[Report]Canucks hope to re-sign Markstrom

[theo5789]

On 6/11/2020 at 5:03 PM, BillfromVan said:

We signed Edler to a 2 year deal so he was not exposed in the expansion draft. I am sure if Markstrom wants to play here he could take a 1 year. Yes he could receive a career ending injury but that will have to be his choice . Vancouver must not back themselves into a corner, we have much more important contracts coming up in the next few years. And we can not afford to protect players due to the numbers game.

Edler is heading towards the twilight of his career, it makes sense for him to take it year by year or two especially as he wants to be a career Canuck.

 

Marky is arguably in his "prime" right now and this is likely his best opportunity at a decent payout. I think I respect him enough to not offer him a one year deal. Have to make the decision on which goalie to commit to and hopefully Marky wants to be here and gives us a reasonable deal, but we would need to commit to him. Demko right now is simply our leverage and insurance to try and keep Marky's price down otherwise we would be in a tougher spot.

[WestCoastDave]

Why not have Markstrom sign a 1 year deal plus an understanding (wink wink) he will be getting a longer term deal following it?  With the likelihood of a flat or declining cap due to Covid19 and the Seattle expansion coming up, it seems to make the most sense.  By waiting a year, there is a chance the situation and the cap could be better  so he could ask for more in his next contract.  Also, Markstrom should know that losing Demko to Seattle would weaken the Nucks goalie position so that would only makes it harder for the team. 

[BowtieCanuck]

11 hours ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said:

Somebody has to be the crushing punch of reality, especially with the Canucks fanbase.

[qwijibo]

2 hours ago, WestCoastDave said:

Why not have Markstrom sign a 1 year deal plus an understanding (wink wink) he will be getting a longer term deal following it?  With the likelihood of a flat or declining cap due to Covid19 and the Seattle expansion coming up, it seems to make the most sense.  By waiting a year, there is a chance the situation and the cap could be better  so he could ask for more in his next contract.  Also, Markstrom should know that losing Demko to Seattle would weaken the Nucks goalie position so that would only makes it harder for the team. 

Markstrom takes all the risk in that scenario with very little upside.   He’s a UFA coming off a really good year.  If he gets injured next year or has a bad season his bargaining power is gone.  I’d be willing to bet there’s not a chance in hell that he’s willing to sign a 1 year deal 

[D.B Cooper]

3 hours ago, WestCoastDave said:

Why not have Markstrom sign a 1 year deal plus an understanding (wink wink) he will be getting a longer term deal following it?  With the likelihood of a flat or declining cap due to Covid19 and the Seattle expansion coming up, it seems to make the most sense.  By waiting a year, there is a chance the situation and the cap could be better  so he could ask for more in his next contract.  Also, Markstrom should know that losing Demko to Seattle would weaken the Nucks goalie position so that would only makes it harder for the team. 

Wink wink deals like that don’t happen.  
Marky has zero benefit to signing 1 year, and has a ton of negative risk.  
 

If we don’t want to give him the deal he wants, someone else will for sure.  
Having said that I don’t think he is looking to bend the team over.  
He will get a fair contract with 3-5 years in it.  
I’m guessing 5-5.5 over 4 years 

[Nave]

If Benning somehow resigns Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli, we should bow down and say, "We are not worthy."

[D-Money]

1 hour ago, NaveJoseph said:

If Benning somehow resigns Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli, we should bow down and say, "We are not worthy."

Signing those guys is easy. The problem though would be the following season, when EP & QH need monster raises.

 

If Tanev takes a 1-year deal, that would be a big help.

Edited June 14, 2020 by D-Money

[qwijibo]

7 hours ago, D-Money said:

Signing those guys is easy. The problem though would be the following season, when EP & QH need monster raises.

 

If Tanev takes a 1-year deal, that would be a big help.

