[proposal] Jacob Markstrom to Calgary for Cam Talbot + defenseman / A flier on Jesse Puljiujarvi

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

why not both? 

I find these trade proposals fun.  I kind of appreciate them, because we can have fun.  Some of the threads (those political ones and some of the prospects ones) are way too serious, and get me going away from the fun part of our forum.  

[Hindustan Smyl]

39 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the original idea pretty much allows Calgary to knock us out of the playoffs. No thanks.

 

Maybe NJ could use Marky but we're not getting a Hall for him. 

 

Why would Holland want an injured Juolevi?

 

So many questions. 

If the goal is to build for the future and not now, then moving Markstrom for a younger long term asset as the center piece (ie  a young defenseman), while allowing for Demko to take on a “1A role” with a guy like Talbot (something that Demko appears to be ready for), would arguably be the better choice.   
 

Holland might take on Juolevi to throw the dice on a long shot prospect with high upside (much like Puljiujarvi is right now).   In my proposed deal, we’d also give them a decent NHL player in someone like Leivo.   The Canucks would take back JP and one of their long shot prospects on D to even out the odds.

 

Basically, it would be an exchange of two former high draft picks that might benefit from a change of scenery.

 

[YEGCanuck]

I can think of zero good reasons to trade with Cow-town or E-town.

[Gaudette Celly]

So in other words, help Calgary get into the playoffs and us out of them in one single move.

[luckylager]

31 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Trump rally, or line up for Walmart's big tent sale?  

It was a three for one "Alabama Special"

 

Walmart tent sale, Trump rally BBQ.

[JM_]

40 minutes ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

If the goal is to build for the future and not now, then moving Markstrom for a younger long term asset as the center piece (ie  a young defenseman), while allowing for Demko to take on a “1A role” with a guy like Talbot (something that Demko appears to be ready for), would arguably be the better choice.   
 

Holland might take on Juolevi to throw the dice on a long shot prospect with high upside (much like Puljiujarvi is right now).   In my proposed deal, we’d also give them a decent NHL player in someone like Leivo.   The Canucks would take back JP and one of their long shot prospects on D to even out the odds.

 

Basically, it would be an exchange of two former high draft picks that might benefit from a change of scenery.

 

But clearly thats not Jims goal, otherwise he would;t' have traded for Miller. 

 

I'm not opposed to moving Marky, but only in the case where we are definitely out of the playoff hunt at the TDL. 

[BrockBoester]

Wait I just had a great idea inspired by the great Hindustan

 

What about dis:

 

To STL:

 

Markstrom

Stetcher

Eriksson

3rd rd pick

 

To Van:

 

Binnington

Pietrangelo

1st rd pick

 

That's a clear-cut upgrade! Right??

[John McClane]

14 hours ago, luckylager said:

Sometimes man

Geezuz

The resemblance is frightening.......

 

[Hindustan Smyl]

8 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

But clearly thats not Jims goal, otherwise he would;t' have traded for Miller. 

 

I'm not opposed to moving Marky, but only in the case where we are definitely out of the playoff hunt at the TDL. 

Not necessarily.

 

Benning likely didn’t trade for Miller because he thought they could win the cup this year.   Benning traded for Miller because he knew that at some point over these next few years, as the Canucks core continued to grow, Miller’s extremely cap friendly contract would be a huge benefit to us.  
 

Ideally, the Canucks would be able to keep both Markstrom and Demko but the truth of the matter is that they’ll have to choose one due to the expansion draft........and they might have to make that choice sooner than later since Markstrom will be a UFA at the end of season.  
 

Would you want to possibly lose Markstrom for nothing?    Would you want to give up a great young asset in Demko?

 

As it looks right now, Demko doesn’t really seem to be much of a downgrade from Markstrom........if at all.  It’s a short sample size, but Demko definitely looks like he’s more than ready to Atleast be a “1A” goalie splitting duties.  
 

If the Canucks do things correctly, there will come a time when.......

 

1) Miller will still be on his sweet heart cap friendly deal.

