The Hockey News Considers Markstrom And Demko 2 of the Best Goaltending Prospects In The World

[hlinkas wrister]

Considering where we're at now, I would take Horvat.

We need center depth more than we need goalie depth right now. Having a great goalie with the team we have right now won't make much of a difference.

Agreed. Also it's quite a different NHL from back in the days before Luongo, good goaltending seems to be a dime a dozen. Goalie styles / systems have outpaced the skill development curve for the skaters, and centers of Horvats pedigree are worth their weight in gold.

[RonMexico]

Unless you think stats are irrelevant, in which case, no. And Miller is the best goalie of all time and our scoring is right where it needs to be and we will surely win the SC next season.

But seriously, you think that because Lack wasn't ready after only 2 seasons in the NHL he's never going to be a quality starter? You do know Markstrom has played at least 1 game in 6 NHL seasons, right? And one season he even had a GAA below 3.

How do you figure the "rest of the league" agreed with your assessment that Lack isn't good enough to be a starter? The market for goalies was hardly hot and we don't know what other teams offered, though we've all heard the rumor that Benning turned down at least one offer from within our division. So, we might have been able to get more from a team that did want to make Lack a starter. And, of course, Carolina has already said they will allow him to battle for the net there. You're free to agree with Benning's assessment of our situation, just don't confuse it with absolute fact.

Markstrom might turn out to be as good as people here say he will be. I certainly hope he does. But we already know more of what Lack could do and he was only getting better, having improved this season over last. And he was cheaper to boot. So unless Markstrom ends up being significantly better than Lack in the near future this will be a bad trade. And that's a lot of unnecessary pressure to add to his shoulders.

Lack was traded because if you didn't trade him, there was a very good chance they would lose both Markstrom and Lack. Keep in mind, this is all hypothetical and worst case scenario. It's safe to assume Lack doesn't want to be a backup. If they kept Lack, it is assumed Markstrom would be lost on waivers as no team keeps 3 goalies on the active roster unless it's a freak occurrence. Then you have to assume that Lack gets tired of carrying Miller's jock all season; provided Miller stays healthy, and opts to go the UFA route and walks (a variable being they trade Lack midseason by since they would no longer have Markstrom, why move Lack?). Markstrom gone, Lack gone leaving just Miller and some scrub for the following season.

So as a management group, if this worst case hypothetical situation plays out, you could lose both for nothing. I would rather have a 3rd and 7th rounder than nothing at all...wouldn't you?

[poetica]

Lack was traded because if you didn't trade him, there was a very good chance they would lose both Markstrom and Lack. Keep in mind, this is all hypothetical and worst case scenario. It's safe to assume Lack doesn't want to be a backup. If they kept Lack, it is assumed Markstrom would be lost on waivers as no team keeps 3 goalies on the active roster unless it's a freak occurrence. Then you have to assume that Lack gets tired of carrying Miller's jock all season; provided Miller stays healthy, and opts to go the UFA route and walks (a variable being they trade Lack midseason by since they would no longer have Markstrom, why move Lack?). Markstrom gone, Lack gone leaving just Miller and some scrub for the following season.

So as a management group, if this worst case hypothetical situation plays out, you could lose both for nothing. I would rather have a 3rd and 7th rounder than nothing at all...wouldn't you?

Not sure why you assume Markstrom would be lost on waivers. Either he was here or there, no need for waivers other than in the case of injury and then he'd be an emergency call up.

Either way, you're absolutely right that it's all hypothetical. None of us can know for sure what will happen in the future. We can just go with our gut and our best guess based on the available evidence. Obviously for Benning that was to trade Lack. For me, that was a mistake. Only time will tell who's right. Honestly, while I fear he wasn't right I'm hoping Benning was because I'd rather have a winning team than some flimsy "told you so".

[ForsbergTheGreat]

That still doesn't help. Markstrom should be further along and therefor be rated higher. The fact that he's not only indicates that his ceiling may be far lower than many here hope.

Markstom cost us more last season than Lack did and will cost us more next season than Lack would have. In the very real sense that means to justify his cost, he needs to be better than what we gave up for him. We don't need him to be just a prospect. We need him to be a solid backup goalie who can make the transition to starter in the very near future.

I have to ask, I wonder where Lack was rated when he was the exact same age as Markstrom is right now? And what was your opinion on him at the point heading into the 2013-14 season.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Not sure why you assume Markstrom would be lost on waivers. Either he was here or there, no need for waivers other than in the case of injury and then he'd be an emergency call up.

