Waived: Markstrom on Waivers (UPD: Clears)

[Canuck Luck]

He has a no trade clause too.

So you have to find a team willing to take on what will likely be a 35 year old player making $6m/yr that he would be willing to waive his no trade clause too.

It's widely believed he wants to be on the west coast (close to Cali).

LA is set.
Ana is set.
Phx is set.
SJ is rebuilding. If they wanted him they'd have signed him this year.
Edm and cgy are not places to bring Hollywood wife and baby.

Colorado is set.
Chicago is set.
Dallas is set.
St. Louis walked away from him.
Minnesota had a need and didn't turn to him (also unlikely willing to pay $6m to a goalie).
Winterpeg enough said.

Trading miller, admittedly a premature conversation, will be hard. There doesn't seem to be a team in the league that matches up with what he wants like we did.

I'm mostly still just pissed the amount of salary we're paying him. It's too much for what he is and it hinders Benning's ability to improve the remainder of the roster.

he does have a NTC and could refuse any deal he wants as he only has to provide a list of 5 teams and could still pull a Kesler and refuse to be traded to half of those teams and the teams that would fit where he would accept a trade to do appear to be set in net for now only though.

If Gibson faulters and andersson can't handle a starters workload I could see anaheim calling for miller'so services if the canucks wanted to deal him. I can also see anaheim roll with what they have for the year and if they dont improve midway through next season then they would deal for miller as his contract would only have 1.5 years remaining too. They would ship andersson off in a seperate deal ala fasth and let miller mentor Gibson

 

[me2]

Cap hits not really an issue this year.
Ideally we would have signed him for two years but Gillis left Benning in a tough spot. Lack was misused last year so there was no certainty he could be a starter and Markstrom has proven nothing

In the end I think we signed a very good goalie in Miller. I'm not too worried about the no trade. He's a proud guy. If Lack wins the starter role next year then he will likely agree to a trade. So many things can happen in two or three years. Lack could struggle or get injured. Or Eriksson could take the next step and possibly even Demko. Lots of options and moving parts.

I've been around long enough following the Canucks to know that there are worse things than having two good goalies and a goalie controversy. Like having crappy goaltending.

Gillis left him in a great position.

* He for rid of Luongo. Benning would have to do it this off season or next given Lu really wanted out and with the way Lack's play was pressuring him doubly out.

* He left Benning with a quality young goalie entering his prime.

* he left another young goalie with potential

* He left a bucket of cap space for Benning to pick his own veteran goalie if he wanted more experience. Benning could choose between a solid veteran to share the load with Lack or use that cap on a star.

Benning was in a great spot, cap, quality young goalie entering his prime, previous GM did the hard/painful/unpopular work removing the cancer.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Gillis left him in a great position.

* He for rid of Luongo. Benning would have to do it this off season or next given Lu really wanted out and with the way Lack's play was pressuring him doubly out.

* He left Benning with a quality young goalie entering his prime.

* he left another young goalie with potential

* He left a bucket of cap space for Benning to pick his own veteran goalie if he wanted more experience. Benning could choose between a solid veteran to share the load with Lack or use that cap on a star.

Benning was in a great spot, cap, quality young goalie entering his prime, previous GM did the hard/painful/unpopular work removing the cancer.

Gillis removed the cancer but killed the patient.
This team was all set in net and then he traded Luongo and Schneider and all we got was Horvat.
I was a big Gillis supporter but that was inexcusable. Then riding Lack until he dropped.
Benning has done a great job given the circumstances.

 

[Bad Goalie]

The real difference here, is that even if that ends up the case and Lack "steals" Miller's job and Ryan Miller ends up unhappy with the outcome a la Luongo...it's like a mulligan on the whole scenario.

Benning isn't predestined to make the same mistakes in handling the "controversy" as Gillis did. Along the way, there were ways to avoid the way the Luongo+Schneider thing ended up, but Gillis didn't take those outs. He dithered around until it blew up in his face...twice.

If Benning has shown one thing in his tenure thus far, it's that he doesn't screw around...he makes moves he feels like making, and he seems very willing to jump on them right away, even if that means a less than "ideal" hypothetical return.

