Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CAR] Canucks acquire 2015 3rd (66TH OA), 2016 7th for G Eddie Lack

[BobbyJazzLegs]

yeah he bleeds a bit of value. we'll get it back one day like the Islanders just did

 

[Verviticus]

That was a completely false narrative drummed up to help Vancouver fans get hyped about hiring Benning.

Benning is no better at evaluating talent than he is at asset management, contract negotiations, trades and cap management.

yeah I think bennings only strength other than being a nice guy is insane work ethic

 

[Buffalo In A Carwash]

I'm going to miss Lack. This trade was really depressing.

 

[Jack Tripper]

well that was an interesting 40 page read after being away all weekend...

what an absolute dumpster fire of a front office...really don't care in the big picture whether we got a 2nd or 3rd for lack because competent management wouldn't have ever put themselves into a corner where they had to get rid of lack in the first place

the spin from linden that this move was about 'getting younger'...the cognitive dissonance is absolutely off the scale, and i have no doubt that there will be no lessons learnt within the organization about how tough it is to 'recoup picks' in this league when you're gifting them away on every ahl waiver-eligible prospect you happen to like in a particular week

as fans we're in the awesome position of just having to wait out the current regime until a true rebuild can begin, because if we're not trading the sedins/vrbata/burrows/hamhuis, then there's a few more years of being a playoff bubble team in a parity league while bleeding assets and acquiring bad contracts one year at a time

canucks are dying a death through 1000 cuts at this rate with the contracts getting handed out, the picks being given away for waiver fodder, and the veterans/starters being sold for pennies on the dollar to recoup those picks

 

[thecupismine]

Waited a whole day to post as I didn't want to let my emotions cloud rational thought. However, I'm still really upset with the return.

Hypothetically, even if this was the greatest return that Lack could get, Jim Benning had to evaluate Lack's intrinsic value to the team versus his market value. He also has to weigh that against the context of the organizational strategy and the direction he wants the team to go during his tenure. Finally, he needs to weigh all of this against ownership constraints to determine if his strategy is feasible given his most important stakeholder's preferences.

So, how does one go about valuing Lack's intrinsic value to the team? I'm not going to go into depth on this, but one way you could do it is to see how many more goals the team would've allowed without him last season. You could also check to see how many fewer goals the team would allow this with him as a backup or starter next season given his prior year's results and the results of the goalie's who he'd be replacing (Miller as a starter, Markstrom as a backup). I think Pitseleh slightly covered it in this thread, but losing Lack probably costs you about 5-15 goals which is about 1-4 wins over the course of the season.

The above assumes prior year results can be correlated with future year results. In reality, the correlation isn't perfect. However, if you follow the school of thought that Miller is in decline and that Lack is entering his prime, the results might be even more drastic. It also doesn't take into account that Jacob Markstrom *could* replace Lack's production and step into a starter's role, but this is fairly uncertain given his prior year results and struggle in adapting to the NHL game thus far.

What about organizational strategy? Independent of this deal, management has stressed the need to get younger while staying competitive over the next few years. This is where things get really bizarre for me. He's a better goalie than the alternatives (as a backup or as a starter as shown above), is the age management is looking for, and keeping him would net you more wins in the coming seasons. If the team wanted to tank, then trading Lack for whatever you can get makes sense. That isn't the case though, which makes the team's strategy incoherent. I understand that Markstrom is younger than Lack and the assets received for Lack are also young, but the difference in age between the goalies is marginal while the competitiveness of the team lost is significant.

To be fair to Benning, he's constrained in that he likely can't buyout Miller or trade him this season. I don't think that would be the case next year with only year on his contract (especially if they retain salary), which is important if you're concerned about not being able to sign Lack after this year. It appears though that Benning thinks that Miller is a better goalie, and wants to role with him as a starter going forward based on all his comments. Based on any analysis in the goalie community, this is absurd and the fatal flaw in Benning's logic. Miller is a worse goalie AND doesn't fit the stated organizational strategy as well as Lack does. This isn't even accounting for his salary, which represents a huge opportunity cost relative to Lack's deal and is preventing the team from improving in other areas.

