Jacob Markstrom | #25 | G

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, smokes said:

I would protect Marky because he gives a better shot at the playoffs and if he is lost then we still have Dipietro or Thiesson to fall back on. If Marstrom gets claimed then that sets the Canucks back on having developed goalies for a few more years.

 

 

19 minutes ago, smokes said:

That's why my first choice would to keep both, The only way he can develop is to ride the bench for a few years, if you throw a goalie into the number one spot before he is ready, you can absolutely kill his confidence and that is career threatening to a young goaltender. Let him ride the bench watch the games, figure out shooter tendencies by watching and learn the craft before taking te net full time. Most goalies had to ride the bench before they were great.

Problem is, that in two years, we can't keep both. If you protect Marky, you almost certainly lose Demko for nothing anyway. Why not move him for another piece we could use?

 

Who's suggesting to throw Demko in to a #1 spot before he's ready? If we keep him, he probably needs to play 20+ games though to keep developing.

[higgyfan]

3 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

Who are you protecting at the ED ? It can't be both !

Does anyone know how ED eligibility for a goalie is determined?  # of games?  # of seasons?   Demko will only have +/- 8 games this season; does that count as a full season.

 

Anyways...I think if they only keep one of our goalies, it's got to be Demko.  He is only 23 (24 in Dec) and has played in a whopping 7 nhl games.  I thought he played well in the majority of those games.  Also, he has not had any significant time to develop his game with Clark.

 

On the other hand, Marky (29) didn't really start to show well (as a backup) until he was 26 and then became a #1 after 2 yrs of working with Clark. 

 

Luckily, the Nucks have 2 seasons before the '21 TDL to make this difficult decision.  By that time,  Demko will have had almost 2 full seasons as a backup and the advantage of working with Clark.

 

[aGENT]

20 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Does anyone know how ED eligibility for a goalie is determined?  # of games?  # of seasons?   Demko will only have +/- 8 games this season; does that count as a full season.

 

Anyways...I think if they only keep one of our goalies, it's got to be Demko.  He is only 23 (24 in Dec) and has played in a whopping 7 nhl games.  I thought he played well in the majority of those games.  Also, he has not had any significant time to develop his game with Clark.

 

On the other hand, Marky (29) didn't really start to show well (as a backup) until he was 26 and then became a #1 after 2 yrs of working with Clark. 

 

Luckily, the Nucks have 2 seasons before the '21 TDL to make this difficult decision.  By that time,  Demko will have had almost 2 full seasons as a backup and the advantage of working with Clark.

 

Nope. They have until next (2020) TDL as Marky's contract runs out. They either extend him or move him by next spring. If they extend him, we can't keep Demko and lose him in the ED.

 

As for Demko and the ED, it's 'professional seasons'. That includes time in Utica. He's ED elligible.

 

As for who to keep/trade, there's no guarantee Demko ever gets to Markstrom's current level (or that Markstrom will maintain his, in fairness). But if management thinks they can get something close to this level of play from him for the next 5 +/- years, you have your starter. That gives you loads of time to find/draft/develop/trade/sign for Marky's eventual replacement.

[kloubek]

I say you play Demko in 40% of the games next season so we have a reasonable sample size of what we have in him.  That still expands Markstrom's sample size as well to see if he can contine his upward trajectory. Then decide which to expose then.

 

The only way we can move one of them is if the team either would go to are void of ANY good goalies, so that greatly limits a trade possibility. We may very well end up losing a goalie in the ED, which would suck but at least it means we have another forward or defender sticks around.

 

The other possibility is that if Demko doesnt show great then perhaps there won't be that much interest in him.  Seattle might choose another goalie much like Vegas did when tjey acquired Fleury. I know we all love to pump the tires of our prospects but lets face it - so far Demko's numbers don't exactly make him a shoe-in to be taken.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by kloubek

[aGENT]

28 minutes ago, kloubek said:

I say you play Demko in 40% of the games next season so we have a reasonable sample size of what we have in him.  That still expands Markstrom's sample size as well to see if he can contine his upward trajectory. Then decide which to expose then.