If we're playing in the "future hypotheticals" game where Lack has already outplayed and taken the job of an established starter in Miller and he ends up as unhappy as Luongo, it's just as reasonable to suggest that Benning may find a way to ship a guy like Miller out, even if that means it's for peanuts. There's really no sunk costs in Miller at this point outside of Aquilini's money...if you can move Miller for absolutely nothing, you still come out ahead. Which is vastly different from the Luongo+Schneider situation.

And if we want to drag Markstrom into it as "the backup" who has shown he is clearly ready and back to showing that upside he was so heralded for...then maybe you defuse the situation by trading lack for a return (another Bo Horvat?) and let Markstrom move up behind Miller to become the future starter.

It's just playing in "future narratives" though...right now, we have two great NHL calibre goaltenders, a formerly top prospect project who just cleared waivers, a capable AHL starter, a decent AHL backup, and an intriguing high pick prospect cooking in the NCAA for the next few years.

Having too many good goaltenders shouldn't be a problem. Though Gillis miraculously managed to turn it into a complete disaster...that's not the way things should be handled. And it's a huge part of why sweaty Gillis isn't with us anymore.

This argument back and forth with Miller/Lack/Markstrom is all predicated on a false given. That being that Markstrom is the strongest link in the system to move into the third spot so when Miller leaves (in whatever fashion you have dreamed up) Markstrom naturally, boldly steps into the NHL picture because he all of a sudden became so good in Utica.

He has always been an average AHL goalie and never put up good numbers as an NHL starter. Now all of a sudden he is going to stand the AHL on its ear and move right into an NHL position. You have all overlooked the fact that he could just as easily be outplayed by his AHL cohort, Eriksson. You people have all made Eriksson invisible. He does exist and just because he paled in expectations in his one go last season you can't make him disappear. He is alive and well and may just blow your little plan all to Hades. What happens if Maelstrom becomes an AHL #2 or 1B? That is not an unreasonable possibility.

 

[Bad Goalie]

No team in the league is adding $6m on top of the peanuts it took to acquire Ryan Miller if he's been played out of his job. That idea just has to go.

34 year old $6m/yr back up....how many teams can afford that? Oh please don't suggest we'd retain salary either.

Miller is a very expensive signing that was IMO unnecessary and this situation could easily turn into drama.

I believe we all agree that no team would take his salary on as a backup, but if someone's #1 was out with an injury leaving them short for the season or their #1 was a train wreck (Fleury like) then he gets picked up and maybe in order for Vancouver to get rid of him "for peanuts".

 

[MS]

I believe we all agree that no team would take his salary on as a backup, but if someone's #1 was out with an injury leaving them short for the season or their #1 was a train wreck (Fleury like) then he gets picked up and maybe in order for Vancouver to get rid of him "for peanuts".

Miller is untradeable now, much less in a year from now if he loses his job. We were the only team interested in him during the summer, and he's only interested in playing in the west.

If he had a good playoff resume, he might be moveable to a desperate team, but his collapse in St. Louis last year probably guarantees no good team will have interest again.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Gillis left him in a great position.

* He for rid of Luongo. Benning would have to do it this off season or next given Lu really wanted out and with the way Lack's play was pressuring him doubly out.

* He left Benning with a quality young goalie entering his prime.

* he left another young goalie with potential

* He left a bucket of cap space for Benning to pick his own veteran goalie if he wanted more experience. Benning could choose between a solid veteran to share the load with Lack or use that cap on a star.

Benning was in a great spot, cap, quality young goalie entering his prime, previous GM did the hard/painful/unpopular work removing the cancer.

He did have one annoying issue to deal with (Kesler,) but yeah. Frankly as much as I think Gillis made a mess of things with the goalie situation, I would be very interested to see what he would have done with this off-season.

 

[me2]

Gillis removed the cancer but killed the patient.

Miller - Lack. Patient seems just fine.

Then riding Lack until he dropped.

meh.

Schneider and all we got was Horvat.

No we got the 9th overall pick in a good draft not Horvat. There is a big difference. Drafting Horvat with the 9th is a separate issue and belongs in complaints about Gillis' drafting. We could just as easily have taken Nichushkin or some other player with that pick.

Benning has done a great job given the circumstances.

He was put in a can't fail position, with the freedom to choose his own path. Seems like a great spot to be in.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Actually, check that. He had Kesler available to him as a valuable trade chit that nobody can blame him for trading; that's the perfect spot to be in. And of course he ****ed it up by getting us nothing that we needed. FFS.