Finally, even if we assume Lack was to be the backup next season, I still don't think this deal makes sense. I'd much rather have Lack than Markstrom and a third given the team's desire to compete. Lack provides high quality goaltending, takes away difficult starts from Miller, and provides a solid insurance policy against an aging goaltender. There is flight risk for next season, but the increase in competitiveness this year and the potential that he could take over if Miller completely messes up more than makes up for that given the team's strategy moving forward.

If Benning wants the Canucks to get younger and completely rebuild, then this deal makes more sense. However, that's completely incoherent with his other moves thus far. Benning would have to start shipping out veterans like Hamhuis and Vrbata before I believed that this was his intention, and there hasn't been any signs that this is the case. Overall, I hate the deal more because of the logic that went behind it than the actual result. If the Canucks had gotten a 1st round pick back I could see an argument that the value of the youth provided in the deal is greater than the increase in competitiveness that Lack provides in the coming year, but at the moment I can't see how one believes that Lack's intrinsic value to the team is less than what he got on the open market.

 

[biturbo19]

Waited a whole day to post as I didn't want to let my emotions cloud rational thought. However, I'm still really upset with the return.

Hypothetically, even if this was the greatest return that Lack could get, Jim Benning had to evaluate Lack's intrinsic value to the team versus his market value. He also has to weigh that against the context of the organizational strategy and the direction he wants the team to go during his tenure. Finally, he needs to weigh all of this against ownership constraints to determine if his strategy is feasible given his most important stakeholder's preferences.

So, how does one go about valuing Lack's intrinsic value to the team? I'm not going to go into depth on this, but one way you could do it is to see how many more goals the team would've allowed without him last season. You could also check to see how many fewer goals the team would allow this with him as a backup or starter next season given his prior year's results and the results of the goalie's who he'd be replacing (Miller as a starter, Markstrom as a backup). I think Pitseleh slightly covered it in this thread, but losing Lack probably costs you about 5-15 goals which is about 1-4 wins over the course of the season.

The above assumes prior year results can be correlated with future year results. In reality, the correlation isn't perfect. However, if you follow the school of thought that Miller is in decline and that Lack is entering his prime, the results might be even more drastic. It also doesn't take into account that Jacob Markstrom *could* replace Lack's production and step into a starter's role, but this is fairly uncertain given his prior year results and struggle in adapting to the NHL game thus far.

What about organizational strategy? Independent of this deal, management has stressed the need to get younger while staying competitive over the next few years. This is where things get really bizarre for me. He's a better goalie than the alternatives (as a backup or as a starter as shown above), is the age management is looking for, and keeping him would net you more wins in the coming seasons. If the team wanted to tank, then trading Lack for whatever you can get makes sense. That isn't the case though, which makes the team's strategy incoherent. I understand that Markstrom is younger than Lack and the assets received for Lack are also young, but the difference in age between the goalies is marginal while the competitiveness of the team lost is significant.

To be fair to Benning, he's constrained in that he likely can't buyout Miller or trade him this season. I don't think that would be the case next year with only year on his contract (especially if they retain salary), which is important if you're concerned about not being able to sign Lack after this year. It appears though that Benning thinks that Miller is a better goalie, and wants to role with him as a starter going forward based on all his comments. Based on any analysis in the goalie community, this is absurd and the fatal flaw in Benning's logic. Miller is a worse goalie AND doesn't fit the stated organizational strategy as well as Lack does. This isn't even accounting for his salary, which represents a huge opportunity cost relative to Lack's deal and is preventing the team from improving in other areas.

Finally, even if we assume Lack was to be the backup next season, I still don't think this deal makes sense. I'd much rather have Lack than Markstrom and a third given the team's desire to compete. Lack provides high quality goaltending, takes away difficult starts from Miller, and provides a solid insurance policy against an aging goaltender. There is flight risk for next season, but the increase in competitiveness this year and the potential that he could take over if Miller completely messes up more than makes up for that given the team's strategy moving forward.

If Benning wants the Canucks to get younger and completely rebuild, then this deal makes more sense. However, that's completely incoherent with his other moves thus far. Benning would have to start shipping out veterans like Hamhuis and Vrbata before I believed that this was his intention, and there hasn't been any signs that this is the case. Overall, I hate the deal more because of the logic that went behind it than the actual result. If the Canucks had gotten a 1st round pick back I could see an argument that the value of the youth provided in the deal is greater than the increase in competitiveness that Lack provides in the coming year, but at the moment I can't see how one believes that Lack's intrinsic value to the team is less than what he got on the open market.