2) Boeser will still be on his bridge.

3) Hughes will be on a cost effective bridge (similar to Zack Werenski’s deal, in term of the overall cap percentage that Hughes’ contract takes up)

4) One or both of Hoglander and Podkolzin will be significant impact players on ELC’s.

5) Horvat will still be on his 5.5 million dollar deal (which would likely still be considered relatively cap friendly at that time).

6) Demko will be extended and as is the case with most RFA deals, will be on a cost controlled contract.

7) With 31 of 36 million having been paid to Eriksson after July 1st 2020, I think retirement *might* be a more realistic option for Eriksson.

8) Pettersson will be our only “big” 8 year contract.
 

That’s one of the reasons why I personally have 2021-2022 circled on my imaginary calendar.   Looking at our cap and analyzing who might be extended to what, and who might and should be let go, I think the Canucks’ best shot at winning a cup will be in 2021-2022, and I also suspect that management has a similar time frame in mind.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Hindustan Smyl

[J.I.A.H.N]

You know what guys...out of respect for Jacob and his family, I think we need to let this be for a while

 

It's a great discussion for a month from now...IMO

 

Everybody, just think about their Dads and Mom's for one minute...…..

 

 

 

[Hindustan Smyl]

2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

You know what guys...out of respect for Jacob and his family, I think we need to let this be for a while

 

It's a great discussion for a month from now...IMO

 

Everybody, just think about their Dads and Mom's for one minute...…..

 

 

 

Fair enough.

 

I do admit that trading Markstrom right *now* would reflect very poorly on the Canucks, but it’s not going to happen *right now* anyways.   I was thinking maybe somewhere in the not-so-distant future, the Canucks could pull something like that.

 

 

[IBatch]

11 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Not necessarily.

 

Benning likely didn’t trade for Miller because he thought they could win the cup this year.   Benning traded for Miller because he knew that at some point over these next few years, as the Canucks core continued to grow, Miller’s extremely cap friendly contract would be a huge benefit to us.  
 

Ideally, the Canucks would be able to keep both Markstrom and Demko but the truth of the matter is that they’ll have to choose one due to the expansion draft........and they might have to make that choice sooner than later since Markstrom will be a UFA at the end of season.  
 

Would you want to possibly lose Markstrom for nothing?    Would you want to give up a great young asset in Demko?

 

As it looks right now, Demko doesn’t really seem to be much of a downgrade from Markstrom........if at all.  It’s a short sample size, but Demko definitely looks like he’s more than ready to Atleast be a “1A” goalie splitting duties.  
 

If the Canucks do things correctly, there will come a time when.......

 

1) Miller will still be on his sweet heart cap friendly deal.

2) Boeser will still be on his bridge.

3) Hughes will be on a cost effective bridge (similar to Zack Werenski’s deal, in term of the overall cap percentage that Hughes’ contract takes up)

4) One or both of Hoglander and Podkolzin will be significant impact players on ELC’s.

5) Horvat will still be on his 5.5 million dollar deal (which would likely still be considered relatively cap friendly at that time).

6) Demko will be extended and as is the case with most RFA deals, will be on a cost controlled contract.

7) With 31 of 36 million having been paid to Eriksson after July 1st 2020, I think retirement *might* be a more realistic option for Eriksson.

8) Pettersson will be our only “big” 8 year contract.
 

That’s one of the reasons why I personally have 2021-2022 circled on my imaginary calendar.   Looking at our cap and analyzing who might be extended to what, and who might and should be let go, I think the Canucks’ best shot at winning a cup will be in 2021-2022, and I also suspect that management has a similar time frame in mind.

This is pretty good.   Markstrom leaving for nothing is always a possibility, trading him this year is fine by me, Demko is definitely our goalie of the future.    If we do re-sign him he will be exposed .... but I still think they go with Holtby who most likely will end up their version of Fluery.  I would.   And it makes zero sense to have two number ones at the type of cap hit they will come with.   We are more likely to lose a Lind, or OJ or whomever else we don’t protect.   Also given how PIT couldn’t find any takers for Fluery before the draft (AND then they actually had to add to get Vegas to take him because they needed the cap space) - id be extremely wary if I was JB on what sort of contract he offers JM.   Would be tempted just to let him walk and find a cheap vet to back-up Demko next season personally. 