 

[me2]

He did have one annoying issue to deal with (Kesler,) but yeah. Frankly as much as I think Gillis made a mess of things with the goalie situation, I would be very interested to see what he would have done with this off-season.

4 big issues

Luongo: dealt with.

Torts: Benning was probably upset he didn't get to fire Tortorella himself, that would be the easiest way to cheap love a new GM could ever want.

that just left

Booth: I'm not even sure he even qualifies as a problem. buyout. no brainer.

Kesler: the real only problem left and even then the ball was already rolling on that one. A opportunity to remake the team in his image.

Good UFAs with no serious UFA market competition, cap space, young goalie entering his prime, etc. Goaltending wasn't a problem it was an opportunity for Benning to stamp his mark on the team, Miller-Lack, Hiller-Lack, Lack-Markstrom, etc.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Luongo: dealt with.
Torts: sacked.
Kesler: left.

Kesler was the only problem left and even then the ball was already rolling on that one.

Benning was probably upset he didn't get to fire Tortorella himself, that would be the easiest way to cheap love a new GM could ever want.

Seriously. The more I think about it, the more I realize that Benning stepped into pretty much the dream-GM situation.

- Coming off disappointing season, so bar is low.
- No terrible contracts hamstringing you.
- Core player needs to be traded, will return good assets and not upset the fans.
- Pick your own coach.
- High draft pick.
- Quality young goalie in place, the hardest thing to find.

What more could a GM possibly ask for, stepping into a new role? I can't imagine.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

This argument back and forth with Miller/Lack/Markstrom is all predicated on a false given. That being that Markstrom is the strongest link in the system to move into the third spot so when Miller leaves (in whatever fashion you have dreamed up) Markstrom naturally, boldly steps into the NHL picture because he all of a sudden became so good in Utica.

He has always been an average AHL goalie and never put up good numbers as an NHL starter. Now all of a sudden he is going to stand the AHL on its ear and move right into an NHL position. You have all overlooked the fact that he could just as easily be outplayed by his AHL cohort, Eriksson. You people have all made Eriksson invisible. He does exist and just because he paled in expectations in his one go last season you can't make him disappear. He is alive and well and may just blow your little plan all to Hades. What happens if Maelstrom becomes an AHL #2 or 1B? That is not an unreasonable possibility.

Most posters remember when Lack in the AHL at the same time as Markstrom, at that stage most everyone that was not a canucks fan said Markstrom was better.

Fast forward till now and it is clear that Lack has kept his development moving in the right direction (not surprising since in the last few years the Canucks have been quite good at developing Goalies)... Markstrom has not moved forward.

However people hope that it is because in spite Markstrom having more raw talent (as shown by the more successful carrier, up to NHL level) He was not developed properly by the ****** club he came from. (As shown by the fact he did not even have a proper Goalie coach and or system). People also trust the instants of the Canucks goalie staff who, by all accounts rave about him...

Know one actually feels like anything in prospect development is a lock, and 90% of Canuck fans would love Erickson to out play Markstrom to the point he is considered good enough to play NHL in the next couple years.

What we do not want is for Lack to outplay Miller only to trade him for a pick at the draft and keep Miller around for his contract to run out... Hell even if we have to get a Vet to backup Lack because all the rest of our Goalies bust, that would be fine...

Just don't trade the younger better Goalie if it comes to that, and we all watched that happen before.

 

[blendini]

Cap hits not really an issue this year.


Canuck fans are so used to seeing the team up against the salary cap that they have missed this point. The #s are even better next year, with 2/3 prospects making the team and a few UFAs/vets let go or traded.

So who cares what Miller is being paid? Do fans really think that Lack/Markstrom would make this team competitive this year? Having a tender like Miller keeping them in games will encourage the players to keep playing hard. Losing all the time is the worst thing for team chemistry. Not to mention what it's like for us fans!

I can see Miller being traded next season at the deadline and Lack stepping in as the #1. Who the frig knows where Marks will end up. I doubt he will even be the #1 in Utica. Eriksson may end up being the backup for Lack.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Cap hits not really an issue this year.
Canuck fans are so used to seeing the team up against the salary cap that they have missed this point. The #s are even better next year, with 2/3 prospects making the team and a few UFAs/vets let go or traded.