Good post.

This aligns with a lot of my thoughts on the whole thing. Ultimately, if that was "all the market would give" on Eddie Lack, quite simply...you keep him. His potential value to the team next year as a proven, high end backup who can at the very least - spot start down the stretch, is worth something to a team that intends to "compete now". And it doesn't feel like that contribution was really weighed into the value equation here.


That said, i have some issues with the way the bolded seems to be fairly liberally applied here. The issue with equating "x amount more goals over the year = x amount fewer wins" is that it matters so much, when exactly those extra goals against happen to come.

For example:

Lack comes in, plays a rock solid game in the "tougher half" of a back to back where the team lays an egg ---> loses 2-1 in a game that shouldn't have even been close.

Markstrom cones in to that same hypothetical game, gets completely lit up as is apt to happen to him from time to time ---> lose 8-1 in a blowout.

In the end, it still goes down as a loss either way. You can add tons of goals against like that, without changing the W-L result on the season. Not that it's guaranteed to end up that way either, but it's entirely possible.

And with the way this coaching staff managed their goaltending situation last season, i'd say it's even bordering on quite plausible that it may end up that way.

That is, i think a lot of people here are still applying their own ideas of how to manage a goaltending situation to the future here...rather than the type of approach i think we should probably expect from WillieD and Co., based on last seasons behaviour.

Last season, (to a soundtrack of much griping by the Lack fans)...Miller was typically given the more "winnable" games. I don't think that's about giving Miller the "easy starts", so much as a deliberate concerted effort to "take the gimme points" basically. Throw most of your weight into winning the games you should win. Those "2nd of back to backs, flying into Los Angeles for a matinee" or whatever it may be...those are kind of "throwaways" tossed to the backup. If the backup "steals" a game - bonus! But beware, the team is probably going to mail it in. WillieD's "backup" basically has the expectations of "try to hit .500 W%" (which is all Eddie really mustered last year in that role).

It's basically a "path of least resistance" to the playoffs type philosophy. When it comes to making the playoffs, it doesn't matter where you get your wins...just that you get them. To quote Dominic Toretto, "it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile".

Which is where those "blowout losses" or "close losses" don't really tally up all too differently at the end of the year. And where i think the staff are probably looking at the fact that Lack was something like 6-7-2 before Miller went down with injury last year, and figuring maybe Markstrom can replace that.

People here immediately scoff at the idea of "wins" as a goaltender stat, but there is still some application for it. And while it is a "team stat", at the end of the day, there is still a goaltending component to it, and it is still the one stat that matters most.

Fundamentally, i can grasp what they seem to be going for here, and honestly i don't disagree with it in principle. The place where it kinda falls apart for me though, is simply when it comes down to Markstrom's mental toughness to handle that sort of burden. I don't know how he'll hold up to the possibility of posting a "losing record" behind an overall "winning team". How he'll respond to those games where the team in front of him completely mails it in. Those are games where the backup's biggest job, rather comically boils down to, "just don't get pulled" - those must be a full night off for the starter (Miller), both physically AND mentally. That's where i'm not convinced Markstrom can hold up his end of the bargain. But i guess we'll find out.

And on the flip side of that coin, maybe the idea of coming in as a backup knowing that a lot of those starts are kind of "throwaway" games is exactly what Markstrom needs to not feel overwhelming pressure to perform where he's had a history of getting inside his own head. Maybe coming in with the realistic baseline of expectations set at something like, "just don't get yanked" is a situation where he can finally get over that mental hurdle of playing in the NHL. I'm skeptical still, but who knows.

 

[Wilch]

4 wins could be the difference between the playoffs and picking in the top 10.

 

[me2]

What happens if Markstrom starts a tough games and struggles, Willie gets flighty and rides Miller hard the for next 6 weeks, Miller falls apart under load again. What does Benning do? IMHO he has to confront that his coach needs a proven backup and he will have to move a 2nd/3rd in a trade for a more proven backup.

 

[dave babych returns]

Bitturbo do you think there is any value over a season in your backup helping the guys in front of him save face with 2-1 losses rather than a bunch of blowouts?

