Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Rumour] Demko to sign with Canucks


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, theminister said:

Yes, a lot of players finish their school in the summers and while they are playing. 

 

It's pretty common, actually. 

I believe I heard that NCAA graduates 93% of their hockey scholarship players.  I don't know if that includes the women too.  But I think that's a really impressive number - probably better than some of the other scholarship sports, maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spotted Zebra said:

Yes, because Eddie Lack is not a good goalie, and there was no need to move on with him. Plus being last doesn't guarantee anything. 

Miller and Markstrom were one of the sole reasons to watch this year, replace Miller with Lack and it would have gotten ugly fast. 

I said a Lack/Markstrom tandem. In a tandem you would play the hot hand. If that was Markstrom than so be it. Lack would have been fine as backup. You forget Lack got us through some tough times under Torts where he played phenomenal. A poor season in Carolina (a very poor team) does not mean Lack is a poor goaltender.

 

Besides, it could be argued that this season was going to turn out like this either way (because a rebuild was required), so why not have taken the chance at a higher draft pick and have used Miller's salary to shore up our abysmal defense and/or add to our prospect pool. Markstrom has played every bit as well as Miller has this year, which proves Miller was a redundant and unnecessary expense. (hindsight I know)

 

Regardless of how many people I hear defend it, I will never agree that Miller's signing was a necessity. It was more an example of this organization trying to sell the fans that this was going to be a competitive team in order to sell tickets/merchandise, when in reality it was plain to see that what this team actually required was a full rebuild and youth movement, which I am glad to see is now well underway. Don't get me wrong, I love the youth movement and the direction this team is going. Which is even more of a reason why, in my opinion, we should have gone all in on that and not signed an overrated veteran goaltender in Ryan Miller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Green Building said:

Fire Jim Benning!

 

Wait. Go Jim Benning!

 

Demko is a beauty. Love to see him in Utica next year.

Pretty much. People flip flop on this board more than a fish out of water.

 

They are up and down more than a Kangaroo in mating season!

 

I could go on, but I think you get my point :)

 

Plus 1 by the way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said:

I said a Lack/Markstrom tandem. In a tandem you would play the hot hand. If that was Markstrom than so be it. Lack would have been fine as backup. You forget Lack got us through some tough times under Torts where he played phenomenal. A poor season in Carolina (a very poor team) does not mean Lack is a poor goaltender.

 

Besides, it could be argued that this season was going to turn out like this either way (because a rebuild was required), so why not have taken the chance at a higher draft pick and have used Miller's salary to shore up our abysmal defense and/or add to our prospect pool. Markstrom has played every bit as well as Miller has this year, which proves Miller was a redundant and unnecessary expense. (hindsight I know)

 

Regardless of how many people I hear defend it, I will never agree that Miller's signing was a necessity. It was more an example of this organization trying to sell the fans that this was going to be a competitive team in order to sell tickets/merchandise, when in reality it was plain to see that what this team actually required was a full rebuild and youth movement, which I am glad to see is now well underway. Don't get me wrong, I love the youth movement and the direction this team is going. Which is even more of a reason why, in my opinion, we should have gone all in on that and not signed an overrated veteran goaltender in Ryan Miller.

You say Eddie did bad on a poor Carolina team, how much worse would he have done on this team, seeing as that we were much worse than the Canes this year? It's funny you mention the Torts year, because as soon as he was getting the games that a Starter would get is when his play really dropped off. I'm not saying he can't be a goalie in this league, he will be a good backup. Like I said people here LOVE their backups, put them in a difficult situation, and you'll end up with the "We want Lu" chants. 

 

You can't run a tandem with a backup and a starter. You need two equally capable goalies, or you'll end up relying on one more than the other, like Luongo/Raycroft. 

 

There has to be players available to spend the money on, even if we had that extra 6 Million two years ago, if there's no one worth it to spend it on, you end up with David Clarkson on your team just for the hell of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spotted Zebra said:

You say Eddie did bad on a poor Carolina team, how much worse would he have done on this team, seeing as that we were much worse than the Canes this year? It's funny you mention the Torts year, because as soon as he was getting the games that a Starter would get is when his play really dropped off. I'm not saying he can't be a goalie in this league, he will be a good backup. Like I said people here LOVE their backups, put them in a difficult situation, and you'll end up with the "We want Lu" chants. 

 

You can't run a tandem with a backup and a starter. You need two equally capable goalies, or you'll end up relying on one more than the other, like Luongo/Raycroft. 

 

There has to be players available to spend the money on, even if we had that extra 6 Million two years ago, if there's no one worth it to spend it on, you end up with David Clarkson on your team just for the hell of it. 

I respectfully disagree. We can chase our tails on this all day long. Neither one of us will be swayed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

    Knowing the Canucks, we'll sign Boeser, DC, and Demko. We'll get first overall, draft Matthews. And he'll go back to Switzerland until his entry level contract ends, and we'll wind up getting a second round pick. 

Why you gotta even put that negative energy out in the universe man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Excellent news if true.  All we have to do is pick in the top 3, take Johanson with pick #33, another D in the 3rd round, and stay the course. 

Why do we take Johanson?  We get Demko, and maybe we get that other FA kid from Boeser's line?  What was his name?

Then with 33 we take a guy like Tyler Benson?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theminister said:

Yes, a lot of players finish their school in the summers and while they are playing. 

 

It's pretty common, actually. 

Yup, Schneider did it, Higgins has his Yale degree and there are plenty of other examples.

 

I'm hoping for a little more concrete news on this, but I'll take it. I think it makes sense for him to sign now to get a little more developmental attention and hockey focus by moving to pro. He's clearly shown he can do most anything at the NCAA level so it's not a bad idea to move on and get your degree remotely/in summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

Why do we take Johanson?  We get Demko, and maybe we get that other FA kid from Boeser's line?  What was his name?

Then with 33 we take a guy like Tyler Benson?  

If you mean Caggiula, he is indeed an FA and therefore not in the draft.  I like Johanson at 33 because of the size/skill package and the Kelowna D thing.  Of course there could be better options and if one falls to us, so much the better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I believe I heard that NCAA graduates 93% of their hockey scholarship players.  I don't know if that includes the women too.  But I think that's a really impressive number - probably better than some of the other scholarship sports, maybe?

This would likely be the case. The top athletic programs may not have the same requirement, but the lesser ones (particularly women's programs and secondary sports like soccer, lacrosse, etc.) generally provide a scholarship on the basis that athletes are covered for 4 years but must attend a 5th on their own cost (due to the program being spread out for athletes to allow for time as students as well without overwhelming them). I don't know the full details, but that was the gist of what I heard from a local student who was offered a US college scholarship for soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, elvis15 said:

This would likely be the case. The top athletic programs may not have the same requirement, but the lesser ones (particularly women's programs and secondary sports like soccer, lacrosse, etc.) generally provide a scholarship on the basis that athletes are covered for 4 years but must attend a 5th on their own cost (due to the program being spread out for athletes to allow for time as students as well without overwhelming them). I don't know the full details, but that was the gist of what I heard from a local student who was offered a US college scholarship for soccer.

I ran the nhl simulator several times with the majority vote going to 5th overall for us. your safe with your bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...