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

Would Markstrom sign a contract without a NTC?

Rate this topic


Makaramel MacKhiato

Recommended Posts

We can all agree, the timing of Markstrom's contract expiring is less than ideal. It almost feels as though: if we sign Markstrom, we lose Demko. If we don't sign Markstrom, we lose a player that could provide us haul of a return, for nothing. 

One solution would be to sign Markstrom to a 1 year contract, but that's highly unrealistic. Players obviously want term so they can be secure for a handful of years. So that option is out. 

The other option would be still a slim chance (but more likely than a 1 year contract): sign Markstrom to a contract without a NTC or NMC. 

In doing so, we could keep Markstrom for another year, and give Demko one more year of preparation before he ultimately takes over the starting position in the 21-22 season. We also are then given the opportunity to trade Markstrom by the trade deadline or next Summer while also receiving assets back. 

 

What do you think? Is this even remotely plausible? Or does Markstrom laugh when offered anything but a contract that gives him security?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm Marky I'd push for a NTC very hard. This is his home and he loves it here. Why leave to another city and miss the upcoming dynasty?

 

4 years - 5 AAV NTC granted - maybe 5 team list?

 

Long live the Markstromian Wall!!

 

Happy Ice Hockey GIF by NHL

  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may sign without, but then it's gonna be expensive...

Guess it depends what whispers his agent has from other teams...

 

Why would he sign a team friendly contract, if he is gonna get traded to Seattle? Can easily see this ending up being a good bye to Marky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No 'NTC' likely means his price goes up.  You hand those type of clauses to lower a player's asking price (as it gives them security at being dealt somewhere they don't want to be).  Slim chance he signs a one year deal imho.  He's what...30 years old already & has really never had a "big" money deal.  This might be his only chance at getting one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, apollo said:

If I'm Marky I'd push for a NTC very hard. This is his home and he loves it here. Why leave to another city and miss the upcoming dynasty?

 

4 years - 5 AAV NTC granted - maybe 5 team list?

 

Long live the Markstromian Wall!!

 

Happy Ice Hockey GIF by NHL

NTC= No protection from expansion draft, can have a full NTC and still get plucked by the Kraken

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think Markstrom knows a NMC is likely a line in the sand that would lower his earnings considerably in Vancouver.    It’s possible he’d do that anyways ... Markstrom understands the future in our net is now blurred with Demko doing what he did.   If he signs their will be concessions.   As usual it will probably come down to how you value that with money.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

We can all agree, the timing of Markstrom's contract expiring is less than ideal. It almost feels as though: if we sign Markstrom, we lose Demko. If we don't sign Markstrom, we lose a player that could provide us haul of a return, for nothing. 

One solution would be to sign Markstrom to a 1 year contract, but that's highly unrealistic. Players obviously want term so they can be secure for a handful of years. So that option is out. 

The other option would be still a slim chance (but more likely than a 1 year contract): sign Markstrom to a contract without a NTC or NMC. 

In doing so, we could keep Markstrom for another year, and give Demko one more year of preparation before he ultimately takes over the starting position in the 21-22 season. We also are then given the opportunity to trade Markstrom by the trade deadline or next Summer while also receiving assets back. 

 

What do you think? Is this even remotely plausible? Or does Markstrom laugh when offered anything but a contract that gives him security?

Very doubtful in my opinion.  I think Benning knows this as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see us giving him a NTC, there's no way we should be willing to give him a NMC though imo. If he wants to stick around he shouldn't be getting expansion draft protection.

 

I'll be surprised if he's back next season though tbh, some other team would probably give him what he wants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, -AJ- said:

More than that, I think he won't sign without a NMC, never mind a NTC.

This.

 

If Markstrom is determined to remain here, with the Canucks, then this is the only way he can achieve this goal. NTCs do not help in preventing being taken in an expansion draft. Perhaps he could do something without a NMC by getting a really weird contract which would price him out of everyone's budget, but then likely the Canucks couldn't even afford him.

 

                                               regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see Markstrom staying for three reasons: 1. He won't get the term the would likely want; 2. He won't get them money he could get elsewhere; 3. He will want expansion draft and trade protection which Benning won't want to give him. So if Markstrom goes, Benning goes out and buys a 2.5 million dollar veteran backup on a one or two year deal, but then has enough money to sign Tanev and Toffoli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

We can all agree, the timing of Markstrom's contract expiring is less than ideal. It almost feels as though: if we sign Markstrom, we lose Demko. If we don't sign Markstrom, we lose a player that could provide us haul of a return, for nothing. 

One solution would be to sign Markstrom to a 1 year contract, but that's highly unrealistic. Players obviously want term so they can be secure for a handful of years. So that option is out. 

The other option would be still a slim chance (but more likely than a 1 year contract): sign Markstrom to a contract without a NTC or NMC. 

In doing so, we could keep Markstrom for another year, and give Demko one more year of preparation before he ultimately takes over the starting position in the 21-22 season. We also are then given the opportunity to trade Markstrom by the trade deadline or next Summer while also receiving assets back. 

 

What do you think? Is this even remotely plausible? Or does Markstrom laugh when offered anything but a contract that gives him security?

What quality player wouldn't want security in the back half of his career? 

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...