 

[Freakshow]

Disappointing they couldn't get a 2nd for Lack, but if that's the market, that's the market. I'm not a huge Lack fan, he was ok to me, but just ok, nothing more. The love and fan homerism with this guy truly baffles me to no end? I'm happy to turn the page and have a proven goaltender in Miller to mentor Markstrom. Who I believe is more talented with raw skills than Lack, plus he's two years younger.

If I look at the "big picture", I see a team that's old and on the decline. Over the next three to five years the fan-base is going to need some intestinal fortitude to stomach the rough waters ahead. In the long run it'll be good for the franchise, because in my opinion, you can't be good without being bad at some point.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Then we tank and you all get your wish. So whats the problem?

Except we are not going to tank, which has been the fundamental problem. Management is still attempting to deploy a contender, and making decisions with that mindset. We kept Miller because Benning believes he's a better goalie today. Even if he does struggle, the Sedins and co. make it impossible for us to bottom out. We're in a position to finish 9-11, with a slim hope of crawling into 8th.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

well that was an interesting 40 page read after being away all weekend...

what an absolute dumpster fire of a front office...really don't care in the big picture whether we got a 2nd or 3rd for lack because competent management wouldn't have ever put themselves into a corner where they had to get rid of lack in the first place

the spin from linden that this move was about 'getting younger'...the cognitive dissonance is absolutely off the scale, and i have no doubt that there will be no lessons learnt within the organization about how tough it is to 'recoup picks' in this league when you're gifting them away on every ahl waiver-eligible prospect you happen to like in a particular week

as fans we're in the awesome position of just having to wait out the current regime until a true rebuild can begin, because if we're not trading the sedins/vrbata/burrows/hamhuis, then there's a few more years of being a playoff bubble team in a parity league while bleeding assets and acquiring bad contracts one year at a time

canucks are dying a death through 1000 cuts at this rate with the contracts getting handed out, the picks being given away for waiver fodder, and the veterans/starters being sold for pennies on the dollar to recoup those picks

So much cognitive dissonance.

So much talky talky.

I dislike Linden.

And this is someone who wore #16 because I looked up to him as a player and as a person.

He remind so much of some of the corporate guys I work with who have been Peter Principled.

The funny thing is they make it out like goaltending isnt a big thing and theres always suitable tending available but this is after they go out and draft Demko who I assume they fully intend in developing.

 

[luongo321]

It's quite clear to me that they just got rid of Lack for scraps because they didn't want him to steal Miller's spot when Miller is untradeable. They couldn't put up with the support that Lack has from the crowd.

I'm not sold on Markstrom, but hopefully he can finally be comfortable playing in the NHL and not let it get into his head.

It would have been nice to get at least a little bit more for Lack based on what other goalies were getting. I would have rather just got rid of Markstrom for peanuts instead since that is what we got for Lack.

It just seems to me like they wanted to appease miller. Either way, this team isn't going anywhere for years. At least I won't feel bad when people are blaming Miller. I would feel bad for Lack though.

 

[biturbo19]

What happens if Markstrom starts a tough games and struggles, Willie gets flighty and rides Miller hard the for next 6 weeks, Miller falls apart under load again. What does Benning do? IMHO he has to confront that his coach needs a proven backup and he will have to move a 2nd/3rd in a trade for a more proven backup.

Then we're in exactly the situation where, as i said...i don't think trading Lack made sense. A Miller+Lack tandem was the "safe play", and the one i would have preferred.

It all comes down to Markstrom though. I don't think WillieD is the only one who might feel a bit "flighty" about Markstrom. But there are also plenty of people here who feel some measure of confidence in him, go on about his "upside" and all the rest...and clearly management has some confidence in Markstrom to at least "break even" on his backup starts, as Lack did last year. For better or worse.

Bitturbo do you think there is any value over a season in your backup helping the guys in front of him save face with 2-1 losses rather than a bunch of blowouts?

I do think there's some value in that. But i don't really know how much.

Where the real value lies, is in what the "starter" can do, and in how much confidence a team has in their ability to "bounce back" from those games, or to come in after a "backup game" blowout, and right the ship.



Again, i don't think trading Lack if the return was going to be so paltry really made sense. But i can understand the thought process to it, and ultimately my difference of opinion on that is rooted more in what i think of Markstrom, not what i think of Miller or Lack (i know what these two can provide). If i were confident that Markstrom could come in and provide "Lack calibre backup play", this would absolutely be the right move here. That's my snag though, not the fact that Eddie was moved in and of itself.

