Markstrom or Lack?

The Canucks will trade either Eddie Lack or Jacob Markstrom.

Who will be a better goalie? 

Will the Canucks keep the better goalie, or will they pull a Toronto Maple Leafs (trade Rask, keep Pogge) and move the wrong one?

Eddie Lack has played more NHL games (82-50) and he has better numbers.

In 82 games, Lack (6’4″) has a .917sv% and 2.43 GAA, while Markstrom (6’6″) has played 52 games and has a career .896sv% and a 3.19 GAA.

Markstrom was on waivers last year and no one grabbed him, but he just won an AHL title in Utica posting a .925sv% and 2.11 GAA. And he was even better in his 32 regular season games with a sparkling .934sv% and 1.88GAA.

Lack would most likely garner a better return for the Canucks, because he’s more NHL   proven. He struggled in four NHL playoff games this year but that is a very small sample size. 

The NHL numbers suggest Lack is the goalie the Canucks should keep, but do they feel the same after watching him in the AHL playoffs? 

I exchanged texts with a scout who has scouted the AHL and NHL for years asked him his thoughts on Markstrom.

“I’ve watched him the past four years and I’ve never seen him look more comfortable as he did all year. He was the best goalie in the AHL. He learned how to use his size to his advantage and his movement is more efficient. He let the puck come to him rather than overplay it like he did in the past.”

I asked him about his weaknesses.

“Just maintaining his confidence. He has all the skills to be a very good NHL goalie.”

Lastly, I asked him who he would trade for and he politely declined to answer. “Nice try,” was his exact response.

Who would you take?

I think Markstrom is a bit more of a risk, but he also offers more of a reward. I think he has more high-end potential. 

Recently by Jason Gregor:     

  • HOW I C IT

    “Markstrom was on waivers last year and no one grabbed him, but he just won an AHL title in Utica ‘

    Didn’t Utica lose to Manchester (LA Kings farm team) in the AHL final?

  • O.C.

    Forget the CanuckleHeads. They just want to hose us on a deal.

    Bachman should get an invite to camp this fall and what about that guy in the AHL that went on a record setting shutout streak this season?

    PC will get another goalie and the competition might even light a fire under Ben’s blocker. Keep 33 for Blackwood.

    • O.C.

      Speaking of Bachman, let’s not forget that he was almost on the same of level of Markstrom this AHL playoffs and yet he’s barely getting any discussion for an nhl job. Just goes to show that goalies are voodoo and are difficult to predict. Bachman isn’t a sure thing at the nhl level and neither is Markstrom yet. Doesn’t matter how well either of them played.

  • O.C.

    Just The opinion of a life long oilers fan. Our goaltending has never been so terrible the direct cause of 15 one goal games lost because of pathetic weak goals so when I hear that in exchange for 16 we could put talbot between the pipes I say YES knowing full well this is a deep draft. When you look at the talent pool the oil swim in its pure and oh ya what’s that’s guys name the whole world Is pissed off at the oilers for winning in the draft I think it’s mc Jesus or something like lol. We can afford to take the risk in signing talbot now and the winds will change instantly. Plus if you want to bring out the best in your backup who is in his last year of contract I personally don’t think Lack or any of the other options stand up to talbot PC let’s make it happen.

    • Joy S. Lee

      I see your point. My thought is that (#16 in a spectacular draft year) is still too much to give up for a relatively unproven goaltender… if it’s got to be that pick, the Oilers should be getting something else – a Rangers 2nd or 3rd, perhaps, or another prospect – in that deal. Remember that a quality 16th overall pick from this years’ draft will have 3-6 years of good ROI/value, too. You’re giving up more than meets the eye in a salary cap system, and it’s not necessarily a sure thing that you’re getting; just like the odds-on uncertainty of the pick is always used as a comparison. The risk merits extra-value in that deal, or a lesser draft pick.

  • Anton CP

    I personally like Markstrom over Lack. Goalies normally takes very long time to develop, Markstrom was not ready when he was handed the starting job on one of the worst defensive team possible and he struggled (even he was still the best goalie on Panthers roster during 12-13 season). The following year that Panthers pass Markstrom and give the job to aging Tim Thomas, once Panthers had the chance to get Luongo that they quickly traded Markstrom to Vancouver.

