Miller vs. Lack

[CCF]

I think Halak would've been a great "tandem" option to go with Lack as well. But would it have been worth the 3rd or 4th round pick to outbid the Isles for his rights, and the additional term to go out and get him? And that's even assuming he would've chosen to sign in a place like Vancouver at all, with the intense scrutiny and a promising young goaltender who could once again steal his job?

Considering how we handled some of our draft picks this summer (via trades) - I think a 3rd for Halak would have been more than reasonable. That being said, you are correct in that who knows if this would have been a desirable location for Halak from his perspective. But assuming he would have signed here, I think that would have been the best goaltending move we could have made (unless we can call a mulligan on that Schneider deal....?)

 

[kurt]

I wonder if ownership pressured JB to get Miller?

Count on it.

 

[thepuckmonster]

If Lack proves to be a clear cut starter in a season or two, we trade Miller to whatever team. He cost nothing but money so any return is a win. It's not a complex concept.

 

[kurt]

I tend to agree.

Miller is a clearcut starter in the NHL (at least his previous body of work suggests as much). I don't believe his coming to Vancouver will benefit Lack, who at this point in his career needs to start to make that transition towards a starting goalie - by getting into games. That won't happen with Miller here. You have to think then that this season will no doubt have a negative impact on Lack's development.

I think the Canucks would have been wise to take a flyer on a guy who could split time with Lack in a 1a/1b sort of situation. The three you mentioned would have been strong candidates, however my preference would have been to go after Halak.

I actually think they should have given Markstrom a look, at least into camp. If it wasn't looking good, recent history suggests a replacement 1b/2 option could be obtained on the cheap/waivers, or even a very strong developing prospect for peanuts.

 

[biturbo19]

I wonder if ownership pressured JB to get Miller?

He's not Italian i don't think. So i doubt it.

I actually think they should have given Markstrom a look, at least into camp. If it wasn't looking good, recent history suggests a replacement 1b/2 option could be obtained on the cheap/waivers, or even a very strong developing prospect for peanuts.

Is that really the case though? There are a lot of goalies out there, and you can pick up cruddy ones on the cheap whenever you want, prospects aren't worth much of anything, etc. But good, quality goaltenders, even #1b types...they're not always the easiest thing in the world to come by. We've seen teams struggle for years to find even a good pair of tandem goaltenders. Every now and then a guy like Bernier or Bishop comes on the market and booms, but for every one of those guys, there are two or three "easy come, easy go" type bust goaltenders that teams run through.

Tampa, Philly, Edmonton, Toronto, Islanders, Columbus, Colorado, Calgary since Kipper, even Florida and Washington, i'm probably forgetting some, all floundered around for quite a while and cycled through a lot of different options that completely sunk some seasons for them before hitting on "the guy" who can give them consistently good goaltending. And some of them had to pay a not unsubstantial price to get "their guy". And teams like Winnipeg, well...if it's so easy to fix goaltending on the eve of the season, why haven't they got it done yet?

I think the influx of young goaltenders who seem to do okayish in short spurts at the NHL level has influenced the decline in "perceived value" of consistent, reliable, above average starting goaltending over the long-haul. Which is not necessarily all that fair.

Ask teams who have gone through dark periods of several years without quality reliable starting goaltenders how "easy" it is to fix, and how unimportant it is. It's sort of a "don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" thing. Canucks fans haven't had to endure that wasteland since Luongo arrived...the goaltending performance with Lack and Markstrom down the stretch last year should've served as a brief sample of how much that can suck. But somehow, a large number of people came away from that disaster thinking that it would be the "best scenario" moving forward?

 

[kurt]

He's not Italian i don't think. So i doubt it.



Is that really the case though? There are a lot of goalies out there, and you can pick up cruddy ones on the cheap whenever you want, prospects aren't worth much of anything, etc. But good, quality goaltenders, even #1b types...they're not always the easiest thing in the world to come by. We've seen teams struggle for years to find even a good pair of tandem goaltenders. Every now and then a guy like Bernier or Bishop comes on the market and booms, but for every one of those guys, there are two or three "easy come, easy go" type bust goaltenders that teams run through.