Tanev isn’t going to take a 1 year deal 

[WestCoastDave]

2 hours ago, qwijibo said:

Markstrom takes all the risk in that scenario with very little upside.   He’s a UFA coming off a really good year.  If he gets injured next year or has a bad season his bargaining power is gone.  I’d be willing to bet there’s not a chance in hell that he’s willing to sign a 1 year deal 

A one year deal is the same as any player in the league playing the last year of his contract.  Every player that sign a contract (and many multiple times) will experience having one year left of their contract so it is just a normal part of business.  So if Markstrom sign a one year deal he will just be taking on the normal amount of risk.  Waiting a year might actually help him.  The Covid19 could have improve which could help raise the league cap which means he and his agent could ask more from the Nucks.  Second, with the Seattle expansion next year we could protect Demko, and as a UFA, he could resign with us and the team would be stronger in goal with both Thatcher and Jacob than with just one of them.  And third, if Markstrom hold out for the longer term deal, it could be him that ends up being unprotected in the expansion draft because in the history of the NHL more often than not, the younger goalie is kept in favor of the older goalie.  Just look at  Murray over Fleury in Pittsburgn, Vasilevskiy over Bishop in Tampa, Gibson over Andersen in Anaheim, and so on....

Edited June 14, 2020 by WestCoastDave

[qwijibo]

Just now, WestCoastDave said:

A one year deal is the same as any player in the league playing the last year of his contract.  Every player that sign a contract (and many multiple times) will experience having one year left of their contract so it is just a normal part of business.  So if Markstrom sign a one year deal he will just be taking on the normal amount of risk.  Waiting a year might actually help him.  The Covid19 could have improve which could help raise the league cap which means he and his agent could ask more from the Nucks.  Second, with the Seattle expansion next year we could protect Demko, and as a UFA, he could resign with us and the team would stronger in goal with both Thatcher and Jacob than with just one of them.  And third, if Markstrom hold out for the longer term deal, it could be him that ends up being unprotected in the expansion draft because in the history of the NHL more often than not, the younger goalie is kept in favor of the older goalie.  Just look at  Murray over Fleury in Pittsburgn, Vasilevskiy over Bishop in Tampa, Gibson over Andersen in Anaheim, and so on....

Or. He signs a deal with trade protection, ensuring he’s protected from the expansion  draft.  And it’s not the same as playing the last year of a contract.  That contract would have had multiple years of securities attached to it.  It just happens to be ending.  Players want security.  The only guys who willingly sign 1 year deals are guys that don’t have any other choice.  Markstrom will have multiple suitors 

[WestCoastDave]

3 hours ago, qwijibo said:

Or. He signs a deal with trade protection, ensuring he’s protected from the expansion  draft.  And it’s not the same as playing the last year of a contract.  That contract would have had multiple years of securities attached to it.  It just happens to be ending.  Players want security.  The only guys who willingly sign 1 year deals are guys that don’t have any other choice.  Markstrom will have multiple suitors 

During his career, Markstrom has made 19 million dollars so how much security does he need?  Is it money, team, or both?  With a one year deal followed by a longer one, you may have short term pain for longer term gain.  Also, the rumored television deal would help support the league salary cap in the future.

[qwijibo]

4 minutes ago, WestCoastDave said:

During his career, Markstrom has made 19 million dollars so how much security does he need?  Is it money, team, or both?  With a one year deal followed by a longer one, you may have short term pain for longer term gain.  Also, the rumored television deal would help support the league salary cap in the future.

What he’s made over his career is immaterial. Plus he’s earned that. That’s not what he’s been paid.  Take escrow off that. Agent fees, taxes.  The final number is substantially lower (but again, immaterial) 
 

Hes played long enough to become a free agent.  That’s when players cash in.  He had a great year and he’s going to be in demand.  
 

There’s no reason for him to take the risk of having a poor season or an injury plagued season and lose all his bargaining power.  Strike while the iron is hot. A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush.  

[aGENT]

17 hours ago, qwijibo said:

Or. He signs a deal with trade protection, ensuring he’s protected from the expansion  draft.  And it’s not the same as playing the last year of a contract.  That contract would have had multiple years of securities attached to it.  It just happens to be ending.  Players want security.  The only guys who willingly sign 1 year deals are guys that don’t have any other choice.  Markstrom will have multiple suitors 

Generally agree.

