Markstrom or Demko?

[aGENT]

So many people seem to be whiffing on the obvious. Even if we're were to re-sign him, we're not protecting him for the ED. So is he gone then to Seattle? The year following as Demko takes over? 

 

At BEST (not taken by Seattle or traded soon after) he has 3 years transitioning from 50/30 game starter to 40/40 tandem to 30/50 backup.

 

Does he want to stay here THAT badly (and at a discount)...I doubt it.

 

People aren't remotely considering what's in Markstrom's best interests. And it's likely not staying here. The team and fans would certainly love to have him back. He likely even wants to be back. But the cold hard facts don't likely support it happening.

[spook007]

14 hours ago, BPA said:

On SN650, the rumor going around was Calgary was interested in Marky.  Supposedly $6M x 6 years.

Just imagine Marky being light out for Calgary.... 

One of the worst nightmares come through, and if this happens and Demko fails to match... Glad I don’t have to make this decision. Almost certain Benning gets it in the neck regardless of what he does...

[Agoork]

Sign him to a reasonable contract (ie no NMC). Otherwise, if they can't work out a deal with Marky, find out asap and try to get a draft pick and/or send one of our smaller cap dumps for his rights.  If Calgary wants him, offer him to an eastern team like Carolina or New Jersey first   Finding a decent replacement to share the load with Demko shouldn't be that difficult.

 

 

[AK_19]

Nothing against Markstrom but I feel he's simply a luxury we can't afford. I also don't think it was a coincidence that he started playing significantly better once we had Ian Clarke. I'm sure he will work his magic on Demko. My hold back on Demko isn't talent but his ability to stay healthy. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by AK_19

[Provost]

I am starting to lean more towards Demko if we can’t keep both (Markstrom signing an extension without trade/expansion protection).

 

Next year and probably the year after are almost certainly going to be compressed.  That means two goalies are needed, with backups needed to play more games.

 

Any world of signing Markstrom with trade protection means Demko gets traded.  Then we don’t have a decent backup and have to go in the market for a good one.

[Arrow 1983]

9 minutes ago, Provost said:

I am starting to lean more towards Demko if we can’t keep both (Markstrom signing an extension without trade/expansion protection).

 

Next year and probably the year after are almost certainly going to be compressed.  That means two goalies are needed, with backups needed to play more games.

 

Any world of signing Markstrom with trade protection means Demko gets traded.  Then we don’t have a decent backup and have to go in the market for a good one.

That's my issue with a Markstrom contract for me a NMC is a non starter.

That forces Bennings hand to move Demko prior to the Expansion draft and puts him in a weaker position 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[philtbc829]

Demko, as much as I love Marky, Demko has shown that he is the future more so than Marky...would love to keep both but unless they can move both LOUI and Sutter and the league decides to remove that stupid cap hit for LOU's retirement....and that trifecta isn't going to happen....

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, philtbc829 said:

Demko, as much as I love Marky, Demko has shown that he is the future more so than Marky...would love to keep both but unless they can move both LOUI and Sutter and the league decides to remove that stupid cap hit for LOU's retirement....and that trifecta isn't going to happen....

This is by far situational, not cap related. 

[Junkyard Dog]

24 minutes ago, aGENT said:

This is by far situational, not cap related. 

To me it's a bit of both.

 

We'd save cap with letting Marky go for sure with whomever we sign for 1B and Demko probably taking up less than what Marky would sign for 3-5 years and perhaps he isn't the guy with want with this younger of a core.

[aGENT]

17 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

To me it's a bit of both.

 

We'd save cap with letting Marky go for sure with whomever we sign for 1B and Demko probably taking up less than what Marky would sign for 3-5 years and perhaps he isn't the guy with want with this younger of a core.

What I mean by that is that yes, we can save some cap going with Demko+1B, which is nice and all but cap isn't the reason Marky is likely moving on. I think he'd sign here (even at a bit of a discount) if all the other speed bumps disappeared (aka we trade Demko instead). And we have the cap to do so.