Tampa, Philly, Edmonton, Toronto, Islanders, Columbus, Colorado, Calgary since Kipper, even Florida and Washington, i'm probably forgetting some, all floundered around for quite a while and cycled through a lot of different options that completely sunk some seasons for them before hitting on "the guy" who can give them consistently good goaltending. And some of them had to pay a not unsubstantial price to get "their guy". And teams like Winnipeg, well...if it's so easy to fix goaltending on the eve of the season, why haven't they got it done yet?

I think the influx of young goaltenders who seem to do okayish in short spurts at the NHL level has influenced the decline in "perceived value" of consistent, reliable, above average starting goaltending over the long-haul. Which is not necessarily all that fair.

Ask teams who have gone through dark periods of several years without quality reliable starting goaltenders how "easy" it is to fix, and how unimportant it is. It's sort of a "don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" thing. Canucks fans haven't had to endure that wasteland since Luongo arrived...the goaltending performance with Lack and Markstrom down the stretch last year should've served as a brief sample of how much that can suck. But somehow, a large number of people came away from that disaster thinking that it would be the "best scenario" moving forward?

Best scenario for a quick rebuild cycle - yes. Finishing 12th-14th instead of 8th-10th in the conference would be better for this team in the long term, better for their lottery chances, better for Lack's development, prevents Markstrom from going to waste, and affords the Canucks an opportunity to take on a midseason salary dump & prospect/pick package.

Not all the goalies getting sold are cruddy. In recent history it has been more than just Bernier, Bishop. Schneider, Mason, Bobrovsky, Khudobin and Varlamov were recently moved. Lower tier guys like Scrivens, Fasth, Bryzgalov. Prospects like Berra, Markstrom, Hackett, Ramo, Montoya. I might be missing some guys. There are good goaltenders out there.

 

[biturbo19]

Best scenario for a quick rebuild cycle - yes. Finishing 12th-14th instead of 8th-10th in the conference would be better for this team in the long term, better for their lottery chances, better for Lack's development, prevents Markstrom from going to waste, and affords the Canucks an opportunity to take on a midseason salary dump & prospect/pick package.

Not all the goalies getting sold are cruddy. In recent history it has been more than just Bernier, Bishop. Schneider, Mason, Bobrovsky, Khudobin and Varlamov were recently moved. Lower tier guys like Scrivens, Fasth, Bryzgalov. Prospects like Berra, Markstrom, Hackett, Ramo, Montoya. I might be missing some guys. There are good goaltenders out there.

A lot of presumptions and speculation there. Though really, it just seems to come down to disliking the Miller signing because it hurts our chances of "tanking".

But since we're speculating...Who are the high quality "easy to acquire" goaltenders that we'd be able to target if/when we get to the end of training camp with a Lack/Markstrom tandem and our goaltending is a much of a disaster as it was with those two last year? Most of the "options" out there have already found landing spots at this point...and i'm not sure you want to be trying to find a #1b goaltender a few days before the regular season starts.

Guys like Schneider, Varlamov, these guys cost high 1st round (#9 and #11 respectively) picks. If that's "easy to acquire" in your estimation, i'm not sure what to say. But i wouldn't include them in that category at all.

Nor would i consider a bunch of those other guys a legitimate solution. Most of the teams that tried them as a part of the solution (teams searching for stable goaltending) moved on from those guys because it wasn't working for them. And/or they're just straight up backups that you'd put behind a workhorse starter, not in a true "tandem" situation with a young goaltender like Lack.

