Player Discussion Replacing Jacob Markstrom

[y2kcanucks]

I'm sure there are lots of fanbases that would love to have our 'rebuilt ' young core....Your quotes are aging poorly..as usual.

You avoided the question. Try again?

Does said core also come with moronic GM and franchise crippling contracts to shitty players too?

 

[vanuck]

You can't be serious. Lack/Markstrom tandem at the time clearly would have been a disaster.

From 2013-14 to 2014-15 Lack put up a .917 SVP % which would've tied for 17th among all goalies who played at least 40 games over that span. So right around league average, not anywhere near the disaster you're making it out to be.

(Even if it had been a disaster, that would have been perfect for the rebuild that should've occurred anyway)

 

[F A N]

Where I though the team was at the time, I expected a disaster. Throw a noodle at the wall and see what would stick kind of situation. Wanted a traditional rebuild then and would settle for a (major) tweaking now. Also, in all honesty, they have been a worth team since then, where does that rank on the disaster scale?

But if Gillis wasn't fired, the Canucks weren't going to go through a traditional rebuild then. What I said then is that any team looking to make the playoffs would be crazy to have Lack and Markstrom as the goalie tandem.

I'm a big believer in having good goaltending. I think a rebuilding team should have good goaltending. It allows you to better evaluate the team as a whole. If you look at the teams that have successfully rebuilt, they all have good goaltending.

 

[F A N]

From 2013-14 to 2014-15 Lack put up a .917 SVP % which would've tied for 17th among all goalies who played at least 40 games over that span. So right around league average, not anywhere near the disaster you're making it out to be.

(Even if it had been a disaster, that would have been perfect for the rebuild that should've occurred anyway)

Eddie Lack was an unproven starter. Markstrom was an unproven NHL backup. It's a disaster if you're looking to make the playoffs with that goalie tandem.

 

[vanuck]

Eddie Lack was an unproven starter. Markstrom was an unproven NHL backup. It's a disaster if you're looking to make the playoffs with that goalie tandem.

And therein lay the problem...

For any reasonable GM who was looking to retool or rebuild, Lack was someone you could reasonably assume to play upwards of 50 games. You had a goalie who was young, a fan favourite and didn't cost a whole lot. He'd already played 41 games that year so it was not much of a stretch at all to project that for him. He'd already shown enough to be given a chance as the starter.

But if you wanted to make the playoffs you can get by with league average goaltending as long as the team in front of you is good enough. The days of a Brodeur/Luongo-type 1A playing 65 games a year are over.

 

[Bleach Clean]

From 2013-14 to 2014-15 Lack put up a .917 SVP % which would've tied for 17th among all goalies who played at least 40 games over that span. So right around league average, not anywhere near the disaster you're making it out to be.

(Even if it had been a disaster, that would have been perfect for the rebuild that should've occurred anyway)

Probably alarmist to conclude that Lack/Markstrom would have been a disaster without the evidence to suggest it. Lack's overall numbers and his 41 game sample was enough to roll the dice a second time. The GM in 2014-15 just needed to ensure that the team was better in front of him.

It seemed to me at the time that Gillis was perfectly comfortable with running Lack/Markstrom in 2014-15.

We cannot count Lack's 2014-15 performance as evidence to his projection heading into that season, as the determination had to be made prior to this evidence sample, but it does ultimately lend credence to what Gillis was planning to do. Lack only had 4 less games played to Miller and finished with a better GAA and SV% that year. That does suggest that Gillis' read on the goalie situation was the correct one.

 

[Jyrki21]

We cannot count Lack's 2014-15 performance as evidence to his projection heading into that season, as the determination had to be made prior to this evidence sample, but it does ultimately lend credence to what Gillis was planning to do. Lack only had 4 less games played to Miller and finished with a better GAA and SV% that year. That does suggest that Gillis' read on the goalie situation was the correct one.

Plus a cheap veteran backup would have been fine as an alternative if they didn't think Markström was ready. For all the bellyaching over the need for a high-paid starter like Miller, what exactly did the Canucks gain from paying him for three years? The only playoff appearance was thanks to Läck; after that, Miller didn't exactly save them from being a bottom-feeder.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

5M AAV X 3 years max. If you can’t resign him at that, have to let him walk and look at other options.

 

[sting101]

Plus a cheap veteran backup would have been fine as an alternative if they didn't think Markström was ready. For all the bellyaching over the need for a high-paid starter like Miller, what exactly did the Canucks gain from paying him for three years? The only playoff appearance was thanks to Läck; after that, Miller didn't exactly save them from being a bottom-feeder.

its called internal competition, experience and track record.

Lack held the fort after Miller set the table.....without Miller we likely had no playoffs in 2015. Lack wasn't a good goalie and the years post Canucks showed that

I dont get the disconetent. I wasn't a big fan of the signing but i can at least understand the logic behind it. The who cares about xx because we sucked argument is a lazy one. Likely Aquilini wanted someone after Luongo got blown out of town by the Gillis regime. Benning had familiarity and was brought in to compete so he wasn't going to ride 2 inexperienced goalies?

Sedin Sedin Burrows Higgins Bieksa Hamhuis Edler Bonino/Sutter Richardson Tanev were the key kogs on that roster why should he have looked at worse goalies.