    Eddie Lack is 2 years older than Markstrom, and Lack was the backup to Markstrom in Gavle. However when both came to North America that Lack has time to learn games in AHL (3 full seasons without playing any NHL games) meanwhile Markstrom was baptism by fire and was given the starting role on his third year in America. Markstrom still have better AHL career than Lack but due to his talent that comes with higher expectation that he was never able to develop properly.

    I still believe in 3 years that give him a fair chance that he will have a far better career than Lack.

  • Joy S. Lee

    To joy s. Lee you are totally right could not agree with your comment more if that’s what you would think someone like PC would be working on I hope he can make exsactly like that happen would I think would be a great first deal for him to make. What is your opinion with the blue line? Thanks for your insight ??

  • Joy S. Lee

    Oh, and on the Markstrom/Lack thing… it’s a close enough duel that I’d agree with Gregor and take the less certainty, higher-end potential and lower cost of Markstrom, and let the chips fall where they may. And I liked Lack from the start, way back when he filled-in for Luongo and Schneider once or twice. But I do like the potential Markstrom showed in the WJC. Seems his first years as a pro were rough, but now signs of development.

    Jury’s out, nothing’s decided yet for either goalie, so I would err on the side of the highest potential return, and that’s Markstrom. I also admit that I could be wrong, because I’m going by older history as opposed to recent history.

  • BillHK

    So let me get this right. Markstrom’s weakness is “Just maintaining his confidence.”, and the suggested solution being presented here is to let him play behind the Oilers D, that has Justin Shultz as their top minutes Dman. REALLY???

    • I agree, in hindsight…..but, it was such a risk at the time. Markstrom was just horrible before he was sent down……plus his NHL #’s were poor in florida before the trade……It was after he was sent down when he started to play much better…..

      • Zarny

        Edm, Buf, Cgy and SJ the only teams really looking for G.

        Talbot, Lehner/Anderson, Lack, Jones, Ramo, Enroth, Niemi, Neuvirth, Greiss…a lot more G potentially looking for a new seat.

        Unless you think one specific option is THE answer you don’t pay any sort of a premium this year. I LOL when reading Murray wants a 2nd + top 6 F for Lehner or Anderson.

        • radicator

          I don’t know how many games Schneider played for Van before he was traded, but there was little, if any scepticism that he could handle a starting role. Not quite the same for Talbot, I think. The 16th for him is way more of a gamble than a 9th was for Schneider – especially comparing draft classes.

          • a lg dubl dubl

            I hear ya, that’s why I said a conditional 1st(2nd if talbot doesn’t resign) in next years draft. Don’t think that draft is quite as deep as this one is. I also expect the oilers to draft out of the top 10 next year too, no matter what PC does this summer.

            Unless PC signs a UFA goalie this summer any trade involving a goalie will be steep imo.

          • a lg dubl dubl

            Just remember that if you pledge a conditional 1,2,or 3rd round 2016 pick, that means you are unable to make an offer sheet (Hamilton anyone?) because you wouldn’t have the picks to honour it.

  • NJ

    2 things: Cory Schneider is an unprofessional pr*ck based on his comments about Edmonton. I’m happy that he will eat his words and also happy if his career dies in New Jersey where he belongs.

    In regards to Lack or Markstrom, I think that the only one I take a flyer on is Markstrom as the price would be right. Any picks or prospects we have should go first towards legitimate NHL top 4 defenders. I would bet Chiapet knows this and we don’t have to worry about this scenario too much, however the article was interesting and the analysis was a good read!

  • Jordan McNugent-Hallkins

    Goaltending and defence are sort of like the chicken and the egg. Good defense will make an average goalie better, but a great goalie will make an average defence look better as well. It’s kind of a toss-up, but I believe defence will be the harder position to fix, so it should demand more of Chia’s attention and Katz’ money.

    I think we all agree the Oilers aren’t making the playoffs next year. If Chia can acquire a couple top four guys, Scrivens should be able to hold the fort long enough for an established starter to shake loose. Or who knows, maybe Scrivens goes supernova like he did in that game against the Sharks, only this time it lasts all year. You just never know with goalies.

