Markstrom/Demko Seattle Expasion draft (Discussion/Poll)

[the grinder]

do we pull another trade a young goalie for first round pick ala schiender?  and stick with marky  for a few more years and hope  dipierto  doesn't become rick dipierto.  Are we gonna be in a cap crunch and can't or won't pay markstrom 5 to 6 million a season and trade him and get a 2nd and a prospect and hope demko can carry the workload ,. .  this is going to be a very exciting and interesting season for every player on the canucks , its going to be preform or hit the road  this year

[Bobby James]

I hope Marky has a really solid start to the season and gets a bunch of games and then yeah I hope we trade him. I don't see him as our future goalie with Demko as his current back up and Dipietro coming up as well (with a lot of positive talk around his play and potential). Markstrom looks to be hitting his prime now after a great season last year and I'm guessing he'll want around 5 million for 4-5 years, which he is worth, but just not to us at this stage. 

 

This could be a good chance to move Marky to a contender with goalie concerns and get pretty good value back. 

Obviously though if Demko is a mess that would change everything, but yeah if things progress somewhat as they've looked to be so far then I think Demko becomes our starter regardless in the next year or so. Let's not miss an opportunity to get a good pick/add to the prospect pool.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Bobby James

[qwijibo]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

That didn't stop Vegas from claiming Fleury as a goaltender.

Fleury was a cup winning goalie who has been near the top of the league for more than a decade.  Markstrom, not so much 

[Dazzle]

58 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Fleury was a cup winning goalie who has been near the top of the league for more than a decade.  Markstrom, not so much 

Still, Pittsburgh left him unprotected - and kept Murray instead. They didn't even trade Fleury for anything.

[RowdyCanuck]

Is it just me but I thought  about Loui for Quick( let Clark do his thing) and move markstrom for a first?  And if Quick approves the trade we can not honor his  nmc and let Seattle take him.....

also we all saw what Clark did with lo and Quick plays a similar style before Clark started working with Lo. 

[qwijibo]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Still, Pittsburgh left him unprotected - and kept Murray instead. They didn't even trade Fleury for anything.

Murray had already won a cup 

[King Heffy]

We're going to lose something we don't want to regardless.  Trading a goalie just means we lose another forward we don't want to.

[Kanukfanatic]

9 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Your thoughts?

I could answer none of those. We cannot know what happens in the coming days let alone the coming months and months.

 

We have no idea how good Marky will be this year.  We have no idea how good Demko could end up being this year.

 

It is all speculation and all those decisions will have to wait until the Canucks see how their players perform.

 

Edit: the Canucks GM won't even know what they are going to do until the weeks leading up to the ED.  Thi poll is very premature.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Kanukfanatic

[kloubek]

We play the season out so we have a larger sample size of both goalies.  If they both play well that is great for us in regards to increased trade value.

 

At TDL keep the one we feel will be the best of the two for us in a couple of years, and ship the other off with Tanev plus another player to a "win now" team that needs a #1 goalie and a proven defender. In return for that plus maybe a prospect, hopefully we get a big, young, skilled defender who can be part of our core shortly. Most likely that is Marky as he will be more proven and the lower risk, though his value will be limited by the fact he will be UFA of course.

 

I don't want to see Marky simply walk off and get nothing for him, and if we re-sign him you know Seattle will strip one of them from us.

Edited July 27, 2019 by kloubek

[Johnny Torts]

Marky is pretty beast. That, we all have seen. 

 

 

[IBatch]

11 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

I thought a little higher $, but same years

Yes, I see them both unprotected, or traded

One of the things that keeps on popping up is

Would Benning have the jam to trade either

while in a playoff hunt?

I don't see it, but he should IMO

Maybe together. lol

Currently only 10 goalies make 6 or more and a lot of very good and a few elite make 5 or less.  Bishop makes less then 5 and Rinne 5....honestly with what he’s done he’s a little overpaid right now.  Sure he’s got the number one job, but veteran journeyman like Smith (who at one time was a top goalie, albeit a long time ago now ) and Elliot (a very good comparison except Elliot had better spells then Markstrom has ever had) making 2.    Sure wages are going up, but he’d have to be a Vezina winner or finalist to command 5 IMO with his next contract.  A modest raise to 4.25 would seem fair with who’s out there and what they are making, assuming he plays the same way he did from December on for the entire season, times three years.   As far as the expansion draft goes if Markstrom is the better goalie by a significant margin and had two great seasons under his belt, then it would be hard not to protect him, and trade Demko for a solid return.   Vice versa would be a much easier decision,  don’t think they will make it easy for Benning especially if it’s similar to what happened with PIT losing MAF, something I’m sure they regret.

[IBatch]

10 hours ago, Chris12345 said:

I always struggle with these.

 

We should trade any and all players at the trade deadline if the return is appropriate.