Either way, you're absolutely right that it's all hypothetical. None of us can know for sure what will happen in the future. We can just go with our gut and our best guess based on the available evidence. Obviously for Benning that was to trade Lack. For me, that was a mistake. Only time will tell who's right. Honestly, while I fear he wasn't right I'm hoping Benning was because I'd rather have a winning team than some flimsy "told you so".

Markstrom is not waiver exempt, there for in order for us to send him to the AHL, he would have to clear waiver. zero chance JB could sneak him through again.

[DeNiro]

Trading Lack has already had an impact on the organization. We're already paying more for Markstrom than we ever did for Lack, meaning in a real way we are already worse off for having kept him and Miller rather than some combination of one of them and Lack because we have less cap space for the rest of the team.

I keep seeing people mention cap space as the reason to keep Lack over Miller. Who cares about cap space right now? Cap space only matters for teams that are contending. In case you haven't noticed, we're not contending.

Cap space is not the focus right now. Developing young players and bringing them into the lineup is. When it comes time to fill out the roster in order to contend, cap space will not be an issue.

[canuktravella]

Love how Fucale is there,and second of all places.

That cracked me up a bit.

Notable omissions:

John Gibson, ANA

Jack Campbell,DAL

Jon Gillies, CGY

Matt OConnor, OTT

Jusse Saros,NSH

Ilya Samsonov, BUF

gibson cambpbell have had games in nhl they dont impress ne oconnor is overrated but samsonov will be good

[poetica]

I have to ask, I wonder where Lack was rated when he was the exact same age as Markstrom is right now? And what was your opinion on him at the point heading into the 2013-14 season.

I have no idea where he was ranked by THN. Google it if you're interested.

And I'm not sure why my opinion of Lack then has any bearing on now. To be honest, I'm not sure I thought much about him at all because there was no reason to assume we would need him to be the starter in as little as 2 years as there is with Markstrom. Either way, doesn't matter. It was a different situation with a different lineup.

Markstrom is not waiver exempt, there for in order for us to send him to the AHL, he would have to clear waiver. zero chance JB could sneak him through again.

Aren't we able to assign waiver eligible players to Utica before the start of the season without him having to clear waivers? Or 2 weeks before the start of the season? Something like that.

I'm actually asking.

[Nino]

I have no idea where he was ranked by THN. Google it if you're interested.

And I'm not sure why my opinion of Lack then has any bearing on now. To be honest, I'm not sure I thought much about him at all because there was no reason to assume we would need him to be the starter in as little as 2 years as there is with Markstrom. Either way, doesn't matter. It was a different situation with a different lineup.

Aren't we able to assign waiver eligible players to Utica before the start of the season without him having to clear waivers? Or 2 weeks before the start of the season? Something like that.

I'm actually asking.

No marks would have to clear, that's why one of our tenders needed to be traded. No way marks would clear again after the season he had, we were lucky he cleared last year.

[poetica]

No marks would have to clear, that's why one of our tenders needed to be traded. No way marks would clear again after the season he had, we were lucky he cleared last year.

I never said we didn't need to trade one. I just disagree with the one we chose. (I think it should have been Miller.) It was someone else who brought up the idea that Markstrom would be lost on waivers and said that's why we had to trade Lack. I just asked about how waivers work as a matter of curiosity.

[Nino]

I never said we didn't need to trade one. I just disagree with the one we chose. (I think it should have been Miller.) It was someone else who brought up the idea that Markstrom would be lost on waivers and said that's why we had to trade Lack. I just asked about how waivers work as a matter of curiosity.

Sorry I was just trying to answer your question...

As far as who should have been traded, I think they made the right choice you think it's around, in the end its unimportant.

[poetica]

Sorry I was just trying to answer your question...

As far as who should have been traded, I think they made the right choice you think it's around, in the end its unimportant.

No need to be sorry. Just clearing up the confusion that I wanted to keep all 3. Either way, thanks for the info.

True. What any of us think, agreeing or not, isn't important. What's going to be will be so we'll just have to wait and see...

[Mattrek]

That still doesn't help. Markstrom should be further along and therefor be rated higher. The fact that he's not only indicates that his ceiling may be far lower than many here hope.

Markstom cost us more last season than Lack did and will cost us more next season than Lack would have. In the very real sense that means to justify his cost, he needs to be better than what we gave up for him. We don't need him to be just a prospect. We need him to be a solid backup goalie who can make the transition to starter in the very near future.

