Monty Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 13 hours ago, AV's Coin said: For example trade Miller to Calgary for an early second or better or an equivalent young D prospect - Kylington/Andersson/Wotherspoon etc. Calgary is not stupid enough to do those deals. Andersson alone nearly made the team as an 18 year old last year. Calgary is rumored to be the front runner for James Reimer, who continued to post exceptional numbers when he played in San Jose after the deadline. They don't need or want Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 21, 2016 Author Share Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, tyhee said: Only if Markstrom is unhappy and wants to test unrestricted free agency would I consider trading him unless something else is done to stabilize the goaltending situation. Yup - this is the root of it for me. If Markstrom isn't extended by the trade deadline it is worth considering moving him, imo. Maybe not to Edmonton - I've taken my lumps on that idea - but there may be another top 10 pick team that needs him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Markstrom is RFA, and Miller is UFA. This is what we should do, in my opinion: At the deadline next year if we are not a playoff team or have no chance of making it past the first round, TRY to trade Miller, but if we can't get anything we keep him and let him walk at the end of the season. Regardless, we re-sign Markstrom. Trading him would be a horrible idea before we know how Demko will develop, and if we get in while he's still a backup and his ability to handle a whole season as #1 is untested, we can probably sign him for a reasonable amount like 3m per for say, 3 years ideally. Short enough of a contract he knows if he does well he will be due for a big pay raise in short order. Then we give Markstrom the #1 job, and Demko is to be his backup. He will be pushed to be his best thanks to another goalie waiting to prove himself (which would drive up his trade value) and it will give Demko some real NHL experience as a backup, without the pressure of being a #1. Once we are sure Demko is the real deal, *then* we can trade Markstrom. Or, if Demko turns out to not be the elite goalie we're all hoping for, we can keep him as the backup (I'm sure he will at least be good enough for that role) and go with Markstrom if he has done enough to prove capable as our go-to guy. And, of course, if neither pans out then we are dipping into the UFA goalie market again. Markstrom was inconsistent last year, and has yet to prove he can be a #1 in this league quite yet. Losing him earlier than later removes our insurance, and isn't likely to get a reasonable return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I love Markstrom's team first attitude and no way do I want to see him traded. Demko is probably at least 4 years away from being a undisputed #1 in NHL (assuming he develops into one) so having Markstrom in the meantime is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 17 hours ago, Alflives said: Is everyone in Winnipeg this bright? I cant speak for them all. But more than one, yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Monty said: Calgary is not stupid enough to do those deals. Andersson alone nearly made the team as an 18 year old last year. Calgary is rumored to be the front runner for James Reimer, who continued to post exceptional numbers when he played in San Jose after the deadline. They don't need or want Miller. If Calgary does go after Reimer, then it opens a hole in San Jose, which is about the only situation I could see Miller being interested in. He'd have to be willing to take a lesser role to split with the starter (Jones) but it's in the same state as he wants to be at least. 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: Yup - this is the root of it for me. If Markstrom isn't extended by the trade deadline it is worth considering moving him, imo. Maybe not to Edmonton - I've taken my lumps on that idea - but there may be another top 10 pick team that needs him. It's pretty easy to have a look at the teams in that spot: Toronto: Bernier, Sparks Edmonton: Talbot, Brossoit Vancouver: duh Columbus: Bobrovski Calgary: ...Ortio, Ramo Winnipeg: Pavlec, Hutchinson Arizona: Smith, Domingue Buffalo: Lehner Montreal: Price Colorado: Varlamov New Jersey: Schneider I listed backups in a few cases but pretty much all of these teams have young goalies in the system either close now or will be in a few years. Calgary needs NHL help now, as does Arizona to an extent (but they could be happy with Domingue). I don't see much a need for a goalie who'd want to be a starter going to any of the other teams. The next 5-6 teams after that are the same, no need for a goalie that would want to give up much for Markstrom. Maybe at the deadline someone has a major injury issue in net and would pay for a goalie, but I don't think we'll see enough interest in Markstrom to move him vs just letting Miller go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 21, 2016 Author Share Posted April 21, 2016 21 minutes ago, elvis15 said: If Calgary does go after Reimer, then it opens a hole in San Jose, which is about the only situation I could see Miller being interested in. He'd have to be willing to take a lesser role to split with the starter (Jones) but it's in the same state as he wants to be at least. It's pretty easy to have a look at the teams in that spot: Toronto: Bernier, Sparks Edmonton: Talbot, Brossoit Vancouver: duh Columbus: Bobrovski Calgary: ...Ortio, Ramo Winnipeg: Pavlec, Hutchinson Arizona: Smith, Domingue Buffalo: Lehner Montreal: Price Colorado: Varlamov New Jersey: Schneider I listed backups in a few cases but pretty much all of these teams have young goalies in the system either close now or will be in a few years. Calgary needs NHL help now, as does Arizona to an extent (but they could be happy with Domingue). I don't see much a need for a goalie who'd want to be a starter going to any of the other teams. The next 5-6 teams after that are the same, no need for a goalie that would want to give up much for Markstrom. Maybe at the deadline someone has a major injury issue in net and would pay for a goalie, but I don't think we'll see enough interest in Markstrom to move him vs just letting Miller go. Maybe