As for the Bishop example...Tampa is the perfect example of how it isn't exactly "easy" or reliable to just acquire starting goaltenders on a whim. They burned an entire season prior to hitting on him, trying to patch goaltending together with "easy to acquire" guys like Lindback who cost them plenty of picks and assets. That's the risk you take trying to do that...you might get a Bishop homerun, or you might get a Lindback flop. And it's not as though it's a cheap exercise from an "asset management" standpoint. They burned a couple 2nds and a 3rd on Lindback and got nothing back when they let him walk. And while Conacher hasn't really panned out since...at the time of the Bishop trade, he was a very exciting young rookie lighting it up on the scoresheet in Tampa (the heir apparent to St.Louis, etc.) with some pretty decent "value". Fortunately they had a vast collection of promising young assets and could afford to give up those sort of things...but is that something the Canucks would be better off doing, as opposed to getting a reliable starter for nothing but Aquaman's money? Blowing assets, 2nd round picks, promising young offensive scorers in the NHL, etc.?

 

[kurt]

A lot of presumptions and speculation there. Though really, it just seems to come down to disliking the Miller signing because it hurts our chances of "tanking".

But since we're speculating...Who are the high quality "easy to acquire" goaltenders that we'd be able to target if/when we get to the end of training camp with a Lack/Markstrom tandem and our goaltending is a much of a disaster as it was with those two last year? Most of the "options" out there have already found landing spots at this point...and i'm not sure you want to be trying to find a #1b goaltender a few days before the regular season starts.

Guys like Schneider, Varlamov, these guys cost high 1st round (#9 and #11 respectively) picks. If that's "easy to acquire" in your estimation, i'm not sure what to say. But i wouldn't include them in that category at all.

Nor would i consider a bunch of those other guys a legitimate solution. Most of the teams that tried them as a part of the solution (teams searching for stable goaltending) moved on from those guys because it wasn't working for them. And/or they're just straight up backups that you'd put behind a workhorse starter, not in a true "tandem" situation with a young goaltender like Lack.

As for the Bishop example...Tampa is the perfect example of how it isn't exactly "easy" or reliable to just acquire starting goaltenders on a whim. They burned an entire season prior to hitting on him, trying to patch goaltending together with "easy to acquire" guys like Lindback who cost them plenty of picks and assets. That's the risk you take trying to do that...you might get a Bishop homerun, or you might get a Lindback flop. And it's not as though it's a cheap exercise from an "asset management" standpoint. They burned a couple 2nds and a 3rd on Lindback and got nothing back when they let him walk. And while Conacher hasn't really panned out since...at the time of the Bishop trade, he was a very exciting young rookie lighting it up on the scoresheet in Tampa (the heir apparent to St.Louis, etc.) with some pretty decent "value". Fortunately they had a vast collection of promising young assets and could afford to give up those sort of things...but is that something the Canucks would be better off doing, as opposed to getting a reliable starter for nothing but Aquaman's money? Blowing assets, 2nd round picks, promising young offensive scorers in the NHL, etc.?

The bolded segment describes Ryan Miller perfectly - so I'm unsure of why you're outright panning some of the other mentioned names for the same reason. And most of those guys have shown they can play 30 games, if Markstrom proves to be unable to.

As for the price paid for a Schnieder/Varlamov... pretty reasonable if you ask me, especially if it brings a guy of that level with a contract like Schnieder's. Even moreso if it's in exchange for a middle-ish 2016 first rounder after a quick rebuild this year and a lottery pick.

And costing "nothing but Aquaman's money? It's not nothing. It's a depletion of cap space that could have been utilized in securing cap dumps along with other future-value prospects, or addressing other glaring roster needs up front. Cap space is a huge asset.

If Lack/Markstrom doesn't work out, it's possible Kuemper/Backstrom/Harding or Vasilevskiy could be acquired. Or a UFA/trade next season, after at least trying to let the guys take a step forward. The price paid for goalies may have never been lower.

 

[biturbo19]

The bolded segment describes Ryan Miller perfectly - so I'm unsure of why you're outright panning some of the other mentioned names for the same reason. And most of those guys have shown they can play 30 games, if Markstrom proves to be unable to.

