Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Expansion Draft Angst - Why?

Rate this topic


Rob_Zepp

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Timråfan said:

Just of interest, who is better than Marky on that list?

I am not sure Marky's recent upsurge is as secure as Holtby's resume...….and I don't think Seattle take 2 older Goalies....maybe they do, and then trade one?

I guess it really depends on Seattle's evaluation of who is better and what combination is better...……..

So much risk, but long term, I am not sure, Marky is the guy???? But I don't know, flip a coin! It's a gamble, for sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, janisahockeynut said:

I am not sure Marky's recent upsurge is as secure as Holtby's resume...….and I don't think Seattle take 2 older Goalies....maybe they do, and then trade one?

I guess it really depends on Seattle's evaluation of who is better and what combination is better...……..

So much risk, but long term, I am not sure, Marky is the guy???? But I don't know, flip a coin! It's a gamble, for sure!

And if the year older Holtby re-signs for +/- $7m for 5 years and Markstrom is signed for +/- $5.75 and 4 years...are we so sure SEA still takes Holtby...? Who else is likely available from WAS?

 

This may not be as cut and dry as some people think...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

And if the year older Holtby re-signs for +/- $7m for 5 years and Markstrom is signed for +/- $5.75 and 4 years...are we so sure SEA still takes Holtby...? Who else is likely available from WAS?

 

This may not be as cut and dry as some people think...

I totally agree...……….that is why JB is the GM and not me!

 

Could Marky start an early decline?...…...yes, he could

Could Demko not reach his ceiling?...…...yes, he could

 

It's filled with risk any way you turn!

 

Demko will be cheaper...…….that we know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I am not sure Marky's recent upsurge is as secure as Holtby's resume...….and I don't think Seattle take 2 older Goalies....maybe they do, and then trade one?

I guess it really depends on Seattle's evaluation of who is better and what combination is better...……..

So much risk, but long term, I am not sure, Marky is the guy???? But I don't know, flip a coin! It's a gamble, for sure!

With the defense marky had in front of him the last seasons and still had over 0,91 is amazing. Just look at the game where he let in 6 goals and Demko stepped in. The 2 goals before Demko came in were a post hit  that hit Marky in the back and the other was a shielded shot Marky couldn't see. 

 

But I'm more interested wich goalies you think are better than Marky on that list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Timråfan said:

You lost me completely when you want to pay 4 mill for a goalie that are 35 years old now... Than you can pay Marky 6 mill for 6 year and get a much better outcome. 

You miss the whole point,

The point is that the Canucks could pick up a quality backup and pay up to 4 mill to get shorter term in this case no more then 2 years. 

I even said I would consider it an over payment. But it would be far better then the alternative Markstrom at 6mill for 6 years. You don't want to pay Crawford 4 million at 35, but want to pay Markstrom 6mill at 35-36 that makes no sense to me.

I do believe we could get Crawford for less then 4mill, maybe 3-3.5 mill. But I would be fine with 4mill @ term no greater then 2 years. He has been a quality starter in this league for some time and the Canucks would be asking him to be a back up 25ish games. He would also be good insurance policy to have if Demko at some point in the season began to falter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 12:35 PM, Bure_Pavel said:

You never stated which goalies you think get picked up instead of Markstrom or Demko? I believe the concern is real, both are really good goalies in the Leauge for next 5 years at least. I would be pretty upset if we lost Demko for nothing.

I will join the Seattle management team and get back to you right away.

 

Look, in all seriousness do the homework.   Look at each team's goalie depth and you will see there is nothing that pops out with the Canucks.   Marky and Demko are solid for sure but not top 5 in either the starter or the heir apparent so why would Seattle "settle" when there will be lots of other opportunities?   Canucks are more vulnerable for a position player to be lost.   Many teams have a starter and two capable NHL ready back ups....Canucks do not.

  • Cheers 1
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Timråfan said:

With the defense marky had in front of him the last seasons and still had over 0,91 is amazing. Just look at the game where he let in 6 goals and Demko stepped in. The 2 goals before Demko came in were a post hit  that hit Marky in the back and the other was a shielded shot Marky couldn't see. 

 

But I'm more interested wich goalies you think are better than Marky on that list. 

First off....I don't necessarily think any of them are better or worse, because it is very subjective

I will say, that Marky's awakening is really only recent...…..last half of last year, and this year

He could very well fall back...….as all could (no doubt)

 

But Jake Allen, would be one that has shown better numbers

Holtby had great numbers in last years playoffs

 

But, yes Markstrom is showing decent numbers this year...…….albeit not great numbers

 

I will stand by my premise that Markstrom is not a long term solution, and that IMO, goaltending this year should be

shared far more equally, because, we need to know, who we take going forward....aka after the Seattle expansion draft.

IMO, it should not be a thing that is looked at, 1/2 a year before the expansion draft......

 

I feel the same way about our defensive prospects.....they should be at the very least, tested

 

Unlike some on here, I see this as a long term journey, and am not as focused on the here and now...….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I forgot Eriksson but I don't think Seattle will take him

You also forgot the rules re. number of games in NHL for some of the names.    Again, I think Canuck management will sort out someone to expose that will be aided by a deal with Seattle and that is why I think it will cost two assets and I don't think either will be a goalie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I will join the Seattle management team and get back to you right away.

 

Look, in all seriousness do the homework.   Look at each team's goalie depth and you will see there is nothing that pops out with the Canucks.   Marky and Demko are solid for sure but not top 5 in either the starter or the heir apparent so why would Seattle "settle" when there will be lots of other opportunities?   Canucks are more vulnerable for a position player to be lost.   Many teams have a starter and two capable NHL ready back ups....Canucks do not.

