Miller vs. Lack

[DCantheDDad]

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.

He has a track record with other teams, not with Vancouver. I am sure he will play as the starter this year. Next year, if Eddie is playing up to it, then they platoon. Third year, heck, staple Miller to the bench if we have to. Who cares how many starts Miller had with other teams or in the past? It has no bearing on the present or the future.

 

[NuxFan09]

I enjoy bitturbo's posts. Provides some balance on a lot of these issues which are not as clear cut as some think.
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.

I think so too. I mean, I'm not all gung ho about Miller, I just seem him for what he is: a good, veteran starting goalie who can probably be a bit better than Luongo was last year, and at worst be a lateral move, which is still good. I don't really see why people expect the worst with Miller of all people. I could see if we signed Nabokov or Thomas, or went with someone unproven like Thomas Greiss or Chad Johnson, but Miller? Come on guys. Are we really that jaded in Canuckland that we have negative feelings about a quality player like Ryan Miller? Do we have to bring in Quick, Rask, Lundqvist, Price or Rinne to feel good about our goaltending?

 

[IntangiBo]

He has a track record with other teams, not with Vancouver. I am sure he will play as the starter this year. Next year, if Eddie is playing up to it, then they platoon. Third year, heck, staple Miller to the bench if we have to. Who cares how many starts Miller had with other teams or in the past? It has no bearing on the present or the future.

The Lack fantasy is unstoppable.

 

[DCantheDDad]

The Lack fantasy is unstoppable.

I never said Lack will take the starters role, I am walking through the "what if Eddie Lack does develop into Cory Schnieder" situation with regards to Miller.

 

[JuniorNelson]

The issue isn't really Miller. It's the thinking behind Miller. It seems wrongheaded to try to force this core into the playoffs. Why? They are not a playoff team, even if they do make it. Adding band-aid pieces to a rotted roster will not make it into a contender.

The Canucks added old men to an old roster and now wonder why everybody isn't on board. Why add Vrbata when you have Burrows? Why add Miller when you have Lack?

Miller is at best, an upgrade on Lack. Does Miller mitigate the 2014 defense? Offset the production of an older top six? It's a lot of money spent fixing something that was already okay. The other stuff, left unfixed, will be little aided by good goaltending. It will make it pointless.

 

[Scurr]

If Miller winds up with a his likely .915-.920 save percentage... it isn't that impressive on its own. If that's followed up by Lack with a .920+ save percentage... it likely means a top 5-10 team save percentage. That's pretty impressive.

 

[MS]

I think so too. I mean, I'm not all gung ho about Miller, I just seem him for what he is: a good, veteran starting goalie who can probably be a bit better than Luongo was last year, and at worst be a lateral move, which is still good. I don't really see why people expect the worst with Miller of all people. I could see if we signed Nabokov or Thomas, or went with someone unproven like Thomas Greiss or Chad Johnson, but Miller? Come on guys. Are we really that jaded in Canuckland that we have negative feelings about a quality player like Ryan Miller? Do we have to bring in Quick, Rask, Lundqvist, Price or Rinne to feel good about our goaltending?

Over the last 10-15 years, goalies of Miller's quality have *consistently* fallen off a cliff at age 34-35. There has been virtually nobody to produce average goaltending in 50+ starts at 35+.

Miller is 34. His numbers have straightlined from age 30-34 as an average NHL goalie, but the odds that continues through to age 37 are small. He's going to drop off, like everyone else. And when he does, he'll very quickly be a below-average starter. This isn't Lundqvist or Luongo at age 35.

The issue isn't really Miller. It's the thinking behind Miller. It seems wrongheaded to try to force this core into the playoffs. Why? They are not a playoff team, even if they do make it. Adding band-aid pieces to a rotted roster will not make it into a contender.

The Canucks added old men to an old roster and now wonder why everybody isn't on board. Why add Vrbata when you have Burrows? Why add Miller when you have Lack?

Miller is at best, an upgrade on Lack. Does Miller mitigate the 2014 defense? Offset the production of an older top six? It's a lot of money spent fixing something that was already okay. The other stuff, left unfixed, will be little aided by good goaltending. It will make it pointless.

Vrbata makes sense because he filled a need that wasn't coming from within the organization.

Miller, yeah, just makes no sense. Goaltending should have been the most obvious position imaginable moving forward - Lack was excellent last year, his age range fits our retool perfectly and he's super cheap. And he's trending upward.