 

Pretty sure LE is owed less the 5 his last season.   Haven’t checked but think he’d be walking away from a million or two given how much he’s already been paid out.   Either way he won’t be playing for the Canucks his final year / Utica if he is at all - id say sometime this year but definitely next year that’s where he will be.  

 

2021-2022 definitely will be the start of our window.  Maybe next year even depending on the progression of our core and support young guys.  Should be wide open for five years or so. 

[Hindustan Smyl]

In all seriousness though, Puljiujarvi might be the perfect guy to buy relatively low on.    
 

I’m not sure what Edmonton’s asking price would be, but I’d love to see Benning kick the tires here.    
 

One thing an “alpha” center can do is turn a half decent player into a great one.   We saw this with Sakic and Valeri Kamesnky way back in the day.  We saw Mario Lemieux do it for Kevin Stevens.   The Sedins’ with Anson Carter.   Numerous examples.   Can you imagine if a guy like Pettersson ignited someone like Puljiujarvi?   
 

What’s the worst that could happen if Puljiujarvi didn’t pan out?   What would we have given up?   Josh Levio?    
 

I’m genuinely curious to see what Edmonton’s asking price is.

 

JP is a big bodied playmaker..........which, on paper, is a great fit for Horvat.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Hindustan Smyl

[Nucker 67]

Not sure what will happen with Markstrom, as I'm assuming they'll need to do something when SEA enters the league. Canucks could lose Markstrom to them for nothing. Maybe they'll try and trade him before the expansion draft? As for Puljujarvi, I'm not sure about him. I think the Canucks need a more seasoned Top 6 winger. They have Podkolzin and Hoglander (and maybe even Madden and Lind?) making their way to the team in a couple of years. More young forwards. They need another veteran (27-30) in the Top 6, IMO. Maybe they have to make some tough decisions, trading prospects like Madden, Focht or DiPietro could be part of the cost.  

[Nucker 67]

Just had a thought. The Canucks are a nice organization. They care for their players and try to accommodate them as best they can. I can actually see the Canucks keep Markstrom, and if SEA takes him in the expansion draft, they would be fine with that, as Markstrom would be close to "home" and have a great opportunity with the new SEA team. If SEA doesn't take him, then he remains a Canuck and all is well. I think they'll try and take care of Markstrom.

[Kanukfanatic]

On 11/18/2019 at 10:42 PM, Hindustan Smyl said:

Markstrom + defenseman to Calgary for Talbot and *upgrade* defenseman

 

Canucks are not trading a good goalie within the division nor the conference.  

 

---> Close Thread!!

[teepain]

Pearson for pool party

[DefCon1]

On 11/18/2019 at 10:42 PM, Hindustan Smyl said:

[proposal] Jacob Markstrom to Calgary for Cam Talbot + defenseman / A flier on Jesse Puljiujarvi

 

Looking at this Canucks team, I think there are two main areas that we need to address.

 

1) Another top 6 scoring forward.

2) Another defenseman that is capable of playing on the top 4 incase of injuries (and not being exposed long term as a guy that shouldn't be on your top 4).

 

I think most of us can agree on the following:

 

1) Trading for a current top 6 forward will cost an arm and a leg.

2) Demko shouldn't be the clear cut #1 taking on a heavy #1 load right now, but he's likely at a point now where he could benefit from getting more starts and maybe even getting 50% of the games.   

3) It's important for a team to have atleast two solid goalies.     

 

Jesse Puljiujarvi would be a classic case of buying relatively low.    Even though he's been a bust at the NHL level so far, the fact of the matter is that many young players have struggled in Edmonton in the past (for whatever reason) only to develop their games elsewhere.    While it's only the Finnish league, Puljiujarvi does have 23 points in 20 games thus far.   If the Canucks are looking for a guy that could play with Horvat for the short term, Jesse Puljiujarvi might be your guy.   

