At Number 10 Who do we take?

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Perhaps if Spencer Knight is available around the Carolina pick, then we offer Demko for the pick to nab him. At least that way Carolina gets a goalie that is further along in development to help with their window that they are looking at now and we get a goalie that should hopefully be ready to take over when Markstrom is done (after his extension). Hopefully we can get more out of the deal as well, but I'm not sure if Demko is at a 1st round pick value quite yet as he's still quite unproven at the NHL level. For comparison sake, Schnieder had basically a full season of games under his belt with incredible numbers before landing a 10th overall pick. Demko has played 10 NHL games so far with very average numbers.

 

Demko will need a pretty good season next year (playing at least 30 games) to up his value to nab what you're looking for and if that happens, we are in a position where we need to decide if we're actually better off keeping him and moving Marky instead (who would have lesser value as a pending UFA).

I was kind of thinking about Knight if they can somehow get a letr first pick...........however, he is rated top 20 in some scouting lists I believe.  I'm not sure I'd dangle Demko for that pck though.  A tanev deal for that pick might work though.

[peaches5]

34 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

It depends on what other goalies are on the market as well when the ED comes around. Seattle might pick a different player on our team altogether if their goalie situation is set and we keep both. Either way whoever is exposed will be our "backup" and if that's all we are losing in the ED, then I would say we would come out relatively unscathed. Markstrom and Demko have 2 years to fight to be protected. Personally I think it's too big of a gamble to trade either unless we get a significant piece in return, but that only pushes out another decent potential player to be exposed in a different position. Right now, Demko is unproven, but has potential to be a #1, so he is certainly moveable but not at the highest potential trade value. If we move Markstrom before Demko is ready, then we could be resetting back the rebuild and maybe even taking a step backwards if Demko doesn't find the next level in a hurry.

 

We shouldn't be building around the ED and just let it play out as we will lose one decent player no matter what, so just take the loss and move on.

Demko or Markstrom would be the only person of value we would have exposed. You're diminishing the value or either Demko or Markstrom by saying well one of them will be a "backup". That is not true. They both could, and likely both will, be starting goalies. So we would be giving up a starting goalie for nothing because we didn't plan ahead. That is just stupidity. If Markstrom has value then you trade him and if Demko doesn't turn out then sign a free agent goalie. It's better than losing Markstrom or Demko for nothing. Markstrom isn't that young. By the time this team is ready to be a contender, he will be too old or in his last years. It makes way more sense to trade Markstrom while his stock is high.

[aGENT]

53 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

It depends on what other goalies are on the market as well when the ED comes around. Seattle might pick a different player on our team altogether if their goalie situation is set and we keep both. Either way whoever is exposed will be our "backup" and if that's all we are losing in the ED, then I would say we would come out relatively unscathed

I don't think you've seriously looked at who we would/wouldn't need to protect if that's what you think. If we haven't moved one of the goalies by then, it's almost guaranteed we'd be losing one short of Benning making a LOT of trades/signings for guys requiring protection elsewhere on the roster.

 

And in two years, it's likely neither are particularly considered 'backups'.

 

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

I was kind of thinking about Knight if they can somehow get a letr first pick...........however, he is rated top 20 in some scouting lists I believe.  I'm not sure I'd dangle Demko for that pck though.  A tanev deal for that pick might work though.

Sadly, I think the days of Tanev netting us a mid 1st have passed. Even with retention.

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't think you've seriously looked at who we would/wouldn't need to protect if that's what you think. If we haven't moved one of the goalies by then, it's almost guaranteed we'd be losing one short of Benning making a LOT of trades/signings for guys requiring protection elsewhere on the roster.

  

And in two years, it's likely neither are particularly considered 'backups'.

 

Sadly, I think the days of Tanev netting us a mid 1st have passed. Even with retention.

I'm talking more about the short term........after next season we'll have a better idea of where they are with Demko and Marky.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

I'm talking more about the short term........after next season we'll have a better idea of where they are with Demko and Marky.

That's great but I still don't think Tanev has mid 1st value.