So instead of having a cheap, young improving average goalie who fits our timeframe moving forward ... we have an old, expensive, declining average goalie who doesn't. And we'll surely lose Lack for nothing. And then we'll have to re-tool in net yet again in a couple years.

 

[kurt]

I think #13 is a pretty reasonable spot to slot Miller, considering guys like Fleury & Niemi were still on the board. I don't think he was undervalued and I expect Canucks fans were voting in those polls. I think it's blurry and subjective ranking guys in specific ranks, but I think it's fair and accurate to say he belongs in the 10-15 range based on his recent play. Could he play better/worse this year? Sure - but the same goes for everybody.

I still feel the acquisition hurts Lack's development, wastes Markstrom, leaves bigger needs (offense) unresolved, forefits some opportunity to take on cap dumps packaged with futures, and will negatively affect the team's lottery chances this season.

I think the signing helps bandage eroding fan confidence, season ticket sales, and having a better chance at competing for 9th in the West this year.

 

[Barney Gumble]

I never said Lack will take the starters role, I am walking through the "what if Eddie Lack does develop into Cory Schnieder" situation with regards to Miller.

Think that was just something special that might not ever be duplicated (eg., those two had great chemistry; Luongo didn't have a problem sharing the Jenning's trophy with Schneider by not standing in the way of the later getting the minimum number of starts to qualify for that trophy)

it worked really ****ing well for us for 3 seasons.

Too bad Gillis bungled the situation by trading away both goalies in the end.

 

[Scurr]

Too bad Gillis bungled the situation by trading away both goalies in the end.

Ya. Cory Schneider would still be the closest thing we had to a Sedin replacement as a franchise player imo. I know people like Horvat but I haven't heard anyone say that about him.

 

[God]

I think so too. I mean, I'm not all gung ho about Miller, I just seem him for what he is: a good, veteran starting goalie who can probably be a bit better than Luongo was last year, and at worst be a lateral move, which is still good. I don't really see why people expect the worst with Miller of all people. I could see if we signed Nabokov or Thomas, or went with someone unproven like Thomas Greiss or Chad Johnson, but Miller? Come on guys. Are we really that jaded in Canuckland that we have negative feelings about a quality player like Ryan Miller? Do we have to bring in Quick, Rask, Lundqvist, Price or Rinne to feel good about our goaltending?

Ryan Miller has been a good player for the majority of his career.

The problem is that history says we will be paying 6 million per year over three years for league average goaltending at best, and we are also paying to stunt the development of the two young goalies we have (Lack, Markstrom).

Sure, Benning might be smarter than he seems on camera, but it looks like he's exactly what he seems: dumb.

 

[me2]

Think that was just something special that might not ever be duplicated (eg., those two had great chemistry; Luongo didn't have a problem sharing the Jenning's trophy with Schneider by not standing in the way of the later getting the minimum number of starts to qualify for that trophy)


Too bad Gillis bungled the situation by trading away both goalies in the end.

We got Miller instead so it is just as good.

 

[Fat Tony]

We got Miller instead so it is just as good.

Serious?

 

[kurt]

We got Miller instead so it is just as good.

Haha

 

[thekernel]

Miller is gravy. If Desjardins' style is as up and down as I've heard it will be, Miller's workhorse style should result in a very good year for him.

 

[DCantheDDad]

Think that was just something special that might not ever be duplicated (eg., those two had great chemistry; Luongo didn't have a problem sharing the Jenning's trophy with Schneider by not standing in the way of the later getting the minimum number of starts to qualify for that trophy)


Too bad Gillis bungled the situation by trading away both goalies in the end.

The difference is that Miller is only signed for three years and Lack will not be in a position to even think about taking over the starting job for awhile yet. Anyways, I think we are just on opposite pages here.

 

[biturbo19]

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.

Why can Lack not be expected to do roughly what Schneider did to "take" the job over time? If Lack is as solid a goaltender as people here seem to believe, he should certainly be able to put up better numbers than Miller as a backup coming in fresh every night and likely getting a lot of the softer starts as well. And if Lack does post better numbers than Miller, it seems entirely reasonable that he would start to siphon starts away from Miller over the course of that contract (especially if as people are so convinced of, Miller begins to decline as he ages)...and when you get to Year 3, you decide if Lack is fully ready to take over as the starter or not and deal with it accordingly. Even if you have to retain salary for that last year of Miller's deal...we'll be at a point where we should have a bunch of ELCs in the lineup and with the cap going up, it would be a one year thing to deal with, unlikely Luongo. In the meantime, you've got two good goaltenders pushing each other which, i don't understand how that is in any way shape or form, "worse" than having an inferior goaltender. Better players are better. More better players is good.