 

The only way we can move one of them is if the team either would go to are void of ANY good goalies, so that greatly limits a trade possibility. We may very well end up losing a goalie in the ED, which would suck but at least it means we have another forward or defender sticks around.

 

The other possibility is that if Demko doesnt show great then perhaps there won't be that much interest in him.  Seattle might choose another goalie much like Vegas did when tjey acquired Fleury. I know we all love to pump the tires of our prospects but lets face it - so far Demko's numbers don't exactly make him a shoe-in to be taken.

 

There's almost zero chance he sees 40% starts.
 

And no, they'd have to have only 'ok' goalies who are older and/or have expiring contracts at/near the ED. That's a lot more teams. Many of whom would LOVE to add a 23 year old Demko who could eventually become their starter for 8 +/- years.

 

And I'm not personally worried about Demko's 'numbers' thus far.

Edited April 2, 2019 by aGENT

[Fanuck]

34 minutes ago, kloubek said:

 

The other possibility is that if Demko doesnt show great then perhaps there won't be that much interest in him.  Seattle might choose another goalie much like Vegas did when tjey acquired Fleury. I know we all love to pump the tires of our prospects but lets face it - so far Demko's numbers don't exactly make him a shoe-in to be taken.

 

Marky's 'numbers' as you yourself put it didn't exactly scream starting goalie for many years.......now look at'em. 

 

With goalies imo it's less about 'what have they done' and way more about 'what will they do'....? 

[stawns]

On 3/22/2019 at 9:29 AM, aGENT said:

Problem being that Marky's contract is up next year. Pretty much guarantee that he's not going to sign a 1 year extension to keep him from being exposed in the ED.

 

My guess is that we're trading one of them between this summer/next TDL.

 

Option 1 - Trade Markstrom, sign a decent, short term vet(s) to tandem with Demko and eventually transition to full backup as Demko matures.

 

Option 2 - Trade Demko, sign a stop gap vet(s) to backup Markstrom until DiPietro is ready. Re-sign sign Markstrom.

 

I don't think they'll do anything like that until they see Dipietro and the new guy next season.

[aGENT]

Just now, stawns said:

I don't think they'll do anything like that until they see Dipietro and the new guy next season.

DiPietro may or may not be his eventual replacement either. If they think Markstrom's their starter the next +/- 5 years, that's loads of time to find a replacement. Until then you hire vet UFA's etc to back him up.

 

I don't think a month or two of DiPietro adjusting to pros will particularly weigh in.

[Guest]

I'm thinking that there has to be a large gamble next year. If Marky continues his stellar play, then it makes things difficult. I suspect that if we lose Demko we'll come to regret that in a number of years. I think it comes down to how ready the team is for playoff hockey. If we struggle to win games and it looks like we'll need a few more seasons, that makes me lean towards keeping Demko and trading Markstrom. However, if we compete in every game and make the playoffs, or come close, we have to really evaluate which will be the better tendie in the upcoming years, and how we think DiPietro will perform at this level. We learned through Shea Theodore that it isn't worth trading at the ED to keep a player you don't want to lose. 

[Kanukfanatic]

8 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

 

If they think Markstrom has truly turned the corner and can be their #1 for the next 4-6'ish years... along with DiPietro coming up and now signing Kielly, and Thiessen already in the pipeline plus we can always draft another goalie this/next year and sign a short term vet to expose in the ED and backup Markstrom the next couple years...

 

It makes a LOT of sense IMO to translate that value to somewhere else in the lineup, where needed (1LW or right D).

Dipietro kielly and thiessen have shown nothing.

 

It makes ZERO sense to trade Demko.

 

Edit: unless JB actually thinks he tops out as an ok backup at most. The others are not even that...at this point..

Edited April 3, 2019 by Kanukfanatic

[aGENT]

46 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Dipietro kielly and thiessen have shown nothing.