Clearly Benning and Co. were not confident in hitching their wagon to Lack for the long-haul (which was always a possible requirement attached to keeping him this year), and i can empathize with them on that.

It's just a matter of...for me, that reliability of backup goaltending and the ability to depend on him as a spot starter if necessary, probably would have been "worth" a 3rd round pick this year. For those who have a lot of faith in Markstrom and really want to see what he can do...i think that has to change things.

Which is where i don't really understand the idea of being on board with Markstrom as the backup to Lack, but worried about Markstrom as the backup to Miller. It's all contingent on Markstrom...and whether he can provide strong backup goaltending or not.

 

[thedean]

Disappointing they couldn't get a 2nd for Lack, but if that's the market, that's the market. I'm not a huge Lack fan, he was ok to me, but just ok, nothing more. The love and fan homerism with this guy truly baffles me to no end? I'm happy to turn the page and have a proven goaltender in Miller to mentor Markstrom. Who I believe is more talented with raw skills than Lack, plus he's two years younger.

If I look at the "big picture", I see a team that's old and on the decline. Over the next three to five years the fan-base is going to need some intestinal fortitude to stomach the rough waters ahead. In the long run it'll be good for the franchise, because in my opinion, you can't be good without being bad at some point.

No one is claiming Lack is going to be a star, but he's clearly the best goalie the Canucks had, and it wasn't even close. He got the tougher schedule and still blew Miller out of the water.

The team's intention is to be as competitive as possible (whether that is the right course of action is another discussion), what this move does is brings into question the judgment of the people running the show. If they're trying to ice the best possible team and this is what they do, holy **** that's frightening.

 

[TL12]

Miller will carry us into the playoffs.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And to another first round elimination.

 

[Samzilla]

Miller will carry us into the playoffs.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And to another first round elimination.

miller wasn't even going to carry us into the playoffs last season, let alone this season, haha.

 

[luongo321]

Except we are not going to tank, which has been the fundamental problem. Management is still attempting to deploy a contender, and making decisions with that mindset. We kept Miller because Benning believes he's a better goalie today. Even if he does struggle, the Sedins and co. make it impossible for us to bottom out. We're in a position to finish 9-11, with a slim hope of crawling into 8th.

I think we kept miller because his contract is too big for anyone to take.

 

[biturbo19]

As far as the actual "value" for Lack goes...it's really disappointing, obviously. But when you really dive into it and start breaking it down...


It's clearly "spin", but i do think there is at least a grain of truth to Linden's comments on the matter. To say, "2nd round pick vs 3rd round pick" sounds significantly worse on the surface to fans than to say, "#57 pick vs #66 pick". The latter probably being more representative of the real difference on the draft board.

That is, i really do think Guillaume Brisebois was going to be the pick either way. From Pick #57 (which Talbot returned) to pick #66 (which we got for Eddie), the only other defencemen taken were Siegenthaler, Kylington, and Nielsen. Personally, i'd take Brisebois over any of those other three, and i can easily believe that Benning would have done the same. Obviously that's operating in hindsight and it could have worked out much worse if Brisebois had gone at say...pick #60, but it didn't. And in that regard, it turned out more or less a wash in terms of practical utility on those two picks - we get the same Prospect either way.

There's the swap of 7th rounders in the Talbot deal, at which point...moving around the very end of the draft is just rearranging the furniture. Certainly a lesser "value" than adding a future 7th outright.

Which essentially boils the difference in "value" returned by Lack vs Talbot, to the #79 pick. Which is not inconsequential...but at the same time, we always knew that Talbot was the more "highly sought after" or "more valuable" goaltender vs Lack. As it turns out...apparently he was approximately one (1) mid-3rd round draft pick (#79) less "valuable". Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

In which, as pertains to "Trader Jim can't get value in deals"...i think that's a false narrative with the Lack deal, when you truly measure it up side-by-side with the closest comparable.

I would've like to see more too...but ultimately, the market is the market. You can't get "more value" just by wanting it hard enough, and believing enough. This isn't Peter Pan. Players are worth what someone will pay for them. And you can't "bully" or "strong-arm" other GMs into giving you more, you don't have a "captive market".