 

[sting101]

i think he gets 3x5.
wish they could extend for a year though.
Losing Demko is gonna suck

 

[strattonius]

Blows my mind the idea of letting Markstrom walk to let Demko take the reigns at this point. Markstrom is very clearly the better goalie - and let's not forget that goalies play well and their prime a lot later than a forward does. So the argument we would be signing a 30 year old doesnt matter much to me. I'd rather take another 4 years of good and competent goaltending than roll the dice with Demko. And that's exactly what it is - rolling the dice. Dont kid yourself, Demko is not a sure thing and offloading Markstrom to give Demko 55 starts a year could be a disaster.

The best move going forward is to get Markstrom at 4 year 20Million range.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Sign Markstrom. Then wait until next year to decide who to keep and who to trade.
Right now I’d lean towards keeping Markstrom but a lot can happen with Demko in another year.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Unfortunate about Demko because if he was healthy, IMO you deal Markstrom if someone is willing to trade a 1st for him.

As of right now though, too many question marks around Demko to explore that avenue.

 

[Horse McHindu]

You can't be serious. Lack/Markstrom tandem at the time clearly would have been a disaster.

That’s what a lot of fans don’t understand. Rebuilding is as much about accumulating picks and prospects as it is about protecting, insulating, and developing the youth in front of you. A failure to do so is akin to filling a leaking bucket with water.

There is a lot more to rebuilding than mindless draft pick accumulation.

Signing Ryan Miller was absolutely essential to this organization in the summer of 2015. Keeping him beyond that was also essential. Our reward for not pushing Markstrom too quickly (i.e. throwing him to the wolves), is that Markstrom developed into an elite goalie.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Unless Demko becomes a clear cut star between now and when we need to make a decision, keeping Markstrom is the obvious choice.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Unless Demko becomes a clear cut star between now and when we need to make a decision, keeping Markstrom is the obvious choice.

I’d wait a year. No rush to do the trade now unless we get a solid offer. If not, extend Markstrom 3-4 years and see how Demko does. Markstrom signed will be worth more anyway if we decide to go that route and trade him!

 

[DFAC]

Keep Marky, Demko isn't ready for full time starter duties

 

[Horse McHindu]

You avoided the question. Try again?

Does said core also come with moronic GM and franchise crippling contracts to ****ty players too?

1) I would argue that these contracts are only "franchise crippling" if it prevents us from successfully re-signing our core players (Boeser, Markstrom, Pettersson, Hughes, or any other young player on our team that promises to be an integral part of our core).

2) If you want to talk about "franchise crippling contracts," see Maple Leafs Toronto. Unlike what will likely be the case in Vancouver, the Leafs' contracts and cap structure serve as hindrances AFTER their core had been signed, post ELC's. Their core players didn't accept cap friendly bridge deals because Dubas paid a premium to Tavares beforehand.

The Canucks on the other hand, already have two extremely cap friendly deals to Miller and Boeser. They'll likely get a bridge of some kind from Hughes as well. Contracts such as Pearson, Schaller, and Sutter will all come off the books by the time we need to re-up Petey and Hughes. Baertschi, Beagle, Roussel, and Ferland will be off the books by the time we need to re-sign guys like Horvat, Boeser, and future RFA's such as Podkolzin and Hoglander.

Our only contract hindrance right now, is Eriksson, but that will likely be addressed as well.

 

[4Twenty]

4 million for 3 years is more realistic.

He is not going to get 7m and I doubt he demands it either.

A $250k raise on a contract he signed as a 33 start backup?

 

[4Twenty]

You can't be serious. Lack/Markstrom tandem at the time clearly would have been a disaster.

They finished 3rd and 2nd worst when it was Miller and Markstrom. And only made the playoffs in 2015 based on Eddie Lack.

imagine thinking the ability to fall one and 2 spots a disaster. It was a disaster anyways.

 

[4Twenty]

But if Gillis wasn't fired, the Canucks weren't going to go through a traditional rebuild then. What I said then is that any team looking to make the playoffs would be crazy to have Lack and Markstrom as the goalie tandem.

I'm a big believer in having good goaltending. I think a rebuilding team should have good goaltending. It allows you to better evaluate the team as a whole. If you look at the teams that have successfully rebuilt, they all have good goaltending.

How do you say this with a straight face knowing the Miller in net led Canucks finished 28th and 29th of 30 teams the following 2 seasons?

 

[bandwagonesque]

How do you say this with a straight face knowing the Miller in net led Canucks finished 28th and 29th of 30 teams the following 2 seasons?

This doesn't contradict anything he said.

 

[4Twenty]

This doesn't contradict anything he said.

Did you see the other quote? Or are you just here to nibble at the fringes?


Guy said it would’ve been a disaster to go with Lack and Markstrom. Would you not consider where they finished a disaster?


I mean maybe we don’t get Pettersson so that would’ve been a disaster. Sure.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Did you see the other quote? Or are you just here to nibble at the fringes?


Guy said it would’ve been a disaster to go with Lack and Markstrom. Would you not consider where they finished a disaster?


I mean maybe we don’t get Pettersson so that would’ve been a disaster. Sure.

No, I read the entire thing. In context, it's clear his message is that while the team wanted to make the playoffs, and that this motivated their decision to sign Miller, it would also have been a disaster in terms of player development and evaluation to continue with poor goaltending regardless of where the team actually finished or whether the goal of making the playoffs was likely to be realized. I don't think you actually failed to understand this when you read it.

 

[4Twenty]

No, I read the entire thing. In context, it's clear his message is that while the team wanted to make the playoffs, and that this motivated their decision to sign Miller, it would also have been a disaster in terms of player development and evaluation to continue with poor goaltending regardless of where the team actually finished or whether the goal of making the playoffs was likely to be realized. I don't think you actually failed to understand this when you read it.

Continue? Eddie Lack .930’d them into the post season.