How is Ryan Miller, a proven workhorse #1 goaltender in the National Hockey League, remotely the same as those options goaltending starved teams have moved on from, like Reto Berra who was part of one the absolute WORST goaltending tandems in the league last year with the Flames and whom they clearly felt the need to replace? Are you insinuating that Ryan Miller playing...less than stellar in St.Louis for a brief stint last year somehow invalidates the years of consistent goaltending he has provided in the NHL?

As for the price paid for a Schnieder/Varlamov... pretty reasonable if you ask me, especially if it brings a guy of that level with a contract like Schnieder's. Even moreso if it's in exchange for a middle-ish 2016 first rounder after a quick rebuild this year and a lottery pick.

Sure, maybe it's a reasonable price if you're getting a potentially elite goaltender like that. But are the Canucks really in a position to be dishing out potential lottery picks to fix the goaltending mess that Gillis left behind? For a re-tooling team like the Canucks...doesn't it make vastly more sense to keep our potential lottery picks, or wherever our 1st rounders end up and use those to build for the future...while hoping that the option we already have in Eddie Lack (or Markstrom or Demko) blossoms into a true starting goaltender? I want to keep our 1st round picks and start accumulating young talent, personally.

And costing "nothing but Aquaman's money? It's not nothing. It's a depletion of cap space that could have been utilized in securing cap dumps along with other future-value prospects, or addressing other glaring roster needs up front. Cap space is a huge asset.

We're not even tight to the salary cap with Millers "albatross contract" right now, and we'll probably have even more room the next couple years as cheap young ELCs make their way onto the roster. It's not some debilitating thing for where this team is at right now. And nobody is trading away great young assets to get rid of "cap dumps". As much as people here are enamoured with the idea, NHL GMs aren't willing to give away highly valuable young pieces to "undo" their contract mistakes. It just doesn't happen. Teams swap cap dumps, that's what happens with them, if anything. And reasonably speaking...it's not hard to understand why paying $6M for a starting goaltender is better than paying $6M for some trash that a team was desperate to get rid of.

If Lack/Markstrom doesn't work out, it's possible Kuemper/Backstrom/Harding or Vasilevskiy could be acquired. Or a UFA/trade next season, after at least trying to let the guys take a step forward. The price paid for goalies may have never been lower.

Why would Vasilevskiy be available right now? At least, for anything short of huge overpayment. Tampa are extremely high on the guy and are in absolutely no rush to move him. Would you give up a Horvat or Shinkaruk or a 1st round pick for Vasilevskiy, and would that be a great way to "rebuild"?

As for Backstrom/Harding...i suppose maybe Backstrom would be an option, if he's healthy and ready to play, which isn't any kind of a certainty. Nor is Harding a reliable goaltender (do to his unfortunate medical situation).

As for the whole idea though...under your theoretical approach, we still end up throwing Markstrom on waivers and potentially "losing him for nothing". If you really believe that he's sure to be claimed...is maybe 3 preseason games (at best) going to radically change who is or is not interested in picking him up on waivers? Or anywhere near enough to really know if he'll work out here or not in the first place?

Personally, i think people are still married to this idea that Markstrom must be this great and valuable piece because 1)he was highly touted once upon a time a few years ago, 2)he was traded for Luongo so he must be awesome. And realistically...i'd say there's a better than 50% chance that Markstrom clears waivers, in which case we get to have our cake and eat it to (a high end duo in the NHL and a young project with tools honing his craft in the minors). And if Markstrom doesn't clear waivers? Well, you said it yourself...you can nab fringe goalies (like Markstrom) at any local convenience store these days for some spare change. Hardly irreplaceable or some great and tragic loss.

 

[denkiteki]

If Lack proves to be a clear cut starter in a season or two, we trade Miller to whatever team. He cost nothing but money so any return is a win. It's not a complex concept.

Not that simple...

First based on the contract, the starter job will be Miller's to lose. If he loses it, it probably also means we'll lose out on a season or 2. Given how strong the West is, you'll expect a handful of bad games will be enough to kill any playoff chances we have. On top of that, of course we are a borderline playoff team (on paper anyways) so its not like we have a huge margin for error that lets us give away games.