He has a track record with other teams, not with Vancouver. I am sure he will play as the starter this year. Next year, if Eddie is playing up to it, then they platoon. Third year, heck, staple Miller to the bench if we have to. Who cares how many starts Miller had with other teams or in the past? It has no bearing on the present or the future.

Exactly. Over time, if Lack starts to outplay Miller...i don't see any reason he won't be able to slowly take starts away. And at that point, you either move Miller, or you just deal with having an expensive backup for ONE year.

If Miller winds up with a his likely .915-.920 save percentage... it isn't that impressive on its own. If that's followed up by Lack with a .920+ save percentage... it likely means a top 5-10 team save percentage. That's pretty impressive.

Yeah. That's the factor that the anti-Miller crowd don't seem to grasp. It's about making sure this team can expect average or above average goaltending every night. It's about the consistency of good goaltending and giving them a chance to win every night. And about the average team SV% being potentially among the best in the league. It's what covered up a lot of this team's problems for a number of years prior to last year when that great goaltending wasn't there...especially when it came down to a Lack+Markstrom tandem that people wanted to go forward with.

 

[Bad Goalie]

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?



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.



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.



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.

Let's look at this Markstrom thing realistically. Florida wanted Luongo because they have been searching for a true #1 for years. They have had flash type tenders good for short spans but nothing to rely on. Markstrom was supposed to be that guy.

He posted a cumulative Save % of .896 over 5 years of periodic NHL starts (47) and that includes his .868 in 4 starts for Vancouver last season. He posted a .874 the season the Panthers tried to give him the chance at #1. The guy has never posted impressive numbers or looked solid.

He was only traded back to Vancouver for Luongo because the Canucks were without 2 experienced NHL goalies, not because he was considered an equitable or even substantive replacement. He served the purpose for the moment, except Torts believed either through practice or Florida inside knowledge that Markstrom couldn't do the job and thus worked Lack into mush.

He very well might go through waivers. Then he could be sent down.

Here we go again Vancouver. Eriksson played extremely well down Utica's playoff stretch run from January to season's end (best record in the AHL from late January to the last regular season game). Markstrom and he are the same age (24) and familiar with each other from Sweden. Eriksson was MVP quality in the Swedish Elite League and played for team Sweden before coming to North America and has a good upside. His agent says he will return to the SEL if Markstrom is assigned to Utica. This is childish I admit, but if he truly has a greater upside than Markstrom Vancouver would lose out.

More goalie controversy to go along with the past fiasco, Lacks' implosion, now Miller enters the picture and many fear he will stall out Lack's ascension to #1, Markstrom makes 3 NHL goalies and that won't work, and finally it descends to the AHL where one guy won't play with the other. This is most easily solved by sending the guy with the most proven record of poor success out of the picture. That let's Lack understudy a little longer, then become #1 and Eriksson moves into backup role with the chance to overtake lack if he's good enough just like any two young goalie situation. All the BS is solved with one move.

 

[biturbo19]

Vrbata makes sense because he filled a need that wasn't coming from within the organization.

Miller, yeah, just makes no sense. Goaltending should have been the most obvious position imaginable moving forward - Lack was excellent last year, his age range fits our retool perfectly and he's super cheap. And he's trending upward.

So instead of having a cheap, young improving average goalie who fits our timeframe moving forward ... we have an old, expensive, declining average goalie who doesn't. And we'll surely lose Lack for nothing. And then we'll have to re-tool in net yet again in a couple years.

Who else were we going to spend that $6M on this summer to help fix our scoring? We're still not even at the cap anyway and we already signed one top-6 forward. Most of the improvement in scoring is going to have to come from our own guys rebounding (namely the Sedins, Burrows and if the Twins aren't top-line producers anymore then from a cap standpoint we're sunk no matter what other vets we added). And from within, from young players taking the next step, taking on bigger roles with the team. That's how you re-tool. And with the one acquisition up front, our forward group is already extremely crowded...lacking surefire high end scorers, sure...but we weren't signing any of those types anyway. There was...Vanek and Stastny, that's basically it. And neither was coming here no matter what we threw at them. They chose places over contracts. Adding another 2nd/3rd line tweener or an aging scorer in steep decline with serious flaws to their game would really only serve to crowd things even further and block the young guys up front (far more so than Lack is "blocked" by Miller).