 

It makes ZERO sense to trade Demko.

 

Edit: unless JB actually thinks he tops out as an ok backup at most. The others are not even that...at this point..

Makes a lot of sense actually if they view Markstrom as their starter for the next 5 +/- years.

[Tre Mac]

Unpopular opinion, sell high on Markstrom and trade him.  Sign a stop gap 1b goalie to share with Thatchy D(Luongo, i kid) and then your set up for the expansion draft and some more equity at the draft in case you wanted to make a splash.  

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Tre Mac said:

Unpopular opinion, sell high on Markstrom and trade him.  Sign a stop gap 1b goalie to share with Thatchy D(Luongo, i kid) and then your set up for the expansion draft and some more equity at the draft in case you wanted to make a splash.  

To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to this. It might help to have a good goalie for next year, and perhaps Demko can fit that bill (or he might need development but whatever), but I kind of look at next year as a similar year to this one but with slightly better expectations. I still don't think there's pressure on us to get into the playoffs just yet.

[aGENT]

22 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

Unpopular opinion, sell high on Markstrom and trade him.  Sign a stop gap 1b goalie to share with Thatchy D(Luongo, i kid) and then your set up for the expansion draft and some more equity at the draft in case you wanted to make a splash.  

I'd certainly be open to this as well.

 

I just think it's the less likely route given management's clear historical desire for the team to have more proven goal tending than Demko (or said 1B) is likely to provide next year.

 

Either way, IMO, one needs to be moved for rebuild assets this summer and a stop gap signed in their place.

[Kanukfanatic]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'd certainly be open to this as well.

 

I just think it's the less likely route given management's clear historical desire for the team to have more proven goal tending than Demko (or said 1B) is likely to provide next year.

 

Either way, IMO, one needs to be moved for rebuild assets this summer and a stop gap signed in their place.

Yea well in the real world 23 year old up and coming goalies don't get traded for "rebuild assets". They are rebuild assets.

 

It seems your goal these days is simply to be a contrarian to reality and post weird things like loui will walk away from 9 million dollars or the Canucks will trade demko instead of markstrom.  Very weird posts imo. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Yea well in the real world 23 year old up and coming goalies don't get traded for "rebuild assets". They are rebuild assets.

 

It seems your goal these days is simply to be a contrarian to reality and post weird things like loui will walk away from 9 million dollars or the Canucks will trade demko instead of markstrom.  Very weird posts imo. 

Rebuild assets as in an early 20's top 4 right D.

[Canuck Surfer]

I don't understand why we trade either at this point?

 

Our succession plan has Demko possibly competing as starter next year. And Markstrom's contract expiring.

 

Sounds perfect right?

 

BTW, I'm excited Markstrom has grabbed hold of the starters job for now. But lets keep performance in context > he's got a 0.913 save % on the year. More or less at the tail end of 15 goalies who are ''middle of the pack!''  But TWENTY SIXTH in the league if your picking hairs. Which I am?

 

And my point is he has helped us win some games. But is not playing at a level, see Patrick Roy, single handedly wills his team to, and through a play off year. And he's 29.

 

My own take is let him start the season & see if he holds on to his starters job. I do think he will FTR. Then offer him a 3 or 4 year deal. When we see what we really have in both Demko & Marky.

 

He'll also be worth more at the deadline, if he's playing well, than he will in summer. If he has not signed. If he's not playing well? Who cares...

 

 

I do know why it is being proposed? The same guys who were worried we would lose Leipsic on waivers are stacking cards in front of any exposure loss to Seattle 2 years from now.  OMGZ! 

 

Its too early for that.

 

Chill & lets enjoy the next year or so of goalie development!

 

 

[-AJ-]

13 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I don't understand why we trade either at this point?

 

Our succession plan has Demko possibly competing as starter next year. And Markstrom's contract expiring.

 

Sounds perfect right?

