BCNate Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Long time reader, first time posting..... Worst case scenario Benning finds after the frozen 4 that he will not be able to sign Demko, and that he is looking to go the UFA route after his senior season at BC. What type of value would Demko have at the draft? Would we be able to package him and our 3rd (or another plus) for a 10-15 pick? Hopefully we are not in this spot, but if we are, what do you feel we could get in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Probably 9th overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weasel Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 He is a solid prospect, but we won't get much back. Hell, we only got a 9th overall for Schneider who was pretty much elite in the nhl when we traded him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Probably a 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Weasel said: He is a solid prospect, but we won't get much back. Hell, we only got a 9th overall for Schneider who was pretty much elite in the nhl when we traded him. The Coilers need a goalie prospect of Demko's status. I wonder if his value would be more to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 47 minutes ago, The Weasel said: He is a solid prospect, but we won't get much back. Hell, we only got a 9th overall for Schneider who was pretty much elite in the nhl when we traded him. That was because: 1) It was a strong draft 2) He wasn't far from UFA eligibility 3) Everybody in the league knew we had to trade one of our goalies, and were generally low-balling If we were to trade Demko now, I think we'd get close to what we got for Schneider. That said, I absolutely do not want him traded. I'm still PO'd about losing Cory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Hard to say. He's certainly been turning heads, and another season of that would only solidify his position as a top prospect. But in the end, he is exactly that.... a prospect. And as such, wouldn't get much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Demko does not have a contract with the Canucks and therefore you could not trade him. However, you could trade his rights to another team that might think they could sign him but you would get very little return unless the trade would be conditional on them being able to sign Demko. If Demko decides not to sign with the Canucks I would guess that means he wants to try free agency. That being the case, we would get nothing for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 If I am Demko there's no way I do not sign with Vancouver. Look at the goaltending depth here. Miller is signed for 1 more year and there's Markstrom. There's very little behind that. The door is wide open for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 54 minutes ago, D-Money said: That was because: 1) It was a strong draft 2) He wasn't far from UFA eligibility 3) Everybody in the league knew we had to trade one of our goalies, and were generally low-balling If we were to trade Demko now, I think we'd get close to what we got for Schneider. That said, I absolutely do not want him traded. I'm still PO'd about losing Cory. What if the offer was from Calgary or the Coilers, and it was for a top pick 6-10; would you trade him then? Or would it be wiser to trade Markstrom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 12 minutes ago, Alflives said: What if the offer was from Calgary or the Coilers, and it was for a top pick 6-10; would you trade him then? Or would it be wiser to trade Markstrom? Alf, there is no way they could trade his rights to the Oilers or Flames for anything, let alone a high draft pick. Only his rights can be traded and Edmonton or Calgary would have to presume that he would prefer to play for them over Vancouver. I seriously doubt that would happen. If he were to forego his senior year at BC then the Canucks could sign him and potentially trade him anywhere they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 3 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: Alf, there is no way they could trade his rights to the Oilers or Flames for anything, let alone a high draft pick. Only his rights can be traded and Edmonton or Calgary would have to presume that he would prefer to play for them over Vancouver. I seriously doubt that would happen. Luongo, and Flurey were top three picks I think? If the Glames see him as the real deal, why wouldn't they give up their top pick? They have a great team, just no goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: Luongo, and Flurey were top three picks I think? If the Glames see him as the real deal, why wouldn't they give up their top pick? They have a great team, just no goalie. Because, if that trade were made, there is no guarantee Demko would sign there. In my opinion, he would simply wait another year and go the free agency route. Why would Calgary trade for him with very little possibility he would sign there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 18 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: Because, if that trade were made, there is no guarantee Demko would sign there. In my opinion, he would simply wait another year and go the free agency route. Why would Calgary trade for him with very little possibility he would sign there? After we sign him, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Alflives said: After we sign him, of course. Yes, then you could trade him anywhere. The OP was asking if we could trade him if we could not sign him and what the potential return would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: Yes, then you could trade him anywhere. The OP was asking if we could trade him if we could not sign him and what the potential return would be. Why in the hell would we do that? Sign Demko, he plays in Utica next season. Extend Miller for another two seasons, bring up Demko as the next one, and trade Markstrom for picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: Why in the hell would we do that? Sign Demko, he plays in Utica next season. Extend Miller for another two seasons, bring up Demko as the next one, and trade Markstrom for picks. I didn't say we should do that. I simply said that is about the only way you could trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justdean10 Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said: If I am Demko there's no way I do not sign with Vancouver. Look at the goaltending depth here. Miller is signed for 1 more year and there's Markstrom. There's very little behind that. The door is wide open for him. why wouldn't he sign here? We have great goalie coaches, that have turned our last 3 goalie prospects in to NHL goalies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Alflives said: Luongo, and Flurey were top three picks I think? If the Glames see him as the real deal, why wouldn't they give up their top pick? They have a great team, just no goalie. Goalies are hit-and-miss, and very hard to project. For every Luongo, Fleury, and Price, there are multiple high picks that end up wasted. Dipietro, Krahn, Leclaire, Blackburn, Montoya, Bernier, and Helenius were all taken in the first half of the first round between 2000-2006. Meanwhile, those same drafts produced Lundqvist (7th round), Smith (5th), Elliott (9th), Halak (9th), Crawford (2nd), Howard (2nd), Quick (3rd), Bishop (3rd), Reimer (4th), and Mason (3rd). Also, teams realized they could find good goaltending from undrafted free agents (Ed Belfour, Curtis Joseph, Tim Thomas* [drafted, but unsigned], Nicklas Backstrom, Dwayne Roloson, Sergei Bobrovsky, Jonas Hiller, Antti Niemi, Martin Jones, etc.). So unless you really hit a home run, even a decent drafted goalie wasn't necessarily better than someone you could find for free elsewhere. So now, goalies are rarely taken at all until the late 1st round anymore. Last year Samsonov was the clear #1 guy available, and he wasn't taken until 22nd overall. The next goalie wasn't picked until pick 42 (Blackwood), and the 3rd not until 70. Teams still took goalies - there were another 21 selected - they just realized that they were more like lottery tickets than picking any other position. As for the Flames, they have 2 very good goaltending prospects already, in Mason MacDonald and Jon Gillies. Joni Ortio and Nick Schneider also have upside. Between the 4 of them, at least one should end up a good starter, and another a decent back-up. They have no need for another prospect, even one as good as Demko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 I think he will sign in Vancouver. Melanson is going to be leaving the Canucks at the end of this year but I doubt that would influence his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.