JM_ Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 1 hour ago, 73 Percent said: I wonder if his rights have value with all this "interest". Woupdnt mind a 5th from someone. we could probably do better than that. I'd ask for a 2nd with the condition that he plays 45 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanfor42 Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 6 hours ago, Provost said: That is also aside from the false point you made about not being able to know if a team is interested in a UFA before free agency opens. “Tampering” before free agency for higher end players is the norm.... not an exception, and veritably not impossible as you suggested. Haha you and I both know I didn't say that partner. How about you cheer for the team and stop attacking other people on CDC with false accusations. I tell you what. I will block you so I can just blissfully be ignorant of you and your nonsense. My quote is below. No where does it say that you can't know if a team is interested in a UFA before free agency opens. Jeez. Get a hobby and just cheer for the Canucks. On 9/20/2020 at 6:22 PM, fanfor42 said: Nonsense from Eklund. Markstrom is untouchable until Oct 9. Big interest means nothing. It's a lie. No team other than the Canucks can talk to Markstrom until the 9th so this is just spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 22, 2020 Share Posted September 22, 2020 4 hours ago, Robert Long said: we could probably do better than that. I'd ask for a 2nd with the condition that he plays 45 games. He's not under contract so that's not an option. They have to sign him 1st and it's not possible to get picks based on re-signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 I think that we need to give a deadline by the end of the week for this negotiation. If it isn’t going to happen, I want to try to trade his rights. Mainly to try to give a team that is NOT Calgary a head start on signing him. Maybe send Sutter, Markstrom’s rights, and a 4th to Detroit for a 6th round pick... something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 52 minutes ago, Provost said: I think that we need to give a deadline by the end of the week for this negotiation. If it isn’t going to happen, I want to try to trade his rights. Mainly to try to give a team that is NOT Calgary a head start on signing him. Maybe send Sutter, Markstrom’s rights, and a 4th to Detroit for a 6th round pick... something like that. Why would we have to add Marky's rights on top of a 4th to get a 6th? Isn't a 4th worth more than a 6th outright before adding Marky's rights? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, -AJ- said: Why would we have to add Marky's rights on top of a 4th to get a 6th? Isn't a 4th worth more than a 6th outright before adding Marky's rights? Did you miss the little Sutter cap dump in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 3 hours ago, Provost said: Did you miss the little Sutter cap dump in there? Ah, yep. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 2 hours ago, mll said: So we're trading our 'goalie of the future'? I just don't see how we keep both. Either we extend Marky with the ED protection he'll want for signing (why would he extend for only one year?) and hence, move Demko... Or we continue to plan on protecting the 'goalie of the future' and trade Marky's rights/let him walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 18 hours ago, aGENT said: So we're trading our 'goalie of the future'? I just don't see how we keep both. Either we extend Marky with the ED protection he'll want for signing (why would he extend for only one year?) and hence, move Demko... Or we continue to plan on protecting the 'goalie of the future' and trade Marky's rights/let him walk. The third way is the route I should take. Give Marky what he want except an NMC but protect Demko. If Seattle takes him we had him alongside Demko til then and get some room for cap. If not we got one of the best goalie tandem ready to take on whatever comes. In my view the most important piece. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Timråfan said: The third way is the route I should take. Give Marky what he want except an NMC but protect Demko. If Seattle takes him we had him alongside Demko til then and get some room for cap. If not we got one of the best goalie tandem ready to take on whatever comes. In my view the most important piece. I've never agreed with you more Timra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 4 hours ago, Timråfan said: The third way is the route I should take. Give Marky what he want except an NMC but protect Demko. If Seattle takes him we had him alongside Demko til then and get some room for cap. If not we got one of the best goalie tandem ready to take on whatever comes. In my view the most important piece. 