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

Demko or Markstrom would be the only person of value we would have exposed. You're diminishing the value or either Demko or Markstrom by saying well one of them will be a "backup". That is not true. They both could, and likely both will, be starting goalies. So we would be giving up a starting goalie for nothing because we didn't plan ahead. That is just stupidity. If Markstrom has value then you trade him and if Demko doesn't turn out then sign a free agent goalie. It's better than losing Markstrom or Demko for nothing. Markstrom isn't that young. By the time this team is ready to be a contender, he will be too old or in his last years. It makes way more sense to trade Markstrom while his stock is high.

I agree that Markstrom's value is high right now, but he's our clear cut starter right now. Demko has played a total of 10 NHL games and hasn't been lights out in them. We don't know how Demko will fare in the next couple of years (look how long Marky took before hopefully finding a new level to his game).

 

Again we don't know two years down the road if there are more players of value that may be exposed. We also don't know if the market will be flooded with decent goaltending that may ours won't be appealing. Maybe we strategically don't protect Markstrom if his value is declining in a couple of years and his contract isn't worth taking. There are many ways around this where we don't have to rush to move a goalie. Personally I think if we lose one, then we lose one, as long as we protect the best goalie to carry us forward. If we feel comfortable in a position that we won't lose someone of too much value, then surely there will be a team out there that may want to look to add a goalie and we make a swap that helps both clubs strengthen their team and protect their assets. The ED is still a couple of years away and we will lose (only) one player regardless, so why mess with the build over this?

[stawns]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't think you've seriously looked at who we would/wouldn't need to protect if that's what you think. If we haven't moved one of the goalies by then, it's almost guaranteed we'd be losing one short of Benning making a LOT of trades/signings for guys requiring protection elsewhere on the roster.

  

And in two years, it's likely neither are particularly considered 'backups'.

 

Sadly, I think the days of Tanev netting us a mid 1st have passed. Even with retention.

I agree, but they might be able to add..........longshot though, I agree.

[theo5789]

16 minutes ago, stawns said:

I was kind of thinking about Knight if they can somehow get a letr first pick...........however, he is rated top 20 in some scouting lists I believe.  I'm not sure I'd dangle Demko for that pck though.  A tanev deal for that pick might work though.

Carolina has no need for Tanev and Tanev likely won't fetch a 1st at this point in the Knight range. It was just an idea that if we are moving a goalie for the sake of protecting a goalie, then we may as well target a highly rated replacement that doesn't need protection and helps our long term future.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

so why mess with the build over this?

Because we have more pressing needs elsewhere, need to actually trade value to get something of value back and can easily fill the gap with a UFA. All while reducing ED exposure.

[Tomatoes11]

Don’t agree with selecting a winger. I’d rather overpay Panarin with a really bad Sundin level contract then pass on a center or d just because we can use a winger. And if we can’t get Panarin, these reject type wingers like Pearson and leivo are good enough for now. We can always try to add the winger when we pick much lower in the next few seasons. Like boeser 23 range. Taking Boldy that high I am not sold on.

[JM_]

25 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Perhaps if Spencer Knight is available around the Carolina pick, then we offer Demko for the pick to nab him. At least that way Carolina gets a goalie that is further along in development to help with their window that they are looking at now and we get a goalie that should hopefully be ready to take over when Markstrom is done (after his extension). Hopefully we can get more out of the deal as well, but I'm not sure if Demko is at a 1st round pick value quite yet as he's still quite unproven at the NHL level. For comparison sake, Schnieder had basically a full season of games under his belt with incredible numbers before landing a 10th overall pick. Demko has played 10 NHL games so far with very average numbers.

 

Demko will need a pretty good season next year (playing at least 30 games) to up his value to nab what you're looking for and if that happens, we are in a position where we need to decide if we're actually better off keeping him and moving Marky instead (who would have lesser value as a pending UFA).

thats probably true. But every once in a while a Peter Chiarelli comes along.... 

[smokes]

I don't care who we draft as long as we draft skill. I'll like him because he was drafted by the Canucks anyways.

Edited April 11, 2019 by smokes

[Borvat]

11 hours ago, iceman64 said:

why would we trade demko or dip?  markstrom is here for another 2 years Im sure and demko can back up both of those years and dip can play on the farm..  then trade markstrom when demko and dip have continued their development with ian clark and get to top nhl calibre goalie status.  

It's not what I would prefer but you have to give to get.  Demko is an asset that someone would want and we could get a decent return for.  Benning is heading into his final year and will likely make some moves.  Also the Entry Draft is looming.