 

BTW, I'm excited Markstrom has grabbed hold of the starters job for now. But lets keep performance in context > he's got a 0.913 save % on the year. More or less at the tail end of 15 goalies who are ''middle of the pack!''  But TWENTY SIXTH in the league if your picking hairs. Which I am?

 

And my point is he has helped us win some games. But is not playing at a level, see Patrick Roy, single handedly wills his team to, and through a play off year. And he's 29.

 

My own take is let him start the season & see if he holds on to his starters job. I do think he will FTR. Then offer him a 3 or 4 year deal. When we see what we really have in both Demko & Marky.

 

He'll also be worth more at the deadline, if he's playing well, than he will in summer. If he has not signed. If he's not playing well? Who cares...

 

 

I do know why it is being proposed? The same guys who were worried we would lose Leipsic on waivers are stacking cards in front of any exposure loss to Seattle 2 years from now.  OMGZ! 

 

Its too early for that.

 

Chill & lets enjoy the next year or so of goalie development!

 

 

I think the idea is that if we just let Marky's contract run out and switch to Demko, we lose him for nothing, which isn't great.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting 26th in the league for save percentage, but I imagine your filters need adjusting. You can't claim that a goalie playing 20 games has endured as much rigors as a player who's played 59 games like Markstrom. If you set your filter to 45 games to actually sort out only goaltenders who've taken on more than half the games, you'll find that Markstrom is 15th, not 26th.

 

He's no superstar, but implying that he's 26th out of 31 is misleading. He's at worst an average starter this year.

[aGENT]

10 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I don't understand why we trade either at this point?

 

Our succession plan has Demko possibly competing as starter next year. And Markstrom's contract expiring.

 

Sounds perfect right?

 

BTW, I'm excited Markstrom has grabbed hold of the starters job for now. But lets keep performance in context > he's got a 0.913 save % on the year. More or less at the tail end of 15 goalies who are ''middle of the pack!''  But TWENTY SIXTH in the league if your picking hairs. Which I am?

 

And my point is he has helped us win some games. But is not playing at a level, see Patrick Roy, single handedly wills his team to, and through a play off year. And he's 29.

 

My own take is let him start the season & see if he holds on to his starters job. I do think he will FTR. Then offer him a 3 or 4 year deal. When we see what we really have in both Demko & Marky.

 

He'll also be worth more at the deadline, if he's playing well, than he will in summer. If he has not signed. If he's not playing well? Who cares...

 

 

I do know why it is being proposed? The same guys who were worried we would lose Leipsic on waivers are stacking cards in front of any exposure loss to Seattle 2 years from now.  OMGZ! 

 

Its too early for that.

 

Chill & lets enjoy the next year or so of goalie development!

 

 

We need to either re-sign or move Marky this coming year. And if we re-sign Marky, there's not particularly a short term need or fit for Demko. And then two years from now, whichever goalie we leave unprotected either goes for free in the ED or is traded below market value due to ED market pressures.

 

Or we can package one to fill an existing team need (likely somewhat dependent on who we draft in the 1st/lotto balls) and sign a vet UFA to fill in and expose in the ED.

[Zhukini]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

We need to either re-sign or move Marky this coming year. And if we re-sign Marky, there's not particularly a short term need or fit for Demko. And then two years from now, whichever goalie we leave unprotected either goes for free in the ED or is traded below market value due to ED market pressures.

 

Or we can package one to fill an existing team need (likely somewhat dependent on who we draft in the 1st/lotto balls) and sign a vet UFA to fill in and expose in the ED.

I agree about your point with the expansion point and that probably is the biggest point. 

 

But I'm not sure about the whole not needing Demko thing. Eventually this team will make the playoffs and go on runs, and yes they can do so with a goalie that plays 65 games a year but the best option would be a 50-30 split to keep who you feel is your starter fresh to play into June. Of course that's the long game, who knows what they want for next season. I'd sell Sky high on Markstrom after one more season but I dont think they willl