Also you got to consider what value Miller will have if Lack wins the job. Lack will probably need to play lights out but again based on the contract, Miller will have to be worst than Lack for Lack to take his job. That makes Miller's value quite questionable. To a point where Miller's value might even become negative due to his contract. Its not short term but rather a 3 year contract so unless he gets moved in year 3 (where it really doesn't matter), odds are if we move Miller due to his performance, we'll need to keep parts of his salary to get any return. That's cap space that could be used elsewhere. Depending on how high the cap goes, this could be a big deal. Of course if we're rebuilding (which we aren't currently since the goal seems to be retooling), then the cap space probably becomes a non-issue.

There is also the possible problem of Lack not resigning after his contract. If Lack plays like a #1 goalie (say slightly better than Miller to make this another 1A1B), he becomes a UFA 1 year before Miller's contract is over. Lack has no reason to resign with us if he'll get #1 money elsewhere. We won't really be able to resign him and spend over 10 million in net anyways without moving Miller. Of course he probably doesn't want to share the net (1A/1B) either and hurt his possible future earnings.

Finally moving Miller isn't really that simple. I believe SNet reported (when Miller signed) that he has a NTC that excludes all but 5 teams. Given most good teams generally have a good goalie already, they probably don't want Miller (more so after what happened with STL as an example). Miller probably doesn't want to go to a bad team so moving him is probably going to be tough. Even moving Luongo was tough and the only reason there was a solution was probably due to the fact Luongo has a decent size fan base in Florida and he has family there so he wanted to go to a "bad" team.

 

[biturbo19]

Not that simple...

First based on the contract, the starter job will be Miller's to lose. If he loses it, it probably also means we'll lose out on a season or 2. Given how strong the West is, you'll expect a handful of bad games will be enough to kill any playoff chances we have. On top of that, of course we are a borderline playoff team (on paper anyways) so its not like we have a huge margin for error that lets us give away games.

Also you got to consider what value Miller will have if Lack wins the job. Lack will probably need to play lights out but again based on the contract, Miller will have to be worst than Lack for Lack to take his job. That makes Miller's value quite questionable. To a point where Miller's value might even become negative due to his contract. Its not short term but rather a 3 year contract so unless he gets moved in year 3 (where it really doesn't matter), odds are if we move Miller due to his performance, we'll need to keep parts of his salary to get any return. That's cap space that could be used elsewhere. Depending on how high the cap goes, this could be a big deal. Of course if we're rebuilding (which we aren't currently since the goal seems to be retooling), then the cap space probably becomes a non-issue.

There is also the possible problem of Lack not resigning after his contract. If Lack plays like a #1 goalie (say slightly better than Miller to make this another 1A1B), he becomes a UFA 1 year before Miller's contract is over. Lack has no reason to resign with us if he'll get #1 money elsewhere. We won't really be able to resign him and spend over 10 million in net anyways without moving Miller. Of course he probably doesn't want to share the net (1A/1B) either and hurt his possible future earnings.

Finally moving Miller isn't really that simple. I believe SNet reported (when Miller signed) that he has a NTC that excludes all but 5 teams. Given most good teams generally have a good goalie already, they probably don't want Miller (more so after what happened with STL as an example). Miller probably doesn't want to go to a bad team so moving him is probably going to be tough. Even moving Luongo was tough and the only reason there was a solution was probably due to the fact Luongo has a decent size fan base in Florida and he has family there so he wanted to go to a "bad" team.

I think what you're mostly describing there, is "Miller losing the #1 job" as opposed to "Lack winning the #1 job". An important distinction. If Miller straight up sucks and "loses" the starting job by underperforming, then we may have a problem. But Miller's track record as a quality starting goaltender year after year with occasional flashes of brilliance, really doesn't seem to indicate that is particularly likely.

More likely...If Lack pulls a Schneider (and if he's going to become a high end starter, that's a threshold you'd like to see achieved), that doesn't mean Miller has to have completely bombed out to lose the job to Lack.