So who cares what Miller is being paid? Do fans really think that Lack/Markstrom would make this team competitive this year? Having a tender like Miller keeping them in games will encourage the players to keep playing hard. Losing all the time is the worst thing for team chemistry. Not to mention what it's like for us fans!

I can see Miller being traded next season at the deadline and Lack stepping in as the #1. Who the frig knows where Marks will end up. I doubt he will even be the #1 in Utica. Eriksson may end up being the backup for Lack.

The bolded part of your statement is why cap hits still matter. You'd think that a team that went through the Luongo mess would know this. But then again, none of these guys were here for that I guess. Sigh.

And FTR, I don't know if anyone is suggesting we should have gone Lack/Markstrom, but Lack/Hiller would have been fine. Markstrom is worthless and I couldn't care less where he goes.

 

[blendini]

The bolded part of your statement is why cap hits still matter. You'd think that a team that went through the Luongo mess would know this. But then again, none of these guys were here for that I guess. Sigh.

And FTR, I don't know if anyone is suggesting we should have gone Lack/Markstrom, but Lack/Hiller would have been fine. Markstrom is worthless and I couldn't care less where he goes.

I have no idea how you have come to the idea that the Miller contract is anything close to the debacle that was the Luongo contract.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I have no idea how you have come to the idea that the Miller contract is anything close to the debacle that was the Luongo contract.

Two things can be of different magnitudes while still being analogous. The problem it presents is identical.

 

[blendini]

Two things can be of different magnitudes while still being analogous. The problem it presents is identical.

No it isn't. Lu couldn't be traded because of the length of his contract and the penalties for early retirement.


PS Miller is a better tender than Hiller.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

No it isn't. Lu couldn't be traded because of the length of his contract and the penalties for early retirement.


PS Miller is a better tender than Hiller.

Nope. those were the reasons for the problem, but the actual problem was that no team wanted to take it on. And there is a real possibility the same may be true for Miller. Or do you think teams are just itching to get their hands on 6M 35 year-old goalies who just lost their jobs?

 

[VanillaCoke]

Glad he cleared. If he busts then so what , but if he doesn't im glad we still got him.

 

[Serac]

No it isn't. Lu couldn't be traded because of the length of his contract and the penalties for early retirement.


PS Miller is a better tender than Hiller.

I think the point is, Lack could step in very early to replace Miller
Hiller would have been cheaper, and easier to move if/when that happens

 

[Bad Goalie]

Miller is untradeable now, much less in a year from now if he loses his job. We were the only team interested in him during the summer, and he's only interested in playing in the west.

If he had a good playoff resume, he might be moveable to a desperate team, but his collapse in St. Louis last year probably guarantees no good team will have interest again.

Let's face it, teams in dire straits will do desperate things. If a playoff bound team or one on the bubble is desperate for a goalie, he gets signed. Last year is not a concern at that point. It's what might you be able to do for me now and he would be better than say Clemmensen who would be offered up by NJ at that time along with a lot of other NHL team's excess worthless baggage they'd try to unload for a little price. Haven't you been around long enough to see these desperate deadline moves?

 

[TheWanderer]

Most posters remember when Lack in the AHL at the same time as Markstrom, at that stage most everyone that was not a canucks fan said Markstrom was better.

Fast forward till now and it is clear that Lack has kept his development moving in the right direction (not surprising since in the last few years the Canucks have been quite good at developing Goalies)... Markstrom has not moved forward.

However people hope that it is because in spite Markstrom having more raw talent (as shown by the more successful carrier, up to NHL level) He was not developed properly by the ****** club he came from. (As shown by the fact he did not even have a proper Goalie coach and or system). People also trust the instants of the Canucks goalie staff who, by all accounts rave about him...

Know one actually feels like anything in prospect development is a lock, and 90% of Canuck fans would love Erickson to out play Markstrom to the point he is considered good enough to play NHL in the next couple years.

What we do not want is for Lack to outplay Miller only to trade him for a pick at the draft and keep Miller around for his contract to run out... Hell even if we have to get a Vet to backup Lack because all the rest of our Goalies bust, that would be fine...

Just don't trade the younger better Goalie if it comes to that, and we all watched that happen before.

While there is truth to what you say here, consider this: Miller plays well, but Lack plays better. We are not in a playoff position this year, so Lack can't be liquidated for win-now assets, but his value is MUCH higher than Miller because of age and contract, and less so because of skill. Meanwhile, we have three goalies developing - only one of which we need to have succeed to become our starter when it is actually or time to compete (say in a few years, when some of our recent prospects have come into stride).