[theo5789]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't think you've seriously looked at who we would/wouldn't need to protect if that's what you think. If we haven't moved one of the goalies by then, it's almost guaranteed we'd be losing one short of Benning making a LOT of trades/signings for guys requiring protection elsewhere on the roster.

 

And in two years, it's likely neither are particularly considered 'backups'.

I honestly haven't looked at who would need protection or not, but I do know we cannot just look at our team. There may be other goalie options they would prefer and it depends on how our goalies fare in the next couple of years in comparison to the other potential available goalies. They are not going to stockpile on goalies as the trade market for them would be thin and they can carry only so many. So will Demko or Markstrom fit as their #1 or 2 in a couple of years?

 

We don't know if Markstrom has found a new level consistently. Maybe he rode a hot streak to finish the year. Maybe his peak is for a couple of seasons and he drops off. Demko has 10 NHL games to his name right now and his stats aren't spectacular. He may blossom in the next couple of years or he has growing pains and maybe doesn't excel for another couple of years as a backup (look at how long Schnieder was a backup and look how long Markstrom has taken to appear to find another level). There is too much uncertainty from our end alone to consider making a move this offseason IMO and of course the closer you draw to the ED, then teams will be more weary to add a goalie that they may need to protect unless it's clear that they are bringing in someone that they know they can protect. I just haven't seen enough to suggest that it is "likely neither" will be "backups" in a couple years from now. Plus when I suggest "backup", I meant that we will hopefully be protecting our starter that is hopefully better than the one we may potentially lose, so who cares if that is our biggest loss as we are going to lose someone of value regardless.

[shad0w4life]

Caufield....kid is the goal scorer Huges makes the plays but all the finish is Caufield, really liking that pick, having a great ACCURATE shot is a huge asset on our anemic PP.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats probably true. But every once in a while a Peter Chiarelli comes along.... 

I don't really agree that's entirely true. Demko looked pretty damn good his last 3-4 games (behind a very suspect team and defense). And they were far from 'gimme' games. It really didn't take him long to adjust and that's after an unlucky injury filled season.

 

He's also got the pedigree and history to make him a pretty solid bet for a team looking for an early 20's, future starter for the next decade'ish. I think NHL GM's and their scouting staffs/goalie coaches would have a very good idea of exactly what he represents.

[theo5789]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Because we have more pressing needs elsewhere, need to actually trade value to get something of value back and can easily fill the gap with a UFA. All while reducing ED exposure.

I don't think Demko's value is all that high. If we were to look at a goalie on another team in the same situation, we wouldn't offer that much other than potential as well back. Moving Markstrom now could have a negative effect if Demko isn't ready (this is why we have brought in vets to shelter the young guys). I'm not suggesting we don't move them or don't listen to offers, but now just doesn't seem to be the time and I'm not all too concerned at this point as if they are as good as we are making them out to be by the time ED comes around, then were will certainly be a team willing to make a deal with us.

[theo5789]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats probably true. But every once in a while a Peter Chiarelli comes along.... 

We make a deal if there's a Chiarelli on the other end, but I'm not banking on it.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

I don't think Demko's value is all that high.

Disagree.

 

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't really agree that's entirely true. Demko looked pretty damn good his last 3-4 games (behind a very suspect team and defense). And they were far from 'gimme' games. It really didn't take him long to adjust and that's after an unlucky injury filled season.

 

He's also got the pedigree and history to make him a pretty solid bet for a team looking for an early 20's, future starter for the next decade'ish. I think NHL GM's and their scouting staffs/goalie coaches would have a very good idea of exactly what he represents.

 

[GB5]

22 hours ago, D-Money said:

We haven't had a lot of success at #10 in the past...

 

Cody Hodgson

Luc Bourdon

Brad Ference

J.J. Daigneault

Garth Butcher

Rick Blight

 

Let's hope Benning can find the next Rantanen (best of the recent 10th overalls).

 

I think they did OK with some of these guys.

Bourdon was developing nicely and would have been a player for this team for years to come.

Butcher was one of the meanest and toughest defensive d-men to ever play for the Canucks. Opposing players feared coming near the net when he was there, he also played 897 NHL games and was awesome.