If we really want to play "look into the crystal ball of hypotheticals"...

If Ryan Miller continues to hum along at say...his average from last season (including the St Louis fiasco) of ~.918SV%, that's good enough to help give us one of the better duos in the league if Eddie Lack is this "destined for greatness" high end starting goaltender of the future an posts something like the outstanding high .920 or .930 range that a stud goaltender like Schneider did, when stealing the job from a very comparable Luongo who is on a very similar level to Miller. And if that happens year 1 with a 50-30 sort of split...year 2, maybe you start to see a shift there and it nudges closer to a 40-40 split "tandem". And maybe Miller will not abide this young Stork taking his starts away and throws a Luongo style tantrum and demands to be traded. So then year 3, you trade him...and because we got him for "nothing" as a UFA, anything we get out of the deal is a bonus. And so you re-sign Lack to a big deal and crown him the "uncontested starter for the Vancouver Canucks" and voila, problem solved!

As for trading Miller a couple years down the line...we're not talking about a Luongo situation here, with a hundred and fifty years remaining on his contract and recapture penalties looming and a willingness to go to only 1 place. We're talking about a starting goaltender with 1 year left on his contract...slightly more used than the version which literally just fetched (alongside a 3rd grinder), a 1st round pick, an enigmatic young power forward, a kind of decent prospect, and a replacement impending UFA goaltender for cap purposes. If Miller can get back to playing the way he has for his entire career outside of that brief St.Louis stint and rehabilitate his reputation here...it really shouldn't be too massively difficult to find someone two years from now who is willing to take him for one year as a stopgap starter...and we might even be able to get a spare part or something out of the deal.

 

[hockeywoot]

Not a chance in hell lack get's traded. If anyone it would be Markstrom, or they'll risk putting him through waivers. From what Benning has said, he wants a highly capable backup that is going to give the team a chance to win games. Markstrom isn't that.

Not sure why some people here question Lack's potential as a starter. He straight up outplayed Luongo and took the job from him, and forced MG to trade Lu, and even after playing during the ridiculous stretch of playing 19 games in a row, he still played decently well. To me, it should've been Lack and Markstrom as our tandem, and just go with it regardless. It's a win-win. Either they would've done well, in which case we have two good goalies again, and could trade one of them for a good return, or they bomb and we have a guaranteed top 5 pick in the draft.

This Miller situation can only turn out poorly for us. If he does play well we still might not even make the playoffs. Even if we did make the playoffs, Miller would have to dominate ala "the dominator" for us to have a chance of the Cup; improbable. If he does poor, then Lack will take over and likely do a good job like he did last year, and then we have $6mil stuck in Miller for the next 3 years.

Agreed. I'd be amazed if Lack was traded (barring a package for a superstar player)

Lack has starter potential. He's not quite ready for the starter's work load though.

I disagree on the Miller acquisition. Its a good hedge until Lack is ready. He'll keep the seat warm, until Eddie is fully capable of handling the 1 spot.

 

[Barney Gumble]

I disagree on the Miller acquisition. Its a good hedge until Lack is ready. He'll keep the seat warm, until Eddie is fully capable of handling the 1 spot.

That assumes he wishes to stick around opening and closing the door at bench after two years (which he'll largely be doing given how many games Miller will start each season).

 

[DCantheDDad]

That assumes he wishes to stick around opening and closing the door at bench after two years (which he'll largely be doing given how many games Miller will start each season).

You're making an assumption here and stating it as fact. We dont know how many games he will start in any given year, especially if Lack is playing lights out hockey. I see this really being a non-issue.

 

[opendoor]

I think what you're mostly describing there, is "Miller losing the #1 job" as opposed to "Lack winning the #1 job". An important distinction. If Miller straight up sucks and "loses" the starting job by underperforming, then we may have a problem. But Miller's track record as a quality starting goaltender year after year with occasional flashes of brilliance, really doesn't seem to indicate that is particularly likely.