2 hours ago, nzan said: I've never agreed with you more Timra Except you forget to ask yourself why Marky even signs (at a likely discount in both cash and term no less) with no expansion protection, only to potentially be selected by Seattle in a year? I'll give you a hint, he doesn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 38 minutes ago, aGENT said: Except you forget to ask yourself why Marky even signs (at a likely discount in both cash and term no less) with no expansion protection, only to potentially be selected by Seattle in a year? I'll give you a hint, he doesn't. I said give Marky what he wants, except an NMC. If so he doesn't have to bother about anything except Seattle later. And Seattle may not be interested in Marky by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 47 minutes ago, aGENT said: Except you forget to ask yourself why Marky even signs (at a likely discount in both cash and term no less) with no expansion protection, only to potentially be selected by Seattle in a year? I'll give you a hint, he doesn't. Fair enough, maybe the idea of Marky without a NMC is a non-starter. On the other hand, perhaps the assumed discounts are the things that are off the table (which then ripple-effects into cap considerations I suppose) but which all but assure Seattle wouldn't choose him - ie: he's expansion-protected as a function of his contract. I guess I wonder if there is a sweet spot where his cap is high enough that Seattle wouldn't choose him but low enough he would still have trade value in perhaps 2-3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Timråfan said: I said give Marky what he wants, except an NMC. If so he doesn't have to bother about anything except Seattle later. And Seattle may not be interested in Marky by then. Again, why is he signing (at a discount!) with no ED protection? Only to be likely gone in one year. 24 minutes ago, nzan said: Fair enough, maybe the idea of Marky without a NMC is a non-starter. On the other hand, perhaps the assumed discounts are the things that are off the table (which then ripple-effects into cap considerations I suppose) but which all but assure Seattle wouldn't choose him - ie: he's expansion-protected as a function of his contract. I guess I wonder if there is a sweet spot where his cap is high enough that Seattle wouldn't choose him but low enough he would still have trade value in perhaps 2-3 years. There's a small possibility that we could make the second year have a large bonus, due immediately after expansion, to help dissuade Seattle. But it's still no guarantee (and also contradicts the reports of agents wanting back load deals to avoid high escrow). A good goalie, is a good goalie. And he'd still likely be our most attractive, exposed player. And even then, if Demko is indeed the 'goalie of the future', again why is Marky signing (at a discount!) only to be traded a year or two after expansion as Demko takes his starting role? At worst, he's signing (at a discount!) for one year (expansion) or at best, two to three years (trade). Or the more likely reality if we sign Marky, we hence need to trade Demko. And is trading the just-entering-his-prime-with-the-rest-of-our-core 'goalie of the future' really that good of an idea? The cold reality is there's only so many ways this can go. And all of them have risk and compromise. There's no fairytale ending here where Marky signs at a discount, doesn't get taken in the ED and he in Demko wander off in to the sunset as a happy goalie tandem for the next 4-5 years. Edited October 1, 2020 by aGENT 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanfor42 Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Ok Marky. If the team has now made you a fair offer time to get off the pot and give a decision. You say you want to be here, you love the team you love the fans. Well your fanbase has waited a long time. If the deal is fair make a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Chris Johnston on Markstrom: I do believe as of right now, as of everything I have heard this is going to be a guy that tests free agency on Friday. (960) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Squamfan said: Chris Johnston on Markstrom: I do believe as of right now, as of everything I have heard this is going to be a guy that tests free agency on Friday. (960) Cap-tain-ob-vious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Markstrom and Demko both want to be the starter in VAN for the next several years. Benning made an offer to Markstrom, so does that mean he's trading Demko? Benning is trying to keep both goalies, but I think he has to choose one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanfor42 Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said: Markstrom and Demko both want to be the starter in VAN for the next several years. Benning made an offer to Markstrom, so does that mean he's trading Demko? Benning is trying to keep both goalies, but I think he has to choose one or the other. Yes he does. At the end of the 20-21 season before the Kraken draft. But not before. Demko and Marky get to duke it out this year. Best player remains standing. 2 1 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