 

To Edmonton:   Josh Levio + Olli Juolevi

To Vancouver:    Jesse Puljiujarvi + middling prospect defenseman

 

I would have suggested someone like Baertschi or Goldobin, but I can't see Edmonton going for that.   Oilers would likely ask for Virtanen, but I would say no to that.    Two talented prospects that haven't lived up to expectations get fresh starts.    

 

Markstrom + defenseman to Calgary for Talbot and *upgrade* defenseman

 

Calgary gets a true #1 goalie, while the Canucks get a 1A goalie that can take pressure off of Demko as the Canucks slowly try and push Demko into the #1 role (or atleast give Demko 50% of the starts).   Even with the downgrade from Markstrom to Talbot, the Canucks goaltending position could still be considered a strength since both goalies wouldn't look out of place playing as the #1 goalie for an extended period of time.    

 

Since the Canucks, in this hypothetical, would be willing to downgrade their goaltending position, the expectation is that we'd be upgrading our defense.     Now - for this one, I'm not sure how it would manifest itself (Troy Stecher to Rasmus Andersson?  Fantenberg to Mark Stone?).     I'd probably be willing to do the former (Markstrom + Stecher for Talbot + Andersson).

 

Summary:

 

To Edmonton:   Josh Leivo + Olli Juolevi  

To Vancouver:   Jesse Puljiujarvi + [middling defensive prospect]

 

To Calgary:    Jacob Markstrom + Troy Stecher

To Vancouver:    Cal Talbot + Rasmus Andersson

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Puljiujarvi

Ferland-Sutter-Virtanen

Schaller-Beagle-Motte

 

Roussel

 

Edler-Myers

Hughes-Tanev

Benn-Andersson

 

Fantenberg

 

Demko

Talbot

 

This roster would be under the assumption of 100% full health.    This is an entirely different issue that I'm about to bring up, but it looks like the Canucks will have some tough decisions to make when Roussel returns.   It would be an injustice of Gaudette got sent down to the A, but then what becomes of Sutter?    If you move Sutter to the wing, then which other player comes out of the line-up?   If the answer to that is Virtanen, then perhaps Virtanen is one of the guys that you move for Puljiujarvi +.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Are you a fLames fan? Giving markstrom to Calgary will make them stronger and Canucks weaker. I don't get this trade at all, unless that defenseman is Giordano.

[DefCon1]

On 11/19/2019 at 2:39 AM, Hindustan Smyl said:

It's one game dude.   Everyone has a bad game every now and then.

 

When you look at Talbot's entire body of work though, the logical conclusion that one can come to is that he's an extremely good back-up goalie.........and a decent 1A goalie that wouldn't look completely out of place if the starter on the team was out with an extended injury.   

 

IF Demko is the future of this team, and IF there would be a benefit in giving Demko more games this season (40-50% of the games as opposed to 15-20%), then maybe you consider a deal like this.   

 

You take the downgrade in net (Markstrom to Talbot) with the expectation that you'd be upgrading your defense (for example, a Stecher for an Andersson.........or something to that effect).     

 

As far as level goes, there hasn't been that much of a difference between Demko and Markstrom if any.    Canucks will have to cut ties with one of those guys in the future anyways.    It might not hurt to explore options.

Stecher to Andersson isn't as big of a gap compared to Markstrom to Talbot which is a huge downgrade. This makes Calgary stronger, our divisional rival and solves their goaltending while they get rid of Talbots cap hit. Seriously you must not be thinking if you really think this is a good trade that helps the Canucks because in reality, it doesn't. we don't even know how good Demko is, we need to see him play more. At this point Markstrom is better and more proven and we would give that up for slight upgrade in D which is ridiculous. We could very well get Tryamkin back or maybe Benning signs a UFA D man this summer or trades for one like the Miller trade.