People are mad that there isn't enough of a "rebuild" going on, but when push comes to shove...they just aren't willing to roll the dice on young players up front. Only in net do they want to go with the "young guys" in a tandem that clearly proved itself to be hot garbage last year.

 

[biturbo19]

Let's look at this Markstrom thing realistically. Florida wanted Luongo because they have been searching for a true #1 for years. They have had flash type tenders good for short spans but nothing to rely on. Markstrom was supposed to be that guy.

He posted a cumulative Save % of .896 over 5 years of periodic NHL starts (47) and that includes his .868 in 4 starts for Vancouver last season. He posted a .874 the season the Panthers tried to give him the chance at #1. The guy has never posted impressive numbers or looked solid.

He was only traded back to Vancouver for Luongo because the Canucks were without 2 experienced NHL goalies, not because he was considered an equitable or even substantive replacement. He served the purpose for the moment, except Torts believed either through practice or Florida inside knowledge that Markstrom couldn't do the job and thus worked Lack into mush.

He very well might go through waivers. Then he could be sent down.

Here we go again Vancouver. Eriksson played extremely well down Utica's playoff stretch run from January to season's end (best record in the AHL from late January to the last regular season game). Markstrom and he are the same age (24) and familiar with each other from Sweden. Eriksson was MVP quality in the Swedish Elite League and played for team Sweden before coming to North America and has a good upside. His agent says he will return to the SEL if Markstrom is assigned to Utica. This is childish I admit, but if he truly has a greater upside than Markstrom Vancouver would lose out.

More goalie controversy to go along with the past fiasco, Lacks' implosion, now Miller enters the picture and many fear he will stall out Lack's ascension to #1, Markstrom makes 3 NHL goalies and that won't work, and finally it descends to the AHL where one guy won't play with the other. This is most easily solved by sending the guy with the most proven record of poor success out of the picture. That let's Lack understudy a little longer, then become #1 and Eriksson moves into backup role with the chance to overtake lack if he's good enough just like any two young goalie situation. All the BS is solved with one move.

That's the thing about Markstrom. He's been given chances, and he's dropped the ball. Repeatedly. That's not to say he's completely done for and will never amount to anything...but he's not a guy you can rely on as an NHL goaltender right now, and i think other teams are going to recognize this as well. Right now, he's riding on draft pedigree and past hype, and this intangible "potential".

His development has been handled fairly poorly, but he hasn't really held up his end of the bargain either. That said, if he stands any chance of getting back on the rails, it's going to be in the AHL as a regular starter...working on his consistency and the mental aspects of the game that he struggles with more than anything else. If that costs us Eriksson, then it costs us Eriksson...he was probably on his way back to Sweden regardless, the moment we signed Miller (locking our NHL goaltending in for at least the next 2-3 years). If he's going to throw a hissy fit about having to compete for his job, then he probably doesn't really fit what we're looking for anyway. I've never really seen NHL starter upside there to begin with, and losing a backup goaltender prospect isn't the end of the world imo.

People are all up in arms about how we signed Miller for no good reason when good goaltending is allegedly so easy and cheap to come by around the league at large. Yet somehow our collection of young unproven and in some cases downright struggling goaltending prospects are irreplaceable and worth their weight in gold and should be the envy of everyone else who surely covets them immensely and will try to steal them all away. It's strange to me.

 

[me2]

Serious?

What's not to like. He's got a Vezina, he's more experienced, more proven, he costs no more, short contract and he's comes with a free Bo Horvat. Win win win win win. Schneider might be better in the long run but this team will be starting 4-5 year tank Edmonton/Calgary style in a couple of years, so what use the younger goalie.

 

[thepoeticgoblin]

Let's look at this Markstrom thing realistically. Florida wanted Luongo because they have been searching for a true #1 for years. They have had flash type tenders good for short spans but nothing to rely on. Markstrom was supposed to be that guy.

He posted a cumulative Save % of .896 over 5 years of periodic NHL starts (47) and that includes his .868 in 4 starts for Vancouver last season. He posted a .874 the season the Panthers tried to give him the chance at #1. The guy has never posted impressive numbers or looked solid.

