Thus my trade Lack scenario...he has value so get as many picks as you can and make them could so we can build a winner.
- LeftCoaster

Bo has good trade value so does Tanev. Yes I know this is a smart ass response.

Point is don't trade our youth unless it is a blockbuster

Our fan base really forgets we already got a very good draft pick with our 2016 second round.

These trades are for bonus picks but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water
- VANTEL

2016? You mean 2015 pick traded for Sven?

Do you talk out of both sides of your mouth in person? I mean you talk giving your young guys a chance. But maelstrom who is a couple yrs younger then Lack has been given, what 3 games by our organization? You talk rebuild but are saying we won't be good.
- Bieksa#3

English please?

I would like to see the Canucks take a step back for a couple years so they can add some good young prospects we already have.
- LeftCoaster

Yep. Not complete tank. Insert young guys into pressure filled roles. Insulate them with a handful of solid veterans. Much like calgary

2016? You mean 2015 pick traded for Sven?
- LeftCoaster

Yes oops

Bo has good trade value so does Tanev. Yes I know this is a smart ass response.

Point is don't trade our youth unless it is a blockbuster
- VANTEL

No I disagree...you trade youth when it makes sense going forward. Lack is not as good as you or others are making him out to be.

It's definitely a risk, but with three goaltenders something has to give.

English please?
- VANTEL

common sense please

Bo has good trade value so does Tanev. Yes I know this is a smart ass response.

Point is don't trade our youth unless it is a blockbuster
- VANTEL

Isn't lack 28

Bo has good trade value so does Tanev. Yes I know this is a smart ass response.

Point is don't trade our youth unless it is a blockbuster
- VANTEL

Big surprise

No I disagree...you trade youth when it makes sense going forward. Lack is not as good as you or others are making him out to be.

It's definitely a risk, but with three goaltenders something has to give.
- LeftCoaster

He is our best goalie period

Markstrom failed when he played for the Panthers and got shelled

Markstom, Torts refused to play him

He had one good game as a Canuck last year and one nightmare. This is who we are putting out trust in.

Miller - older plus makes 6 million = no takers or poor return
Lack- 27 & not established yet as a starter but seemingly ready = good return
Markstrom = question mark but highly skilled = poor return

Isn't lack 28
- Bieksa#3

Turns 28 January 5th.

Isn't lack 28
- Bieksa#3

27 that is 7 years younger than Miller

He is our best goalie period

Markstrom failed when he played for the Panthers and got shelled

Markstom, Torts refused to play him

He had one good game as a Canuck last year and one nightmare. This is who we are putting out trust in.
- VANTEL

Best goalie I agree. But if building a better team for 3-5 years from now why not pull the trigger? Were not a contender so who give a shyt...

He is our best goalie period

Markstrom failed when he played for the Panthers and got shelled

Markstom, Torts refused to play him

He had one good game as a Canuck last year and one nightmare. This is who we are putting out trust in.
- VANTEL

Lack has been a question mark since he came to Vancouver but they've grown with him over the past couple of years. Give Markstrom the same amount of leash.

No I disagree...you trade youth when it makes sense going forward. Lack is not as good as you or others are making him out to be.

It's definitely a risk, but with three goaltenders something has to give.
- LeftCoaster

Yes trade the unproven Markstrom for a third

27 that is 7 years younger than Miller
- VANTEL

And 7 yrs older then horvat. If horvat is a young player, Lack is not

Yes trade the unproven Markstrom for a third
- VANTEL

I'm being greedy...I want a high second or a first

Best goalie I agree. But if building a better team for 3-5 years from now why not pull the trigger? Were not a contender so who give a shyt...
- vancity787

If it was for a young roster player then yes but for taking a chance on a low draft pick no

Lack has been a question mark since he came to Vancouver but they've grown with him over the past couple of years. Give Markstrom the same amount of leash.
- LeftCoaster

This is what I don't understand about his argument. Lack was awful and was kept in there to develop
Yet markstrom isn't allow this luxury

Best goalie I agree. But if building a better team for 3-5 years from now why not pull the trigger? Were not a contender so who give a shyt...
- vancity787

Give him 4 years to show how he is a bonafied #1 and inc trade value, dump him at TDL like Buf did with Miller.

And 7 yrs older then horvat. If horvat is a young player, Lack is not
- Bieksa#3

Yeah I don't understand this . 27 is old then

This is what I don't understand about his argument. Lack was awful and was kept in there to develop
Yet markstrom isn't allow this luxury
- Bieksa#3

Two-way street and short memories by some.

Turns 28 January 5th.
- LeftCoaster

So if Maelstrom was given an NHL opportunity in September it would basically be the same age as when lack was given his opertunity.

Give him 4 years to show how he is a bonafied #1 and inc trade value, dump him at TDL like Buf did with Miller.
- Retinalz

I'll give you another four years to build up your worth on this website before I listen to your suggestions

2015'er. Git outta heeyyy