I would argue that Demko is defintely in top 6 of ED eligable goaltenders under the age 25, I expect the other 5 will be protected:

 

Carter Hart (For sure)

Ilya Samsanov (90% Sure)

Mackenzie Blackwood (For Sure)  

Juuse Saros (90% sure)

Tristan Jarry (70% Sure)

 

If Seattle was smart they would get one solid Vet goalie and one young heir to the thrown at least.   

 

Edited by Bure_Pavel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I would argue that Demko is defintely in top 6 of ED eligable goaltenders under the age 25, I expect the other 5 will be protected:

 

Carter Hart (For sure)

Ilya Samsanov (90% Sure)

Mackenzie Blackwood (For Sure)  

Juuse Saros (90% sure)

Tristan Jarry (70% Sure)

 

If Vegas was smart they would get one solid Vet goalie and one young heir to the thrown at least.   

 

What does Vegas have to do with this?   They are exempt from the draft entirely.    Further, and as much as I like Demko, not sure he is in that class quite yet you show nor is the plan for Seattle as clear as you imply it will be.   They will more than likely go with experience in net and draft their own future goalie as that simply is more in line with how you get a franchise up and running.   For what it is worth, I would protect Demko  and expose Marky - even if the latter is playing great on a reasonable contract - assuming Demko has more than 80 games under his belt by then and has crept a consistent sv % into the .912 to .917 range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob_Zepp said:

What does Vegas have to do with this?   They are exempt from the draft entirely.    Further, and as much as I like Demko, not sure he is in that class quite yet you show nor is the plan for Seattle as clear as you imply it will be.   They will more than likely go with experience in net and draft their own future goalie as that simply is more in line with how you get a franchise up and running.   For what it is worth, I would protect Demko  and expose Marky - even if the latter is playing great on a reasonable contract - assuming Demko has more than 80 games under his belt by then and has crept a consistent sv % into the .912 to .917 range.

Its hard cause we aren't Gms, but I would not worry about drafting goalies being a ED team, as there will be three good goalies available for sure. ED teams are usually very weak at center and lack top pair Dmen, as top 6 centers will almost always be protected in ED. Vegas got lucky with Willy Karlsson. I agree with exposing Markstrom, but he will likely be a top 10-15 ranked goalie next year in the league at his current pace.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You also forgot the rules re. number of games in NHL for some of the names.    Again, I think Canuck management will sort out someone to expose that will be aided by a deal with Seattle and that is why I think it will cost two assets and I don't think either will be a goalie.

I sure hope not. 

 

If the VGK expansion taught GM's anything, I hope it's that they're far better simply losing one asset than paying a 2nd to lose a largely equivalent one anyway.

 

That bit a few GM's square on the keaster.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Its hard cause we aren't Gms, but I would not worry about drafting goalies being a ED team, as there will be three good goalies available for sure. ED teams are usually very weak at center and lack top pair Dmen, as top 6 centers will almost always be protected in ED. Vegas got lucky with Willy Karlsson. I agree with exposing Markstrom, but he will likely be a top 10-15 ranked goalie next year in the league at his current pace.   

Yup, he will be but so will so many other goalies that are exposed.   Again, Canucks are far more vulnerable up front for this draft and therefore will make a deal.

 

You didn't respond to what the reference to Vegas was all about but looking back, guessing you just used them instead of Seattle.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I sure hope not. 

 

If the VGK expansion taught GM's anything, I hope it's that they're far better simply losing one asset than paying a 2nd to lose a largely equivalent one anyway.

 

That bit a few GM's square on the keaster.

It did but that is the nature of it - give up two expendables that pinch a bit versus one that leaves a mark.    That is approach I think Canucks will take and Seattle will be happy to oblige.   Those GMs that got hit hard lost players that they gave up on too soon.   Canucks have some risk there but not to the degree in that is there really a WK waiting in the wings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

It did but that is the nature of it - give up two expendables that pinch a bit versus one that leaves a mark.    That is approach I think Canucks will take and Seattle will be happy to oblige.   Those GMs that got hit hard lost players that they gave up on too soon.   Canucks have some risk there but not to the degree in that is there really a WK waiting in the wings?

We aren't likely to be losing anyone of major significance (unless it's one of the goalies), there's very little need to add additional assets.

 

Just like last ED, it's a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Yup, he will be but so will so many other goalies that are exposed.   Again, Canucks are far more vulnerable up front for this draft and therefore will make a deal.

 

You didn't respond to what the reference to Vegas was all about but looking back, guessing you just used them instead of Seattle.   

Yeah I meant Seattle not Vegas, For up front I dont see us as very vulnerable.

 

I have us protecting:

 

Petey

Bo

Boeser

Miller

Virtanen

Gaudette

One more maybe Lind, Roussell, or Ferland???

Edited by Bure_Pavel
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

One more maybe Lind, Roussell, or Ferland???

I'd protect Lind over those two. Lind is younger, cheaper and may end up being a better player. Ferland's concussion issues worry me, and  Roussell has not looked all that good after his first three games back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gurn said:

I'd protect Lind over those two. Lind is younger, cheaper and may end up being a better player. Ferland's concussion issues worry me, and  Roussell has not looked all that good after his first three games back.

Yeah Id probably go the same route, Lind could be a legit second liner. The other two are gritty middle six guys who can go up and down the lineup, they could probably be replaced with the 3 million in cap it would open up if they get selected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...