The Canucks Goaltending Thread Pt. I: Contracts, NTCs and Bears, oh my!

[thepuckmonster]

I made this thread for all goaltending discussion as individual player threads have been becoming all purpose goalie talk threads anyhow. Let's keep the Lack and Miller threads about each respective player and take the conversations that involve who to keep moving forward, contracts, etc here. Thanks you kindly!

Click to read more...

 

[DL44]

I'm looking forward to the battle between the pipes next season...

on the ice, only.

Here, on the other hand, it will be a mess of a debate.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Stupid bears.

Even when it was the imigants I knew it was the bears.
------------------

Prepare to say good-bye to Lack this summer. It's not what I want, but I'm pretty damn sure thats how its going to play out.

If Winnipeg fails to make the playoffs I can see them being very interested in Lack.

 

[Nuckles]

I honestly expect Lack to be the odd man out considering all the bad moves our new GM has done in a short period of time.

I still shake my head at how Benning gift wrapped an aging goalie a contract with money, term, and an almost full NTC when we had another guy who looked to be ready for the job soon.

 

[PG Canuck]

Trading Lack will turn this fanbase against Benning.

Lack traded in the summer.

 

[Lundface*]

I honestly expect Lack to be the odd man out considering all the bad moves our new GM has done in a short period of time.

I still shake my head at how Benning gift wrapped an aging goalie a contract with money, term, and an almost full NTC when we had another guy who looked to be ready for the job soon.

Something I haven't thought of until now...

Does Benning know what a NTC should do in contract talks? How the hell did Miller get 6 million a season AND a NTC???? What the hell would he have paid Miller without it?

 

[Nuckles]

Something I haven't thought of until now...

Does Benning know what a NTC should do in contract talks? How the hell did Miller get 6 million a season AND a NTC???? What the hell would he have paid Miller without it?

Honestly it wouldn't be that big of a deal if it was only 2 years instead of 3 (since it would end when Lack's bargain contract ends), but the fact that it exists for another year after that could be the entire reason we lose a young possible stud goalie for a "meh" return (2nd) or for nothing (if he walks at free agency).

 

[thepoeticgoblin]

The safe bet is still that Marky is dealt at the draft/walks in the summer. However, Läck is by far the more valuable asset atm. Personally I'd go swedish for 2015/16 (IF Marky shows his pedigree somewhat in his upcoming starts). Miller is pretty much untradable IMHO.

 

[Lundface*]

Honestly it wouldn't be that big of a deal if it was only 2 years instead of 3 (since it would end when Lack's bargain contract ends), but the fact that it exists for another year after that could be the entire reason we lose a young possible stud goalie for a "meh" return (2nd) or for nothing (if he walks at free agency).

2 years at 5 million per with no NTC would have been ok. Miller isn't a 5 million dollar goalie, not even close, but the term I agree is the killer here. Awful knowledge of the current lineup shown by Benning.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

The safe bet is still that Marky is dealt at the draft/walks in the summer. However, Läck is by far the more valuable asset atm. Personally I'd go swedish for 2015/16 (IF Marky shows his pedigree somewhat in his upcoming starts). Miller is pretty much untradable IMHO.

I can't see Benning making a major change in direction based on such a small sample size though; no matter how good Markstrom is for the one or two starts he'll get down the stretch.

 

[thepoeticgoblin]

I can't see Benning making a major change in direction based on such a small sample size though; no matter how good Markstrom is for the one or two starts he'll get down the stretch.

I fully realize that - it's just what I would do as I'm very keen of both swedes. The emphasis here being on that I wouldn't make that call if I was Benning but if I bossed the Canucks you guys would be in trouble

On a more serious note, if Marky proves to the organization that he can transform his AHL/SHL All Star level of play to the big league - that probably means Benning would at least listen to offers for Eddie due to his #1 play and pending UFA status. However, as I stated, I'd be surprised if Markström isn't the odd one out. Regardless of how highly Rollie rates him.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

If Benning trades Lack over Miller I no longer am a fan of him whatsoever...:

 

[NuxFan09]

Excellent thread, tpm! Prepare to do up Part II tomorrow.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Excellent thread, tpm! Prepare to do up Part II tomorrow.

Tomorrow? You're optimistic. I was thinking 5pm today.

 

[Caspian]

I honestly expect Lack to be the odd man out considering all the bad moves our new GM has done in a short period of time.

I still shake my head at how Benning gift wrapped an aging goalie a contract with money, term, and an almost full NTC when we had another guy who looked to be ready for the job soon.

