I agree that Lack will be the easiest but that doesn't IMO make him the best to move.
I don't understand the sentiment that trading Lack now because the return will be marginally better than Miller or Markstrom.
Lack's value realistically will only continue to grow where Millers will continue to decrease, even if lack ends up being moved out in a few years it makes more sense to hold on to him until then.
If the goal is to make the playoffs and compete for the Cup, Lack has performed better than Miller over the past 2 seasons.
If the goal is to get younger and let the kids grow, Lack makes more sense as he is just entering his prime.
Unless Lack is going to get an overwhelming return which is doubtful I don't see the point in moving him. It is bad asset mgmt to move the younger, better option.
- belcherbd
I would rather keep Lack too.
It is just the goalie market is so fecked up.
With Miller and his ntc, I am not sure if he is even movable? He has a limited ntc and wants to stay on the west coast or as close to Cali as possible... it really limits where he would go and which teams would want him.
Lack only has 1 year left on his contract. We need to sign him to an extension or move him. Dubnyk will be seeing a contract in the 3 to 5 mil range, I am guessing Lack will want at least 2mil and maybe as high as 4, and I say 4mil because that wouldn't surprise me if he could command that in free agency.
I agree we want to get younger, but if he walks at the end of next season, we might not get anything. I have no idea how other teams look at him.
We have some contributors on here who say the team played better in front of Miller, and I thought so to at the start of the year, but as the year progressed they seemed to play better in front of Lack and I think a lot of that is just being an inconsistent team.
