffalo on one of the worst teams in history, where he also had a .923 Pct, and was in Vezina discussion.
Either way I hope we get something decent like a package deal for another first rounder.
No, that was not the argument. The argument was that the team was completely barren of young forward talent, were thin at centre and needed a skill infusion. Vey being an ex CHL scoring champion, then developing into a 1st line centre and scoring at a 90 point pace in the AHL made him a guy worth looking at to fill these voids. Like the 2nd Rd pick, it was always going to be a gamble to take someone that hadn't proven anything at the NHL level.
Vey started strong with a good first third of the season, then faded over the final two thirds of the season. Which makes him a question mark going into next year, as is the late 2nd Rd pick we gave up to acquire him.
So is Eddie Lack more of a question mark than a second round pick this year?
Why would a player that is going to be 28 next season be more of a question mark than a prospect that will be 18 years old?
We don't know if Eddie Lack is another James Reimer, or if he's the next Pekka Rinne. Goalies are volatile players and it's very difficult to project where they're going to be 3-4 years down the road.
ayoshi
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2010
- 791
- 271
If Benning trades Lack he will again just be compounding mistakes like he did with Sbisa.
Mistake #1) Acquire Sbisa
Mistake #2) Extend him long term for more money (despite being an RFA and sucking at hockey)
Mistake #1) Sign Miller to a huge $18 million, 3-year deal.
Mistake #2) Trade Lack (the younger, cheaper, better, and developed by Vancouver, goalie) because Miller still has 2 years left on his deal and no one in the league wants him.
Mistake #1) Acquire Sbisa
Mistake #2) Extend him long term for more money (despite being an RFA and sucking at hockey)
Mistake #1) Sign Miller to a huge $18 million, 3-year deal.
Mistake #2) Trade Lack (the younger, cheaper, better, and developed by Vancouver, goalie) because Miller still has 2 years left on his deal and no one in the league wants him.
If Eddie had thrown up a Miller-like .911 instead of the .928 he played over the final stretch of the season, we'd have missed the playoffs.
That's the difference of 12 goals over those 22 games.
Miller was in net for some wins this year, and had a really good stretch around Christmas, but for my money, Eddie was the better goalie and IIRC didn't get nearly the run support or the quality of schedule.
a Fool
Emperor has no picks
- Mar 14, 2014
- 2,601
- 44
Lack and Miller split the season and Eddie put up better numbers. Lack is a top 15 goalie with room to improve. It's really too bad about that 3rd year on the Miller contract. They could split the starts next season as well before Lack takes over for good the year after. Now that's impossible unless we spend like 10 mill on goalies for that year.
On the dark side, Lack only got those starts because Miller got hurt. There was never a platoon strategy to ease Lack in. It just fluked out that way. Miller was then rushed back into a playoff elimination game and got ventilated. I'm guessing Benning isn't "sold" on Lack, and never will be because once he makes up his mind there's no changing that.
On the dark side, Lack only got those starts because Miller got hurt. There was never a platoon strategy to ease Lack in. It just fluked out that way. Miller was then rushed back into a playoff elimination game and got ventilated. I'm guessing Benning isn't "sold" on Lack, and never will be because once he makes up his mind there's no changing that.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
Yeah, but you're forgetting Miller's calming veteran presence. The one that saw the team put up a 12-13-0 record in front of him the few months before he got injured. Luckily Lack's erratic rookie play snapped them to attention once Miller was injured and allowed them to go 15-7-2 from the injury until the end of the season.
Looking at the entire year, I would say he certainly was the better goalie. He was tremendous down the stretch and if he didn't play so well in Miller's absence the team could have missed the playoffs.
On the flip side, Miller played well out of the gate, while Lack had a bit of a slow start. Miller helped build the cushion in the standings, which contributed to making the playoffs.
IMO the team needed both of these things to happen to squeak in, yet a lot of people talk like they would have made it without Miller. You just can't pro-rate Lack's .921SV% over an entire season and say they would have been the better team had Miller not been signed - that's not how things work...
Ryan Miller was 29-15-1 this season. That's a virtually identical winning % to Lack's strong stretch to finish the season.
Miller had quite a few blowout losses this season, but he didn't give up very many back breaking goals in 1 goal games. Had a bit of a weird season that way, where he had 3-4 more terrible games then you want to see, but also was pretty consistent and reliable over the long haul. And in the majority of his terrible games, the team didn't show up and ended up losing by 4-5 goals - as opposed to Miller struggling but the team still losing close games.
In the end, I don't think this team makes the playoffs without them both playing well at different times. Though it's also fair to say they could have missed the playoffs had Miller not gotten hurt, as Lack was that good down the stretch.
Miller wasn't good to start the year either, the Canucks PP was. Miller posted poor numbers for a while, and they only became nearly average by December when he had a very hot stretch. IIRC, and opendoor or someone else could probably back that up.