More likely...If Lack pulls a Schneider (and if he's going to become a high end starter, that's a threshold you'd like to see achieved), that doesn't mean Miller has to have completely bombed out to lose the job to Lack.

If we really want to play "look into the crystal ball of hypotheticals"...

If Ryan Miller continues to hum along at say...his average from last season (including the St Louis fiasco) of ~.918SV%, that's good enough to help give us one of the better duos in the league if Eddie Lack is this "destined for greatness" high end starting goaltender of the future an posts something like the outstanding high .920 or .930 range that a stud goaltender like Schneider did, when stealing the job from a very comparable Luongo who is on a very similar level to Miller. And if that happens year 1 with a 50-30 sort of split...year 2, maybe you start to see a shift there and it nudges closer to a 40-40 split "tandem". And maybe Miller will not abide this young Stork taking his starts away and throws a Luongo style tantrum and demands to be traded. So then year 3, you trade him...and because we got him for "nothing" as a UFA, anything we get out of the deal is a bonus. And so you re-sign Lack to a big deal and crown him the "uncontested starter for the Vancouver Canucks" and voila, problem solved!

As for trading Miller a couple years down the line...we're not talking about a Luongo situation here, with a hundred and fifty years remaining on his contract and recapture penalties looming and a willingness to go to only 1 place. We're talking about a starting goaltender with 1 year left on his contract...slightly more used than the version which literally just fetched (alongside a 3rd grinder), a 1st round pick, an enigmatic young power forward, a kind of decent prospect, and a replacement impending UFA goaltender for cap purposes. If Miller can get back to playing the way he has for his entire career outside of that brief St.Louis stint and rehabilitate his reputation here...it really shouldn't be too massively difficult to find someone two years from now who is willing to take him for one year as a stopgap starter...and we might even be able to get a spare part or something out of the deal.

If Miller puts up a .918 sv% he's not going to lose the starting job no matter what Lack does. People are deluding themselves if they think there's going to be some open competition for the starter's job. It wasn't true with Luongo and Schneider and it's not going to be true with Miller and Lack. The only way Lack is getting the net is if Miller completely bombs out or Lack makes it impossible to not start him like Schneider did, and that took him putting up the #1 save percentage in the league over multiple seasons and a trade request from Luongo before that happened. Neither of those is likely to happen which is why people are skeptical of the Miller signing given the Canucks' current situation of entering a rebuild. Miller didn't sign on to be part of a tandem.

 

[Barney Gumble]

You're making an assumption here and stating it as fact. We dont know how many games he will start in any given year, especially if Lack is playing lights out hockey. I see this really being a non-issue.

Whether you like Miller or not - he's a goalie that has a track record of playing alot of games each season. You don't pay a guy $6 million a year to be in a platoon system. IMHO, Miller will have to play poor for him to lose his job (and I doubt that'll happen & I'm not even a fan of his - again, just look at Miller's past history) - regardless of how well Lack plays.

 

[Scurr]

If Miller puts up a .918 sv% he's not going to lose the starting job no matter what Lack does. People are deluding themselves if they think there's going to be some open competition for the starter's job. It wasn't true with Luongo and Schneider and it's not going to be true with Miller and Lack. The only way Lack is getting the net is if Miller completely bombs out or Lack makes it impossible to not start him like Schneider did, and that took him putting up the #1 save percentage in the league over multiple seasons and a trade request from Luongo before that happened. Neither of those is likely to happen which is why people are skeptical of the Miller signing given the Canucks' current situation of entering a rebuild. Miller didn't sign on to be part of a tandem.

You're right, he won't lose his job. If Lack plays well though, he'll get the advantage of only playing when he's rested, not injured and playing well. Lack gets the same advantage. I'm really surprised that more people can't get into this sort of tandem.... it worked really ****ing well for us for 3 seasons.