 

A young, 'goalie of the future' looking for his starting role, the expansion draft pressure point, the lack of a movement clause because of both those things... The longest he'd possibly be here is probably 3 years and that's if he makes it past the expansion (far from a given) in a year. And of those three years he might not/likely wouldn't even be the starter for 1-2 of them.

 

He'd get very little security here (role or even remaining on the team) and we'd want him at a discount on money and term for that privilege, because we have leverage and a need to not block Demko's ascension.

 

But that's far from a desirable state of affairs for Markstrom professionally. He can go elsewhere (picking his next team), get security in a starting role, security from expansion, a clause guaranteeing he has options/control if he does get moved... And more term and yes, money.

 

I know which one I'd be doing.

Edited September 22, 2020 by aGENT

[runtzguy]

On 9/20/2020 at 2:36 AM, Agoork said:

Sign him to a reasonable contract (ie no NMC). Otherwise, if they can't work out a deal with Marky, find out asap and try to get a draft pick and/or send one of our smaller cap dumps for his rights.  If Calgary wants him, offer him to an eastern team like Carolina or New Jersey first   Finding a decent replacement to share the load with Demko shouldn't be that difficult.

 

 

Marky will never agree to a no NMC. The thing that JB and Marky are negotiating is term and money. That is why there hasn't been a signing and won't be one because Demko is the goalie of now and future

[runtzguy]

There are several reasons why you want Marky to walk:

 

1. Marky is on the wrong side of 30.

Goalies play starts going down after they are 30. Sure, Marky can maintain his style of play but for how long? 2 years? 3 years? I do not see Marky being able to sustain his Elite level of play for over 4 years straight. 

 

2. Age of the team core.

Horvat, Petterson, Boeser, Miller, and Hughes are considered the core of the team and in 4 years time they will be hitting their prime at 28, 25, 26, 30 and 24 respectively. Marky will be 34 and can you expect Marky to be playing at his Elite level at 34 years old? I don't. But 4 years from now, Demko will be at 28 and hitting his prime. By looking at his body of work this season and postseason and at the age he is at, there is very good reason to believe that Demko can get better and/or maintain the dominance he showed during the postseason. Having Demko hit his prime with other core players will give the Canucks the best chance of winning the cup. 

We don't want a situation where the core players are hitting their prime and having Marky deteriorate in his play and being stuck with his contract because he will be old with a high cap and term.

3. Cap is flat for the next 2-3 years and Seattle expansion.

Cap is flat and money is king. Good teams will have to offload their good players to sign their core players in the next 2 years. We can use the extra cap from not signing Marky to get these good players when we couldn't through trade. Also the Seattle expansion will force teams to sell their good players at a reasonable price because they don't want to lose the player for nothing. Thus again, money is king.

 

4. Another team's mistake will be our fortune.

I firmly believe that Marky's play will go down 2 years from now. And whoever signs Marky will give him a contract with term and high cap hit. This will remove this team in contention for future UFA or RFA because they would have used a big chunk of their cap to sign Marky (because remember the cap is going to be flat) while we can use ours to get players who fill an actual need.

Edited September 22, 2020 by runtzguy

[brownky]

18 hours ago, AK_19 said:

Nothing against Markstrom but I feel he's simply a luxury we can't afford. I also don't think it was a coincidence that he started playing significantly better once we had Ian Clarke. I'm sure he will work his magic on Demko. My hold back on Demko isn't talent but his ability to stay healthy. 

Moreover, look at Bobrovsky.

 

Bob had Clark - Bob lights out.

Bob doesn't have Clark - They get to pay him that much for HOW LONG?

 

Markstrom before Clark: Decent if unremarkable, big goalie frame.

Markstrom after Clark: He gon' get Paid.