If we are confident in at least one of our goalie prospects, as well as confident that Miller will keep our heads out of the tank, do we not considering trading yet another one of our strong young netminders for a relatively high pick, this time in a better draft?

To clarify, both our goalies play well, and a minimum of one of our goalie prospects looks promising. If trading Lack is a chance to jump on a second 2015 1st Rounder (top 10), do you not take it?

 

[Bad Goalie]

Most posters remember when Lack in the AHL at the same time as Markstrom, at that stage most everyone that was not a canucks fan said Markstrom was better.

Fast forward till now and it is clear that Lack has kept his development moving in the right direction (not surprising since in the last few years the Canucks have been quite good at developing Goalies)... Markstrom has not moved forward.

However people hope that it is because in spite Markstrom having more raw talent (as shown by the more successful carrier, up to NHL level) He was not developed properly by the ****** club he came from. (As shown by the fact he did not even have a proper Goalie coach and or system). People also trust the instants of the Canucks goalie staff who, by all accounts rave about him...

Know one actually feels like anything in prospect development is a lock, and 90% of Canuck fans would love Erickson to out play Markstrom to the point he is considered good enough to play NHL in the next couple years.

What we do not want is for Lack to outplay Miller only to trade him for a pick at the draft and keep Miller around for his contract to run out... Hell even if we have to get a Vet to backup Lack because all the rest of our Goalies bust, that would be fine...

Just don't trade the younger better Goalie if it comes to that, and we all watched that happen before.

"Just don't trade the younger better Goalie if it comes to that, and we all watched that happen before."

That is excellent advice and herein lies the problem. Everyone seems to think they know who the better younger goalie is, but the "everyone" breaks into different factions.

The following are trends I've read in this and other Vancouver threads:

I've heard trade Markstrom for value when we can because we are set with Lack and we can always pick up a veteran backup in FA.

I've heard trade Lack after Rollie straightens out Marky. Then Miller can mentor him for two seasons and then he takes over as #1. The reason for this move? Lack will bring a better return.

I've heard get rid of Miller at the trade deadline, bring up the better of Maelstrom or Jokie as Lack's backup and use all of Miller's money for a #1 D or a true 2nd line center or a real sure fire scoring winger and get a high draft for Miller.

Everyone has the answer, but they disagree on what the answer is and most are ignoring what's already here, Eriksson.

Who is that young keeper that shouldn't be traded?

 

[Bad Goalie]

The bolded part of your statement is why cap hits still matter. You'd think that a team that went through the Luongo mess would know this. But then again, none of these guys were here for that I guess. Sigh.

And FTR, I don't know if anyone is suggesting we should have gone Lack/Markstrom, but Lack/Hiller would have been fine.

"Markstrom is worthless and I couldn't care less where he goes."

That's alright for you to think, but he just may scuttle the good work already having been done in Utica. If he goes down and disrupts the development of Eriksson and Cannata (who played quite well recently in Vancouver) while ending up not being what they wanted, it ends up that his going to Utica was not a good idea. All it did was find a way to get him out of Benning's NHL hair, but in the process may upset the apple cart of his team's future. I know Vancouverites are used to that kind of thing in their past, but the development program is now back on track and it doesn't seem like a good practice to screw it up when you don't have to.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

While there is truth to what you say here, consider this: Miller plays well, but Lack plays better. We are not in a playoff position this year, so Lack can't be liquidated for win-now assets, but his value is MUCH higher than Miller because of age and contract, and less so because of skill. Meanwhile, we have three goalies developing - only one of which we need to have succeed to become our starter when it is actually or time to compete (say in a few years, when some of our recent prospects have come into stride).

If we are confident in at least one of our goalie prospects, as well as confident that Miller will keep our heads out of the tank, do we not considering trading yet another one of our strong young netminders for a relatively high pick, this time in a better draft?

To clarify, both our goalies play well, and a minimum of one of our goalie prospects looks promising. If trading Lack is a chance to jump on a second 2015 1st Rounder (top 10), do you not take it?

You have quoted me so I will answer, but I invite other opinions

I don't know... But I do think we are in a bit of trouble if we don't make the playoffs, and I don't think Lack will get us a top 10