 

But playing Devil's advocate, with the covid19 taking a sledgehammer to revenues, it's not entirely out of left field that some guys may consider short term deals in hopes that revenues recover in the next 1-2 years and that they can cash in for more then. 

 

There's certainly a risk doing so but there's potential for payoff as well.

[peaches5]

I'd offer Markstrom a 5 years at 5m a year. If he takes that then Demko has to be traded to free up cap space. Demko is no longer a priority or core piece. I'd trade him with Baertschi and Spooner to free up 4.2mil in cap space then you can try re-sign Toffoli and Tanev. Hopefully Sutter and Roussel can get dumped as well. Eriksson is not going anywhere. There is no way any team takes him unless we give up a first round pick. 

[mll]

17 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

I'd offer Markstrom a 5 years at 5m a year. If he takes that then Demko has to be traded to free up cap space. Demko is no longer a priority or core piece. I'd trade him with Baertschi and Spooner to free up 4.2mil in cap space then you can try re-sign Toffoli and Tanev. Hopefully Sutter and Roussel can get dumped as well. Eriksson is not going anywhere. There is no way any team takes him unless we give up a first round pick. 

Teams can only trade contracts.   Spooner, Luongo will stay on the books until their penalties expire.  

[peaches5]

50 minutes ago, mll said:

Teams can only trade contracts.   Spooner, Luongo will stay on the books until their penalties expire.  

Oh yea I forgot we bought him out. Regardless, package up Demko with some cap to shed. Demko is worth a cap dump or two as long as it isn't Eriksson.

[WestCoastDave]

23 hours ago, qwijibo said:

What he’s made over his career is immaterial. Plus he’s earned that. That’s not what he’s been paid.  Take escrow off that. Agent fees, taxes.  The final number is substantially lower (but again, immaterial) 
 

Hes played long enough to become a free agent.  That’s when players cash in.  He had a great year and he’s going to be in demand.  
 

There’s no reason for him to take the risk of having a poor season or an injury plagued season and lose all his bargaining power.  Strike while the iron is hot. A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush.  

Err...even if you take 20, 30, or 50 per cent off, he still did well for himself and this is all in US dollars.  Aside, from that this is a hard time to be a free agent.  NHL teams rely on fan attendance for their revenue (like what happens if there is a restriction on the number of people allowed to watch the games in the arenas). With the uncertainty surrounding Covid19 and the economy, teams may not be so willing to hand out expensive long term deals.  I read even some of the players are willing to contemplate going short term giving the world we are in right now. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by WestCoastDave

[qwijibo]

12 minutes ago, WestCoastDave said:

Err...even if you take 20, 30, or 50 per cent off, he still did well for himself and this is all in US dollars.  Aside, from that this is a hard time to be a free agent.  NHL teams rely on fan attendance for their revenue (like what happens if there is a restriction on the number of people allowed to watch the games in the arenas). With the uncertainty surrounding Covid19 and the economy, teams may not be so willing to hand out expensive long term deals.  I read even some of the players are willing to contemplate going short term giving the world we are in right now. 

I don’t understand your insistence on referring to what he’s made so far.  He’s been, and still is, paid on the low side of what starting goalies make.  NHL careers are short.  You make as much as you can while you have a job.  you assuming that he’s satisfied with how much he’s made so far and he’s willing to forgo the payday he’s earned seems like homer mentality.  

Edited June 16, 2020 by qwijibo

[JeremyCuddles]

Would be nice to get Marky on a short term deal, doubt it happens. He’s 30 and finally put the pieces together and became a starter. He’d be silly to not try get security. I don’t see a deal shorter than 4 years. Even with the current situation. The real question is price. 5-6mil would be ideal. Before the pandemic I figured Hellebuyck money was fair for his play. 

[aGENT]

I'll take a nice covid discounted $5m X 4 years please