That said, when we're talking about the sort of value Lack was "worth", that's where i don't really think trading him was the right move in the first place. If that's all he can get you, i think you just keep him and deal Markstrom for whatever. I think the value of basically an "elite backup", even just for next season, is worth something to a team that fancies itself a competitor like the Canucks clearly do for next year.

But if you're as reluctant as this management team seemed to be in making that "long-term commitment" to Lack (and i kind of see eye-to-eye with them on that), AND you're high on Markstrom and believe he can provide that ".500 backup play" on par with what Lack brought up until Miller's injury last season (which is where i'm far more skeptical and depart from Benning and Co. here)...then moving Lack is the right call, and the value is unfortunately low, but still very comparable to what the slightly superior comparable in Talbot returned.


I just think it's absurd, the exclamations to the effect of, "Benning should be fired for only getting that in return for Lack!!!". I don't really agree with trading him to begin with, but it's really not so appreciably far removed from "market value" in the deal itself.

And in the end, if Markstrom can provide quality backup goaltending next season, that's what this whole premise really hinges on. Whether he can do that or not, is where this deal will either "work out" and it's easy enough to move on, or "fall apart completely" as a disaster. I think that's a much more critical and extreme tipping point of "value" than the difference in fetching an extra 79th pick for example. It's all about just how good or bad Markstrom ends up being, and the bar really doesn't need to be set that high.

 

[biturbo19]

Except we are not going to tank, which has been the fundamental problem. Management is still attempting to deploy a contender, and making decisions with that mindset. We kept Miller because Benning believes he's a better goalie today. Even if he does struggle, the Sedins and co. make it impossible for us to bottom out. We're in a position to finish 9-11, with a slim hope of crawling into 8th.

Maybe the fact that this team isn't going to "tank" is your fundamental problem with the Lack trade. But i really dislike the way many here seem to muddle this in and obfuscate the issue with specific trades based around an entirely different philosophy.

Whether or not we should (or even could) be "tanking" is an endless and entirely separate debate. The cold hard reality, is that we are NOT tanking, and we're not going to be tanking right now.

I think it just devolves into a really stupid debate when people start to evaluate current moves the team makes through a lense of how that does or does not benefit "tanking" or a "total rebuild".

It's two people staring at two completely different canvases, and arguing about the quality of the artist's brush strokes. It's nonsensical really.

 

[Freakshow]

No one is claiming Lack is going to be a star, but he's clearly the best goalie the Canucks had, and it wasn't even close. He got the tougher schedule and still blew Miller out of the water.

The team's intention is to be as competitive as possible (whether that is the right course of action is another discussion), what this move does is brings into question the judgment of the people running the show. If they're trying to ice the best possible team and this is what they do, holy **** that's frightening.

Your first mistake is actually believing the Canucks will remain competitive, they can't, Bennning may outwardly say that, but he knows as well as you and I after last season's playoffs that this team can't compete as is. To which he's also outwardly stated the team needs to get younger, faster and more physical.

Having Lack here for another four is really meaningless because the team is in a downward spiral. What does it matter if it's Miller or Lack in net? The teams not winning the Stanley Cup so who cares. Further to that, because I know what you're gonna say, what the hell do you need the cap space for when you're not gonna win anyways? Spend the money on some old'ish free agent so we can stay in the middle of the pack? The team needs to slowly purge the older players with NTC's that Gillis handed out and get worse before they can get better.

It's poor asset management to carry three goaltenders OR to let Markstrom walk away for nothing, because that's what he would have done should they have kept Lack and Miller. Eddie was a free acquisition out of Europe, he cost nothing and brought a 3rd rounder back. Which they used for one of the better ranked defensemen in the draft.

Having Markstrom, who IMO is better than Lack given the right circumstances, tutor under an experienced veteran goaltender in Miller is the best way to go about it. The team plays well in front of Miller, he had 29 wins in 41 games last year.

The next four to five years is about transitioning to the bottom so we can build through the draft and become a competitive team again. But no GM in their right mind is gonna come out and say that publicly. They can try all they want to stay competitive, but when you're getting older and older and your best players are 35, there's nothing you can do to stop it, outside of trading kids, which they said they're not prepared to do and thus far haven't.

 

[iFan]

4 wins could be the difference between the playoffs and picking in the top 10.