 

Should we trade Marky at the deadline to make room for Thatcher? Sure, if the return is right.

The return in this case might be right if we get a third rounder .... won’t make many people happy but it’s better then nothing and if we are going with Demko then it makes sense.  Unless JB wants them to take Markstrom to keep one of his young forward or defenseman from getting nabbed of course..

[vannuck59]

20 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

 I have just been thinking about the Seattle expansion draft and who we will protect at that time...………….

 

I get that, anchoring ourselves to any one player, 2 years prior, may be a little premature , but I wonder about some of the comments I have read

 

on CDC about which goaltender we may protect...……..

 

My problem comes from the statement by some that Markstrom may be the goaltender protected at that time...……….I really have a hard time with that position

 

1st of all, all things being equal. Markstrom, is at best an average goaltender, who has been such for 1 year...…..a very small sample size

 

2ndly, Demko, has shown he is a NHL goaltender, albeit a small sample size, but given everything else is equal, age must be a issue that is weighed very carefully

 

Demko, is a goaltender of the future, Markstrom of the present, I would question whether Markstrom has 5 more years in the league in total, strictly on age alone.

 

One never knows, but it is the norm, and I would not be wanting to bet on our future, if our money is on Markstrom playing longer than that

 

I personally, would risk not putting Markstrom on the protective list, if we decide not to trade him, which I honestly do not think Benning will do.

 

Lastly, how will Markstrom's contract demands come into play with all the young gun contracts coming up? What will Markstrom's new contract be worth and for how long?

 

It will be interesting to see who is not protected from the Canucks and around the league. We definitely will loose someone of value, the question will be who?

 

If we look back at the Vegas expansion draft, Pittsburgh let Fleury go, which I am sure was painful, but was probably the right thing to do, long term

 

I think this is a no brainer for us.

 

My question is, what other Goalies are exposed, that would give Seattle, strength and depth...…..what other players from the exposed Canucks may be more enticing?

 

My second question is, if you would protect Demko, then would you trade Markstrom at the TDL this year, as his contract is up at the end of the year...….

 

Are we prepared to give Markstrom a 5 year, $5.5 million per year contract, with a NTC...………...because if he plays well, that is what he will want, IMO

 

Your thoughts?

Jim is better off trading Markstrom this year loading up at the draft hey you can always resign him in the off  season if you want. 

[IBatch]

15 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

Jim is better off trading Markstrom this year loading up at the draft hey you can always resign him in the off  season if you want. 

Maybe ... but we likely won’t because he will keep him for a playoff run.  At this point the die is cast and he’s going with this group and for this year and possibly  the next Markstrom will be part of it.   Don’t see Demko winning the spot outright, next year maybe.  Then he’s left exposed just to keep someone else from getting picked, that’s worth at least a second, maybe even a late first  given we are definitely losing either our fourth best defenseman or a third liner or a cusp guy that Seattle thinks will turn into something better then that.  Pretty much what we could hope for in a Markstrom trade is what we will lose.   As long as we sign him to a reasonable cap hit.  

 

Unless JB needs to move on from him for cap reasons and sign a cheaper option... which is a big possibility too...then yes I absolutely agree that trading him even if we are in the playoffs, might be the best thing long term...still doubt we trade him as the allure of winning a round or two could be too strong.

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Maybe ... but we likely won’t because he will keep him for a playoff run.  At this point the die is cast and he’s going with this group and for this year and possibly  the next Markstrom will be part of it.   Don’t see Demko winning the spot outright, next year maybe.  Then he’s left exposed just to keep someone else from getting picked, that’s worth at least a second, maybe even a late first  given we are definitely losing either our fourth best defenseman or a third liner or a cusp guy that Seattle thinks will turn into something better then that.  Pretty much what we could hope for in a Markstrom trade is what we will lose.   As long as we sign him to a reasonable cap hit.  

 

Unless JB needs to move on from him for cap reasons and sign a cheaper option... which is a big possibility too...then yes I absolutely agree that trading him even if we are in the playoffs, might be the best thing long term...still doubt we trade him as the allure of winning a round or two could be too strong.

This is my greatest fear, it is not if we are a top 10, but if we are at best a top 16, and Benning decides to get a round of playoffs games over filling the coffers for later years......

 

My argument has always been, that the new core, is 3 or 4 years away from truly competing, and with Markstrom needing a new contract at his age, Tanev needing a new contract at his age, and Sutter and Baertschi really being pushed, that Benning has been a little premature in his next step.

 

I feel, the Canucks are in control of their destiny for once, and IMO, could stand to move out the above, for futures, all the while, competing and gaining experience. I truly do not have any problem with Benning's signing this year, and look forward to see what happens, but feel that aside from Markstrom, the rest are/have/could be replaced internally with little deviation in our results.