Having a top 5 ranked goalie isn't enough for you? Canucks fans are the definition of "it's never good enough". Hell Markstrom could be ranked 2nd and some of you would still bitch that he's not first. Unbelievable.

[poetica]

Having a top 5 ranked goalie isn't enough for you? Canucks fans are the definition of "it's never good enough". Hell Markstrom could be ranked 2nd and some of you would still bitch that he's not first. Unbelievable.

It's not a matter of his ranking not being good enough. It's a matter of us having already had better and traded him away to keep Miller and Markstrom, meaning Markstrom has to become a starter in just a few years despite having less evidence that he will be at least as good as Lack. It's not about complaining that "it's never good enough" it's a matter of believing the assets we have should have been managed differently.

I believe it's also the national pastime during the off season.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I have no idea where he was ranked by THN. Google it if you're interested.

And I'm not sure why my opinion of Lack then has any bearing on now. To be honest, I'm not sure I thought much about him at all because there was no reason to assume we would need him to be the starter in as little as 2 years as there is with Markstrom. Either way, doesn't matter. It was a different situation with a different lineup.

Aren't we able to assign waiver eligible players to Utica before the start of the season without him having to clear waivers? Or 2 weeks before the start of the season? Something like that.

I'm actually asking.

Nah, I wish though, that a big misconception introduced by EA sports. Once a player hits a thresh hold it doesn’t matter if they have a two way contract or the time of the year they are being assigned, they have to clear waivers. Markstrom has reached that thresh hold and would have to clear before being assigned to Utica. So we would have lost him this year without dealing a goalie.

The reason I bring up Lack is because at the exact age Markstrom currently is, he was named Canucks official backup with zero NHL games experience (less evidence). No one knew how that situations would unfold if Luongo would have happened to get hurt. Sure enough Luongo did get hurt in December and Lack ran with it. Everything turned out good. That’s why it’s probably not best to use Markstrom’s age/lack NHL success as a deterrent He’s farther along in terms of development as the guy he is replacing, when Lack was the same age. If anything Lack that should be more encouraging considering it took Lack two years to be considered a possible #1 Goalie in the league.

[Mattrek]

It's not a matter of his ranking not being good enough. It's a matter of us having already had better and traded him away to keep Miller and Markstrom, meaning Markstrom has to become a starter in just a few years despite having less evidence that he will be at least as good as Lack. It's not about complaining that "it's never good enough" it's a matter of believing the assets we have should have been managed differently.

I believe it's also the national pastime during the off season.

If you think Lack is better then Markstrom then I have ocean front property to sell you in Arizona. Markstrom has a way higher ceiling then Lack.

[poetica]

If you think Lack is better then Markstrom then I have ocean front property to sell you in Arizona. Markstrom has a way higher ceiling then Lack.

Can you tell me next week's lottery numbers too?

[riley57]

My list would probably be:

1.) Andrei Vasilevskiy (Arguably in the top 5 prospects in general league-wide.)

2.) Petr Mrazek (Outstanding at all levels, has proven that he can hold his own in the NHL.)

3.) John Gibson (Same as Mrazek, though has had injury problems. The 2 and 3 spot is pretty interchangable.)

4.) Malcolm Subban (Has put out great numbers consistently, his AHL numbers were pretty impressive for his age.)

5.) Thatcher Demko (Rarely if ever do you see a goalie put up numbers like he did at such a young age, let alone make the NCAA at that stage in his career. He might slide up the list soon.)

Obviously goalies are so hard to predict, and I'm sure some of these guys will fall out, and some of the goalies I have lower in my top-10/15 have the chance to turn out better than these guys.

[Mustapha]

I won't be convinced until I see Markstrom deliver in the NHL.

As of right now, he earned the #2 job in Vancouver due to market forces, not his play.

Don't bother arguing that AHL performance is a decent indicator, it's a crapshoot at best.

The way Vancouver's defense is shaping up, there isn't much insulation for a less experienced goalie.

I have been as hard on Bieksa as anyone could be, but the fact remains that someone has to eat those minutes and I don't know if anyone is ready to take the next step (Edler rebounded, but still isn't where he was 3 seasons ago)

[riley57]

The fact is, goalie development is far too flunctuating to be able to tell where a guy will end up. Confidence, environment and style in relativity to a team has a huge factor in how a goalie ends up the way they do. There's several examples of goalies that turned into NHL goalies, whether in the backup/starter capacity that never should have ended up there, ala Darling, Rinne, etc. and 'surefire' goalies turning into duds. I believe goalie coaches play a huge part in this, which is why I think Rollie is so important to the Canucks.