Makaramel MacKhiato Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Popular Post Provost Posted September 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 13, 2020 Well from Benning's statements he is going to have to or not be signed here. There aren't a lot of teams that will give him term and a NMC, so his options are probably more limited than most folks think. We can all agree that Demko's performance and the glut of decent goalies available right now give the Canucks more leverage in negotiations. They can simply walk away if the demands are too high. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 It sounds like a question that only Markstrom can answer. Would Markstrom?...... But I think maybe the frame is reductive / oversimplified. I don't see it as a binary option. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 I think it's most likely Markstrom hits UFA unless we trade his rights before that. The Avs might be the prime landing spot, or the Flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 He's not going to sign a contract and just end up in Seattle, if that's the case he may as well pick his own destination by going UFA and he most certainly would have plenty of interest from teams. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 If he gets a 30mill contract I think he doesn't bother about an NMC. But capfriendly, then I believe he wants to be here for the ride. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 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!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 More than that, I think he won't sign without a NMC, never mind a NTC. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 A compromise like a 10 team no trade list could make him feel more at ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 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 More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 Doubt it. Which means we likely move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 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!! NTC= No protection from expansion draft, can have a full NTC and still get plucked by the Kraken 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 52 minutes ago, -AJ- said: More than that, I think he won't sign without a NMC, never mind a NTC. If he wants a NMC I will let him walk. Time to give a chance to demko EXACTLY LIKE how we let Miller go and let marky take over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Patel Bure Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted September 14, 2020 Share Posted September 14, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted September 14, 2020 Share Posted September 14, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted September 14, 2020 Share Posted September 14, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 14, 2020 Share Posted September 14, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now