Buffalo? Benning has the history with them, and they're probably in around the 8 spot in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 3 hours ago, kloubek said: Markstrom is RFA, and Miller is UFA. I think you should check that statement. Each of nhlnumbers.com, generalfanager.com and capfriendly.com show he'll be an UFA in a year if not extended. Further, the rules seem pretty clear to me that he'll be UFA. Article 10.1(a) of the CBA reads as follows: "Any Player who either has seven (7) Accrued Seasons or is 27 years of age or older as of June 30 of the end of a League Year, shall, if his most recent SPC has expired, with such expiry occurring either as of June 30 of such League Year or June 30 of any prior League Year, become an Unrestricted Free Agent. Such Player shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with such Player, without penalty or restriction, or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft Choice Compensation or any other compensation or equalization obligation of any kind." Markstrom was born January 31, 1990 (per hockeydb.com) so when his current contract expires on June 30, 2017, he'll be 27 years of age, making him an unrestricted free agent. I think he's very, very likely to re-sign with the Canucks and am not looking to raise red flags, but an assumption that the Canucks can re-sign him because he'll be a RFA doesn't appear to be based in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 6 hours ago, Bob Long said: listen cat eater, I get there's a need for some to be snarky on CDC but there is a logic here - both Markstrom and Miller are UFAs next year, meaning we can lose them both. Miller could play long enough to see Demko emerge. Markstrom has much more value in a trade than Miller. Those are all facts. We don't know how Markstrom will feel about Demko - he might be happy to see what free agency offers him, as being a UFA gives him the edge in negotiations, other team will want him. Plus, I guess reading comprehension wasn't taught on your planet, I said specifically as "in a package". Sorry Bob, but what do we offer with Marky to get a second overall pick in this draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 4 hours ago, oldnews said: Alf loves Oldnews. This makes Alf smile, like having his furry tummy tickled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 15 hours ago, tyhee said: I think you should check that statement. Each of nhlnumbers.com, generalfanager.com and capfriendly.com show he'll be an UFA in a year if not extended. I stand corrected. Not sure why I've had this impression (for like, a year now) that he was RFA. Not sure it makes much of a difference, really. Either we want him or we don't. There are no circumstances where we trade his RFA rights to another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 20 hours ago, Alflives said: Sorry Bob, but what do we offer with Marky to get a second overall pick in this draft? It would have to be something significant like Hutton + a later pick. Would that be worth it for Laine - imo, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 37 minutes ago, Bob Long said: It would have to be something significant like Hutton + a later pick. Would that be worth it for Laine - imo, yes. Ugh. Every team would say no, as they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 22 hours ago, tyhee said: I think you should check that statement. Each of nhlnumbers.com, generalfanager.com and capfriendly.com show he'll be an UFA in a year if not extended. Further, the rules seem pretty clear to me that he'll be UFA. Article 10.1(a) of the CBA reads as follows: "Any Player who either has seven (7) Accrued Seasons or is 27 years of age or older as of June 30 of the end of a League Year, shall, if his most recent SPC has expired, with such expiry occurring either as of June 30 of such League Year or June 30 of any prior League Year, become an Unrestricted Free Agent. Such Player shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with such Player, without penalty or restriction, or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft Choice Compensation or any other compensation or equalization obligation of any kind." Markstrom was born January 31, 1990 (per hockeydb.com) so when his current contract expires on June 30, 2017, he'll be 27 years of age, making him an unrestricted free agent. I think he's very, very likely to re-sign with the Canucks and am not looking to raise red flags, but an assumption that the Canucks can re-sign him because he'll be a RFA doesn't appear to be based in fact. Markstrom is a UFA next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted April 22, 2016 Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 21 hours ago, Alflives said: Alf loves Oldnews. This makes Alf smile, like having his furry tummy tickled. Maybe, but if we lose both Markstrom and Miller to free agency there will be no end to the "asset management" whining out of... you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Bob Long said: It would have to be something significant like Hutton + a later pick. Would that be worth it for Laine - imo, yes. That sounds very similar to what Burke did to get the second twin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 If Edmonton or Toronto end up with the 1st overall and are receptive to trading it (especially considering both teams are STACKED down the middle and have no real room for Matthews), we should try to trade up for him. I'd trade our 1st round pick (2nd to 5th) PLUS a top prospect for Matthews plus a later pick (2nd or 3rd rounder). For example, 4th overall + Virtanen should probably do it. I would prefer trading McCann but those teams wouldn't have any use for another center anyway and both could use a physical winger. Sure we lose two future top-6 powerforward, but gain something we need MUCH more - a franchise center to replace Henrik. Essentially we're trading Laine and Virtanen for Matthews and hopefully a B-grade defensive prospect. Sounds like a lot but that's what it takes to get a decent player. Suddenly we have Matthews, Horvat, Sutter, McCann and Granlund down the middle. THATS how you start building a team and a franchise, down the middle, on defence and then fill it out with wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.