 

To me, the Markstrom/Demko discussion is the only one that truly merits discussion for it's long term implications. I agree with Kanuckfanatic's statement, that it is somewhat premature to decide who to keep out of Demko/Markstrom, but IMO, the depth of the team will improve the stats of our goalies, and the ranking of our team, and as Benning has never wanted to take a step back to go 2 steps forwards, I fear that he will refuse to make those hard decisions at this years TDL, and would rather risk loosing one at the Expansion draft.

 

My secondary problem, is that both Markstrom and Demko are coming up to new contracts, this and next year, and will want to see increases. especially if their stats are solid.

 

I do not think that works all that well with the other signings we will have to have signed...…...especially with what seems to be happening with bridge deals

 

The sky is not falling, in fact, we are looking pretty good, but I would like to see some of these older players moved while they have some value, and where it makes sense to protect cap space...……..I will be the first one to agree that a good start with no injuries, will make this all happen a lot easier, from a trade perspective, but will do the exact opposite from a compete perspective...……..not a bad place to be in.

 

I would argue that all these issues are so intertwined and there are so many facets...it is why GM's get paid the big bucks

[IBatch]

9 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

This is my greatest fear, it is not if we are a top 10, but if we are at best a top 16, and Benning decides to get a round of playoffs games over filling the coffers for later years......

 

My argument has always been, that the new core, is 3 or 4 years away from truly competing, and with Markstrom needing a new contract at his age, Tanev needing a new contract at his age, and Sutter and Baertschi really being pushed, that Benning has been a little premature in his next step.

 

I feel, the Canucks are in control of their destiny for once, and IMO, could stand to move out the above, for futures, all the while, competing and gaining experience. I truly do not have any problem with Benning's signing this year, and look forward to see what happens, but feel that aside from Markstrom, the rest are/have/could be replaced internally with little deviation in our results.

 

To me, the Markstrom/Demko discussion is the only one that truly merits discussion for it's long term implications. I agree with Kanuckfanatic's statement, that it is somewhat premature to decide who to keep out of Demko/Markstrom, but IMO, the depth of the team will improve the stats of our goalies, and the ranking of our team, and as Benning has never wanted to take a step back to go 2 steps forwards, I fear that he will refuse to make those hard decisions at this years TDL, and would rather risk loosing one at the Expansion draft.

 

My secondary problem, is that both Markstrom and Demko are coming up to new contracts, this and next year, and will want to see increases. especially if their stats are solid.

 

I do not think that works all that well with the other signings we will have to have signed...…...especially with what seems to be happening with bridge deals

 

The sky is not falling, in fact, we are looking pretty good, but I would like to see some of these older players moved while they have some value, and where it makes sense to protect cap space...……..I will be the first one to agree that a good start with no injuries, will make this all happen a lot easier, from a trade perspective, but will do the exact opposite from a compete perspective...……..not a bad place to be in.

 

I would argue that all these issues are so intertwined and there are so many facets...it is why GM's get paid the big bucks

These are real issues facing the club going forward for sure.  Benning hasn’t made much of a splash at the TDL since he came here with the exception of Burrows and Hansen but that even proves the point more being the high water mark, and I’m not expecting him to change course this year ...  

 

My biggest fear is he re-signs Markstrom at an unpalatable cap hit and Seattle picks someone else.  The reasoning behind this is IF he does continue at the same rate as last year we likely could find a desperate playoff team that has an injured or unreliable goaltending tandem that wants an upgrade, and could be willing to part with their second or maybe even a first for him as a rental.  But we all know that’s never going to happen.   He will get re-signed and left unprotected.  

 

And he can be our sacrifice to the alter of expansion.  Unless his cap hit sucks (to me that’s more then 4.5, there are a lot of arguably better goalies for less then that) and Seattle picks our fourth best defenseman (worth more then a second any day) or picks our 8th best forward or a prospect that they believe will have more upside then that.  Losing Markstrom is completely exceptable under these circumstances....

 

However I am going to say that PIT screwed the pooch by going with Murray...he was a huge part of their first cup, not as much he second and MAF made them look foolish.    If Markstrom is a Vezina finalist this year it’s going to give JB migraines trying to figure out the best path forward, it’s not like he’s that old.  

[Father Ryan]

On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 3:31 PM, Dazzle said:

That didn't stop Vegas from claiming Fleury as a goaltender.

One big difference between Markstrom and Fleury. Fleury has two Cups behind him. He is a proven playoff goalie. Markie has yet to prove anything, except that he may be showing that he is a decent goalie. That being said, and looking at who we likely will have out there to pick from, I could easily see Markie not being taken. If one, or both, of Miller and Ferland show that they are true top 6 players, I could easily see Virtanen being exposed, along with Stetcher, Leivo, Tanev and Goldobin (if he is still here).