 

[NuxFan09]

If Miller puts up a .918 sv% he's not going to lose the starting job no matter what Lack does. People are deluding themselves if they think there's going to be some open competition for the starter's job. It wasn't true with Luongo and Schneider and it's not going to be true with Miller and Lack. The only way Lack is getting the net is if Miller completely bombs out or Lack makes it impossible to not start him like Schneider did, and that took him putting up the #1 save percentage in the league over multiple seasons and a trade request from Luongo before that happened. Neither of those is likely to happen which is why people are skeptical of the Miller signing given the Canucks' current situation of entering a rebuild. Miller didn't sign on to be part of a tandem.

Agreed with this. I also have a feeling that Benning, being completely aware of the goalie mess during his predecessor's regime, is going to put his foot down when it comes to the goalies, as in Miller will be the guy no matter how Lack plays. That's really the stance you have to take, otherwise any team with a good, young backup goalie would have the possibility of a goalie controversy on their hands.

I hope we just commit to Miller for the next 3 years no matter what happens. Obviously the only way this changes is if Miller completely stinks it up bad enough, but I don't see that happening.

 

[canucksfan]

If Lack proves to be a clear cut starter in a season or two, we trade Miller to whatever team. He cost nothing but money so any return is a win. It's not a complex concept.

If Miller doesn't play well it would be hard to trade him.

He's getting older and is a 6 mill a hit. There isn't a large market for aging goalies on a cap hit.

 

[MS]

If Lack proves to be a clear cut starter in a season or two, we trade Miller to whatever team. He cost nothing but money so any return is a win. It's not a complex concept.

Miller is the 2nd-oldest starting goalie in the NHL, making a huge cap hit, and completely shat the bed when acquired by a contending team at the deadline last year. He's nearly untradeable NOW.

If he plays poorly (or even mediocre) and loses the #1 spot, he's a completely untradeable white elephant that is going absolutely nowhere.

If Miller puts up a .918 sv% he's not going to lose the starting job no matter what Lack does. People are deluding themselves if they think there's going to be some open competition for the starter's job. It wasn't true with Luongo and Schneider and it's not going to be true with Miller and Lack. The only way Lack is getting the net is if Miller completely bombs out or Lack makes it impossible to not start him like Schneider did, and that took him putting up the #1 save percentage in the league over multiple seasons and a trade request from Luongo before that happened. Neither of those is likely to happen which is why people are skeptical of the Miller signing given the Canucks' current situation of entering a rebuild. Miller didn't sign on to be part of a tandem.

Pretty much.

It'll be Miller playing 60+ games regardless of performance, and then Lack leaving as a UFA in 2 years if not traded for pennies on the dollar earlier.

And I suspect it'll be a mess.

 

[arsmaster*]

If Lack proves to be a clear cut starter in a season or two, we trade Miller to whatever team. He cost nothing but money so any return is a win. It's not a complex concept.

It's pretty complex. We'll likely have to pay to move a $6m backup is lie who is 36/37 years old.

We had to add on top of garrison to get a 2nd round pick.

 

[Scurr]

It'll be Miller playing 60+ games regardless of performance, and then Lack leaving as a UFA in 2 years if not traded for pennies on the dollar earlier.

This was what was suppose to happen with Schneider. It didn't.

 

[arsmaster*]

You're right, he won't lose his job. If Lack plays well though, he'll get the advantage of only playing when he's rested, not injured and playing well. Lack gets the same advantage. I'm really surprised that more people can't get into this sort of tandem.... it worked really ****ing well for us for 3 seasons.

With a 30 year starter and a 26 year old backup. Not a 34 year old starter and a 26 year old back up.

Since when is miller a .918 guy. I see .915 and regressing.

 

[Scurr]

With a 30 year starter and a 26 year old backup. Not a 34 year old starter and a 26 year old back up.

Since when is miller a .918 guy. I see .915 and regressing.

That's what he posted last season between the two teams.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

With a 30 year starter and a 26 year old backup. Not a 34 year old starter and a 26 year old back up.

Since when is miller a .918 guy. I see .915 and regressing.

As I said earlier, the HF poll on top goaltenders had Miller at 13th. And that is after a pretty poor stint in his short time in St Louis. People are selling him short in terms of what he brings to the table.