Good, we need a top 10 pick

 

[opendoor]

That said, i have some issues with the way the bolded seems to be fairly liberally applied here. The issue with equating "x amount more goals over the year = x amount fewer wins" is that it matters so much, when exactly those extra goals against happen to come.

For example:

Lack comes in, plays a rock solid game in the "tougher half" of a back to back where the team lays an egg ---> loses 2-1 in a game that shouldn't have even been close.

Markstrom cones in to that same hypothetical game, gets completely lit up as is apt to happen to him from time to time ---> lose 8-1 in a blowout.

In the end, it still goes down as a loss either way. You can add tons of goals against like that, without changing the W-L result on the season. Not that it's guaranteed to end up that way either, but it's entirely possible.

It's possible, but not likely. Just like it's possible for the Canucks to be an .800 team in 1 goal games again. But it's not likely. There is a very clear, strong, and established link between goal differential and a team's record. Barring a huge amount of luck in how the goals are allocated, if your goalie allows more goals, which drives down your goal differential, you're going to have a poorer record.

Sure you can say a 2-1 and an 8-1 loss are the same, but what about a 4-2 win and an 8-4 loss? It's like saying having a 30 goal scorer rather than a 15 goal scorer doesn't matter because there's a minute chance he'll get most of his goals only in blowouts.

That is, i think a lot of people here are still applying their own ideas of how to manage a goaltending situation to the future here...rather than the type of approach i think we should probably expect from WillieD and Co., based on last seasons behaviour.

Last season, (to a soundtrack of much griping by the Lack fans)...Miller was typically given the more "winnable" games. I don't think that's about giving Miller the "easy starts", so much as a deliberate concerted effort to "take the gimme points" basically. Throw most of your weight into winning the games you should win. Those "2nd of back to backs, flying into Los Angeles for a matinee" or whatever it may be...those are kind of "throwaways" tossed to the backup. If the backup "steals" a game - bonus! But beware, the team is probably going to mail it in. WillieD's "backup" basically has the expectations of "try to hit .500 W%" (which is all Eddie really mustered last year in that role).

It's basically a "path of least resistance" to the playoffs type philosophy. When it comes to making the playoffs, it doesn't matter where you get your wins...just that you get them. To quote Dominic Toretto, "it doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile".

Which is where those "blowout losses" or "close losses" don't really tally up all too differently at the end of the year. And where i think the staff are probably looking at the fact that Lack was something like 6-7-2 before Miller went down with injury last year, and figuring maybe Markstrom can replace that.

When you have a schedule like Lack's last season, a .500 is a tall order given that the average points % of his opponents prior to Miller injury was in the .610-.620 range and nearly half were on the 2nd half of a back to back. If they give Markstrom a similar schedule (and they probably will) he's going to have a tough hill to climb and the team might be in for a very rude awakening.

 

[Barney Gumble]

tutor under an experienced veteran goaltender in Miller is the best way to go about it.

Miller: hey Marky, you know the best way to go about building up your confidence (which does seem to be an issue holding him back) is not to beat "easy lottery pick teams" but beat playoff teams

Markstrom: uh...ok, that makes sense

Miller: cool, so I'll play a team like the Sabres five times while you play five teams that'll make the playoffs. Easy peasy.

Markstrom: you're such a great veteran guy to look up to.

Miller: No problem....always glad to help.

Seriously, I thought his "mentoring" of Lack was 'lacking' (pun intended).

Having Markstrom, who IMO is better than Lack given the right circumstances

IMHO, the difference in "upside" isn't that great. If it was, Markstrom wouldn't have taken this long to show anything at the NHL level (actually he hasn't yet - granted, not all his fault as his development by the Panthers was semmingly lacking - no pun intended).

 

[valkynax]

Miller: hey Marky, you know the best way to go about building up your confidence (which does seem to be an issue holding him back) is not to beat "easy lottery pick teams" but beat playoff teams

Markstrom: uh...ok, that makes sense

Miller: cool, so I'll play a team like the Sabres five times while you play five teams that'll make the playoffs. Easy peasy.

Markstrom: you're such a great veteran guy to look up to.

Miller: No problem....always glad to help.



IMHO, the difference in "upside" isn't that great. If it was, Markstrom wouldn't have taken this long to show anything at the NHL level (actually he hasn't yet - granted, not all his fault as his development by the Panthers was semmingly lacking - no pun intended).