Eddie Lack started rough because he was getting infrequent games. He came into the season looking tremendous through preseason, ready to be at least a 1B, but this team decided it didn't want a goalie controversy and kept the hungry young goalie down.
It's a pretty frustrating situation all around, because like afool mentioned above, they certainly don't see Lack as an option here. They felt the need to bring Miller back into the fold, meanwhile we hear this week he won't be healthy until late July. If the plan is to make the playoffs every year for the next 5 years, Lack should be the goalie you go with, so I can't really understand the logic of moving other than the hopeful 2nd rounder we can get, and I hate that rationale.
me2
Go ahead foot
Peter Griffin
Registered User
I can understand the reasoning if they feel that Markstrom is the real deal and is poised to breakout if given the opportunity to consistently play. Markstrom was afterall considered the best prospect in hockey not long ago.
I can see the argument for both sides in this debate. Keeping Lack is the safer option for sure, but Markstrom has always had huge upside and his play in this playoff run with Utica shows what he is capable of. Certainly would be a huge gamble but it could also payoff big as well. Ideally you move Miller and run with Lack/Markstrom though.
Sure.
My question is why trade a player with the downside of James Reimer (extremely capable backup) and the upside of Pekka Rinne (franchise goalie) for a second round pick. You obviously know the stats in terms of success rates of second round picks.
I know your stance on Markstrom, but regardless of what you think his potential is, I just don't see how a second rounder for Lack is good value at all.
JuniorNelson
Registered User
It's nice that everybody likes Eddie. It's too bad the Canucks do not have this kind of affection for him. If you look at the way he's been treated (signed a vet to displace him after he won the starting job from Luongo. Pulled from the playoffs for an unready Miller) it is obvious the Canucks do not think he is their guy. They do not seem swayed by numbers. This decision was made long ago.
I wouldn't move Lack if all you're getting is a mid to late 2nd Rd pick. But if we're talking Buffalo's 2nd(31st) or Edmonton's 2nd(33rd) it's something to give serious consideration to. There will be guys available at those picks that Could conceivably go in the mid-1st Rd. If we're talking an EK-Eriksson, Colin White, Brock Boeser, Jeremy Roy type return, it could be a smart play.
People are overlooking 1 big thing with Lack - his contract status. If he puts up a .914SV% next season and wants a 5 year, $25mil commitment, how do you handle it? Are you getting much 'value' out of a $5mil Eddie Lack?
On the flip side, you could conceivably get tremendous value out of Makstrom depending on how the next couple years go. He's had an AHL MVP type season and has his career back on the rails with some good coaching. I would be very reluctant to give him away after the season he's just had.
I love how you are constantly moving the goal post. Initially it's oh if we get the 16th pick then we should totally do it. Then now it's the 31st or 33rd. What next, how many more rounds down before you stop justifying this is not a stupid idea?
And to your second part. If he has a down season he will not get a big contract. He doesn't have the the history. Not sure what kind of assumption is that. All the goalies with 5+ M contract put up big seasons before getting their contract, almost no precedence where a goalie fails and then gets a big contract.
Why are using wins to justify how good a goalie was/is? Look at save % and GAA. Miller's save % was quite poor. It was like 32nd in the league at .911. Lack was 11th at .921.
I would move Lack for the 16th without thinking twice. That's a no-brainer deal.
31st or 33rd is much closer to where his value lies, and that's a tough call. But the more draft rankings we see, the more it becomes clear just how little separation there is in the 16-36 range of this draft.
Like I said, if you get an Ek-Eriksson, Boeser, Roy type prospect, you absolutely have look at it.
Well that's why I said Lack was better this year.
But I'm also not going to just gloss over Miller putting up a .923 the previous year in 40 GP for the Sabres, while Lack put up a .912SV% in Vancouver.
And Miller's save % last year with both teams, can't cherry pick, was about the same as Lack's.
Edit it was .918
Who said anything about Lack failing? A .914SV% isn't failing. But if Miller is dealt and Lack has that type of season, his agent is going to be looking for starter money - and that number they seek will likely start with a 5.
What does Lack get from Benning? Remember he's the worst negotiator in the NHL... Is it $5.75mil X 5 years? Let's not pretend there is no risk here with Lack. If he's James Reimer, it could sting locking him up to a big contract. Tough to say if he's Reimer or Rinne, or somewhere in between.
VibinCanuck
No doubt about it, I am ready to get hurt again
That's the frustrating part... Lack in two seasons is currently a better goalie than Miller at the moment and has shown dedication and great work ethic to improve himself. Why trade away the cheaper young player instead of trying to shop Miller to a team while taking some of his salary.
I'd rather see Benning admit he made a mistake and act against it than stubbornly stick with his bad decisions.
Maybe Markstrom can come in and be that goalie many thought he'd become in Florida.
The Canucks desperately need more youth in this lineup, not sticking with the older players...
- Status