He even gave Miller a juicy 1M signing bonus on top of what you listed. Hysterical

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Benning was completely ignorant of Eddie Lack's ability. Its unfortunate that armchair GMs here had better a better evaluation than an NHL executive.

Miller at two years and less salary would have been acceptable.

And no, not signing Miller doesn't mean we'd have to use Markstrom/Eriksson as our back-up. There were other options at the time such as Jonas Hiller to play stopgap.

 

[thepuckmonster]

He even gave Miller a juicy 1M signing bonus on top of what you listed. Hysterical

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Benning was completely ignorant of Eddie Lack's ability. Its unfortunate that armchair GMs here had better a better evaluation than an NHL executive.

Miller at two years and less salary would have been acceptable.

And no, not signing Miller doesn't mean we'd have to use Markstrom/Eriksson as our back-up. There were other options at the time such as Jonas Hiller to play stopgap.

Signing bonuses are included in cap hits, it's not free money. Signing bonuses are the only way to circumvent the new front loading rules so that they can give players more money up front.

 

[Caspian]

Signing bonuses are included in cap hits, it's not free money.

It's money up front.
Time value of money concept.

Definitely something that an agent tries to negotiate for.

 

[DCantheDDad]

The biggest issue I have is that Markstrom is faaaaar from a proven asset at the NHL leve. In fact, he has shown himself to be a negative asset in his limited amount of starts. I do not want to hang the Canucks goaltending future on an aging Miller and a wild-card in Markstrom. I am dead set against trading Lack. In my opinion, you get rid of Miller for whatever you can get.

 

[carolinacanuck]

let's imagine lack starts the playoffs, plays a few games and gets injured.

it's miller time!

or visa versa, kinda like what's happened the last few weeks.

canucks fans complaining that we have two good goaltenders.



gold, jerry...gold!

 

[thepuckmonster]

It's money up front.
Time value of money concept.

Definitely something that an agent tries to negotiate for.

Okay? It also means his salary is lower than his cap hit in other years.

Most rich teams use signing bonuses to have an advantage over internal cap or less wealthy teams.

 

[Jyrki]

I honestly expect Lack to be the odd man out considering all the bad moves our new GM has done in a short period of time.

I still shake my head at how Benning gift wrapped an aging goalie a contract with money, term, and an almost full NTC when we had another guy who looked to be ready for the job soon.

Honestly, I think some teams were prepared to do a lot worse. The whole season taken into account, Miller did pretty well in 2013-14 and he had played in front of a BAD Sabres squad over the last few years while posting pretty good individual numbers. $6M/3 years with a limited NTC seemed like his market value, but it's likely he could've gotten a longer term somewhere else.

I don't think the deal would be of any issue if he could be shipped off at will.

 

[Barney Gumble]

but it's likely he could've gotten a longer term somewhere else.

On the west coast? Not a chance.

 

[Jyrki]

On the west coast? Not a chance.

I don't find it unlikely the Sharks or the Flames tried working something out. Besides, a team outside of the West Coast (Wild? Leafs?) could've fielded a better offer to overcome the "wife factor", causing GMJB to do something like adding the limited NTC

 

[iceburg]

Excellent thread.

I think there are two primary questions:

!. Which is most likely of the three scenarios?
A. Trade one of the goalies in the summer
B. lose Markstrom for nothing
C. Come out of camp next year with three goalies


Could be a poll question....

IMO
C is very unlikely.
B will be determined if/when Markstrom gets 3 or 4 NHL games (I think he succeeds)
A is most likely.

Then, question 2. If one will be traded, which one?
A. Miller: best move but hardest to trade
B. Lack: Highest value in return, highest risk for future
C. Markstrom: Lowest value in return, risk for future unknown

 

[Caspian]

Okay? It also means his salary is lower than his cap hit in other years.

Most rich teams use signing bonuses to have an advantage over internal cap or less wealthy teams.

I can't think of a team with an internal cap that was seeking Miller's services. Phoenix, NYI, Florida, Ottawa, Nashville, and Columbus all had money already committed to goaltending.

He's owed a 1M bonus every July 1st. It adds another restriction to your ability to move him. A team with an internal cap is not going to take him until after July 1st. A team that isn't concerned about $ amount is going to balk at the 6M caphit that remains.

5M salary is heavy for a declining goaltender.

And to buy him out before July 2016 is still gonna cost you the entire 6M cap hit (2/3 x 6M = 2M/2years).

Nonetheless it was just another perk Benning tossed in Miller's favour.