As the calendar closes in on yet another NHL entry draft it is only reasonable that excitement is racing at a fevered pitch in most hockey crazed markets. And in most of these cases, it’s a relatively healthy and fun sort of anticipation centered on which players will be added to their beloved franchises.
Meanwhile, in Vancouver, the franchise looks to close the book on another young and promising netminder’s tenure with the Canucks – the second such occasion in the last three drafts, although the circumstances vary slightly.
That leaves us with one of Eddie Lack or Jacob Markstrom being the shown the door. There’s a legitimate argument to be had for trading either of the two, but today will focus on why the Canucks might trade Lack.
If the Canucks are to make themselves a player in the second or third round of this year’s draft, they’re going to have to earn a few picks via trade to do so. In Lack, they can acquire at least a second. Given some of the high-quality prospects likely to be available in these middle rounds, that pick could prove immensely useful in stocking the Canucks shelves with fresh prospects. Think of draft picks as weighted lottery tickets as you exit the shoe-in parts of the first-round, then the Canucks position as a franchise and all of a sudden that second-round pick will seem increasingly valuable.
The Canucks lack any bona fide, top of the lineup talent in their prospect pool and while it becomes increasingly less likely that they’ll find it as they exit the first round that’s just all the more reason to stack up these lottery tickets.
Of course, the contrarian among us will justifiably note that as a developed and relatively proven starter still in the prime of his career, Lack is sure to provide the Canucks with more value than any second or third-round pick. Given the low percentage of players from these rounds that turn into full-time NHLers, its certainly an argument with merit.
Unfortunately though, the alternative to this could be losing Lack to free agency next season, should the two sides be unable to come to an agreement over the next year. The logistical hurdles in retaining Lack’s services beyond next season go well beyond the requisite four-plus million that it would take to lock him up.
As unpalatable and familiar as carrying a near $10-million in goaltender cap hits is, Benning has suggested that ownership has given him the go-ahead to do as much, should the Canucks want to retain Lack’s services beyond this season. Is this really an appealing proposition for Lack, though? By the time Miller’s contract expires, Lack will be 29. This is a goaltender firmly in the prime of his career now. There is no reason for Lack to not be given every opportunity to start next season.
Is Lack a starter, though? Reflexively, I think the answer is a resounding yes. There are still valid reasons for skepticism. Chief among them is the fact that Lack still hasn’t hit the requisite 3000-shot mark for identifying true goaltender talent – although, he is less than 600 short of that mark.
There is also the extent to which Lack broke down during the home stretch of his first extended stay at starter in the 2013-14 campaign; on a personal level I would find it wholly cruel to hold Lack accountable for that given the 129859032590 or so games he started in a row, although I can see why it might give Benning reason for pause. Similarly, I can see how Lack’s first playoff performance wouldn’t necessarily inspire confidence. By no stretch of the imagination was Lack bad and you certainly couldn’t blame him for many of the goals against. His .886 Sv% isn’t exactly flattering, though.
Still, I think we can say with some degree confidence that Lack is a starting caliber NHL goaltender – just nothing in the way of certainty.
Now this begs the question, should Lack not figure into either their long term vision or under the limits of what is expected to be a stagnant salary cap, is it worth it to keep him beyond this off-season, at the expense of Markstrom, only to lose him for nothing next summer? Or, are the Canucks willing to run with Lack as their backup and perhaps deal him at the deadline? Should they opt for this plan, will Lack’s value be better then, than it is now?
Whereas the deadline is usually a seller friendly climate, it can also be extremely unpredictable. Furthermore, who is to say any of the teams currently rumoured to be in on Lack will have that need come February or March? At best, there will be maybe one or two remaining teams – although, there’s no accounting for injuries.
For a franchise as desperate as the Canucks to rebuild their battered image – marked profoundly by mismanagement of net assets – losing Lack for a lesser return at the deadline, or nothing at all, would undo what little good will the #Lindenning era has recouped. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss and so on.
Of course, that isn’t to say that trading Lack wouldn’t be a short term HR nightmare unto itself…
Related Articles