[canacks1970]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:00 AM, Fred65 said:

Markstrom came to NA in the 2010/11 season with Rochester. He played his first season of NHL #1 status in 2017/18, he played 60 games, he was 27 years old. When Markstrom was injured, Demko stepped in as the #1 and frankly did not shine. He's 25 now and in my mind you can't judge him by his play-off performance because it was short and does not replicate and actual season as a true #1 goalie. If the team expects to do well next season IMO they will need a true #1 and that is Markstrom, if however they are willing to use next season grooming Demko that's OK just don't expect to much. Will a lessor goalie impact the confidence of a young over all team ?? What's the plan Benning ????

 

 

We could argue that that the whole team struggle when Markstrom went down not just Demko.  Put into consideration this is his first year with the big club. You have a valid point you can't judge him after that 3 playoff games . But its his character that had my attention. You throw him in an elimatination game three games in a row and he's looking at videos after games 5,and 6 saying he's looking for ways to get better..You also can't say don't expect much Because  we don't know what to expect and he may surprise you. I would love to have Markstrom back but at what cost?   Now Benning said that Demko is the future of this franchise  and they know they need two goaltenders to be successful. Its trying to fit the cap It should be interesting off season Fred65

[Nuxfanabroad]

Let's roll with the kid!

[Fred65]

13 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Let's roll with the kid!

You must. This isn't about now, it's about 2-3 years from now the "kids" need to be groomed for that time period. They need to get experience. Our window to be a true contender is a couple of year away. Benning seems like he's loosing his patience ( maybe pressure from ownership.) Sure it's nice to make the next play-offs but we don't want to be a one and done. Mediocrity is a terrible place to be. No high picks and no success in the play-offs. So let's get the Rafferty's Rathbone Podkoilzin Lind and Hogelander in and up to speed. It's going to be a long while before we get a high draft pick again

[Baggins]

On 9/21/2020 at 5:38 PM, Arrow 1983 said:

That's my issue with a Markstrom contract for me a NMC is a non starter.

That forces Bennings hand to move Demko prior to the Expansion draft and puts him in a weaker position 

As long as there's more than one team interested we'd get full value moving Demko. Honestly if you were a GM in need of a Demko would you let another GM have him at a bargain price because Benning "needs" to move him? 

[Gollumpus]

- For (near future) cap reasons, Demko is the better option to keep.

- Demko showed ability in this past season and Cup playoffs. So has Markstrom. The sample size for each is small. They are both good, but still small.

- For taking a(nother) run at the Cup (in the near future), Markstrom is perhaps the better choice.

- For taking the view of making several runs for the Cup in a longer term window, Demko's age probably makes him the better choice.

- Looking at goalie depth in the organization, if DiPietro is seen as Demko v.2 then keep Markstrom and trade Demko for all that you can get. If DiPietro isn't seen a Demko v.2 then keep Demko and let Markstrom walk.

- With the expansion draft coming up, if both were signed here, one of the two would likely be lost (without some sort of consideration to Seattle). The younger/cheaper option is perhaps the better to keep. If both are kept, what is Demko worth, in your estimation, in considerations to not be picked? What is Markstrom worth for Seattle to look elsewhere?

- Will Markstrom re-sign here without a NMC in his contract? I speculate that he won't. For this reason I'd say that Demko is the better option to keep (assuming Markstrom stays without a NMC - highly unlikely)?

 

If nothing else, would you like to see Demko play 10+ seasons, at a high level in Seattle? That's something that will just bug the crap out of this fan base.

 

I've probably overlooked something. Please feel free to add.

 

                                                                     regards,  G.

[grandmaster]

I just heard John Shorthouse on 650 saying we have to sign Marky and pay him up to 7M to 8M per year for 3 or 4 years...

 

Ridiculous! 

[yes we can nucks]

8 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

I just heard John Shorthouse on 650 saying we have to sign Marky and pay him up to 7M to 8M per year for 3 or 4 years...

 

Ridiculous! 

This is a luxury we can't afford. Save the cap space for a gritty experienced top 4 dman. Demko is ready for prime time.