He was only traded back to Vancouver for Luongo because the Canucks were without 2 experienced NHL goalies, not because he was considered an equitable or even substantive replacement. He served the purpose for the moment, except Torts believed either through practice or Florida inside knowledge that Markstrom couldn't do the job and thus worked Lack into mush.

He very well might go through waivers. Then he could be sent down.

Here we go again Vancouver. Eriksson played extremely well down Utica's playoff stretch run from January to season's end (best record in the AHL from late January to the last regular season game). Markstrom and he are the same age (24) and familiar with each other from Sweden. Eriksson was MVP quality in the Swedish Elite League and played for team Sweden before coming to North America and has a good upside. His agent says he will return to the SEL if Markstrom is assigned to Utica. This is childish I admit, but if he truly has a greater upside than Markstrom Vancouver would lose out.

More goalie controversy to go along with the past fiasco, Lacks' implosion, now Miller enters the picture and many fear he will stall out Lack's ascension to #1, Markstrom makes 3 NHL goalies and that won't work, and finally it descends to the AHL where one guy won't play with the other. This is most easily solved by sending the guy with the most proven record of poor success out of the picture. That let's Lack understudy a little longer, then become #1 and Eriksson moves into backup role with the chance to overtake lack if he's good enough just like any two young goalie situation. All the BS is solved with one move.

Speaking as someone who has followed Marky and Eriksson since they burst on to the scene, you need not worry. Marky has excelled at every level except NHL -where let's face it, he has had *some* forgiving conditions playing in a sucky FLA- and let's not forget he was OK during the shortened season. He also boast a handful "lights out performances" in the big league. Albeit, that does not a NHL-Starter make it does show that there is still potential there. Before last season Markstrom was still considered a top, top prospect. A poor start to the season at FLA and all of the sudden he's a dead on bust. Fans as a whole -with more than a little help from the press- give up way too easy on players.

He was also better statistically than Jocke in the AHL last year and has consistently performed better. Eriksson is not the one you should worry about losing. When he was "MVP-quality" in SHL he was playing for the best and dominant Swedish TEAM since the 90's at least and was not their *it-factor* by far. Just last year they won the league again and their new goalie posted amazing stats.

TLDR; Markstrom has a higher ceiling than Joachim Eriksson.

 

[biturbo19]

Speaking as someone who has followed Marky and Eriksson since they burst on to the scene, you need not worry. Marky has excelled at every level except NHL -where let's face it, he has had *some* forgiving conditions playing in a sucky FLA- and let's not forget he was OK during the shortened season. He also boast a handful "lights out performances" in the big league. Albeit, that does not a NHL-Starter make it does show that there is still potential there. Before last season Markstrom was still considered a top, top prospect. A poor start to the season at FLA and all of the sudden he's a dead on bust. Fans as a whole -with more than a little help from the press- give up way too easy on players.

He was also better statistically than Jocke in the AHL last year and has consistently performed better. Eriksson is not the one you should worry about losing. When he was "MVP-quality" in SHL he was playing for the best and dominant Swedish TEAM since the 90's at least and was not their *it-factor* by far. Just last year they won the league again and their new goalie posted amazing stats.

TLDR; Markstrom has a higher ceiling than Joachim Eriksson.

Agreed.

As much as i may dump on Markstrom for being completely unready for the NHL right now, and how terrible an idea it would have been to roll with him in a "tandem" with another unproven goaltender like Lack...Markstrom is still a young goaltender with upside.

He's flashed far more "potential" than Eriksson. With Markstrom, it's a lack of consistency, focus, mental toughness that are the big hurdles. But he still has the "potential" to be a very good NHL goaltender if he can sort his headspace out and continue to refine his technique. It's a project, and one that needs to take place in the AHL. But it's a worthwhile project if you can get him regular starts there.

Whereas Eriksson just doesn't flash those same elite abilities. He's a potentially decent NHL backup netminder if his development continues along nicely...that's great, but if it came down to keeping Eriksson or Markstrom, i choose Markstrom easily.

 

[Fat Tony]

What's not to like. He's got a Vezina, he's more experienced, more proven, he costs no more, short contract and he's comes with a free Bo Horvat. Win win win win win. Schneider might be better in the long run but this team will be starting 4-5 year tank Edmonton/Calgary style in a couple of years, so what use the younger goalie.

I'm convinced. It's just as good as Luongo/Schneider.

 

[me2]

I'm convinced. It's just as good as Luongo/Schneider.

Excellent. So that's you, me and Benning, we just need to convince a few more haters to come over and join us three.