    • Jordan McNugent-Hallkins

      Awesome find man, thanks. Was sad to hear Matthew Wuest passed away, capgeek was the ultimate tool for hockey nerds. The Red Wings renamed their prospect tournament the ‘Matthew Wuest Memorial Cup’, which is pretty awesome of them.

  • I'm a Scientist!

    I like Talbot from the things I have read. Seems like trading the #16 overall for him is a bit steep of a price though.

    Has anyone thought of trading #16 to Buffalo for #21 and #31? Then using #31 to get Talbot? That would still give us 4 picks in the top 57, and the way this draft is shaking out, the first round could go any way and #21 is still going to be a solid pick.

    Moving down from 16 and still having picks 1, 21, 33 and 57 PLUS Talbot sounds pretty good to me.

    I guess the glitch is why would Buffalo do it. I like to dream.

    Alternatively, I think that Arizona would trade 29 + 32 for 16. We downgrade quite a bit, but if this is as deep as they say it is, we still end up with 4 picks and a goalie.

  • I'm a Scientist!

    Markstrom has been horrible in the NHL with VAN and FLA. He shines in the minors but chokes when called up to the big team….we aleady have that guy his name is Bachman.

    • mcjesus take the wheel

      Markstroms issues were largely injury related. He has come back in a big way.
      I’d take either Lack or Markstrom over Talbot or Lehner any day of the week. Benning said he wants a second. I’d try the #57 pick and a prospect and go from there.

  • Tikkanese

    Neither as your starter but as a backup, sure. Though at this point there is no guarantee that either would be any better than Scrivens as a backup so it’s really just a lateral move that loses the Oilers’ assets.

  • Quicksilver ballet

    If you can get Talbot, at these prices you could also double down on a Markstrom as well. Combined total of less than 4 million next season. That would be a rather interesting battle for the crease.

      • Quicksilver ballet

        With a few of these goalies being moved into hopeful starting roles, maybe he goes back the other way with the Oilers retaining some dollars.

        The Hawks may investigate moving Crawford. Imagine Scrivens behind that crop of blueliners in Chicago. Ben could see a .930 save% again. Neimi leaving San Jose…etc etc. Your home town team may be looking at replacing both their goaltenders. Goalies are moving. One door closes another one opens.

        I’m quite confident with this argument Zarny. Do i win this go round?

        • Zarny

          Well, the Hawks have Darling and Raanta signed for a combined $1.338M. If they move Crawford they certainly aren’t taking a $2.3M backup in return.

          SJ? Cgy? They aren’t moving assets for a $2.3M backup either.

          Scrivens had the 2nd worst SV% of any G with at least 20 GP. The only plausible trade scenario for Scrivens involves taking a stank contract back in return. No one on SJ or Cgy fits the bill.

          Buf is rumored to be considering a buy out for Cody Hodgson. If you are feeling foolish adventurous you might be able to move Scrivens for 4 more years of Hodgson @ $4.25M/yr.

  • A-Mc

    This article could tie in nicely with the article about re-signing Bachmann.

    Where does Lack or Markstrom fit?

    If you’re getting Lack, you’re getting him because you believe he’s your starter.

    If you’re getting Markstrom, you believe he’ll be good one day but where do you put him today? We already have a good prospect in the AHL Brossoit. Are one of Markstrom/Brossoit going to play AHL backup all year? is that a good idea for their development?

    If you grab markstrom, you’d have to be bailing either Scrivens or Brossoit to make room for him. And like i said about lack: if you’re getting him, its to be a #1. Is he a #1?

  • a lg dubl dubl

    I’m sure Vancouver wants to trade lack to future dynasty in the edm oil if you think this will happen without giving up way to much then you need to think about how much you think you know about hockey especially in the west so all you lack lovers better drink another one cause your drunk people quit wasting your time writing and everyone else’s time reading that BS

  • a lg dubl dubl

    Talbot as much as you might disagree that’s what’s going to happen and likely best move going foreword suck it up and get use to it cause the talbot era is here very soon

  • a lg dubl dubl

    Keep EDDIE. Jacob hasn’t proven himself at the NHL level EDDIE has.Ryan Miller isn’t going to bring a CUP to Van, he’s the 1 to trade and dump a bad contact at the same time.