[Rumour] Red Wings interested in Jacob Markstrom

[timberz21]

Honestly, while i've always wanted Markstrom to stick around, in the long run, I don't think it's worth it.    Especially with the uncertainty of the next season, it would be risky to make a mid/long term commitment for a 30 years old goalie, when we have Demko and Dipietro coming up.

 

IMO, I don't believe they will play 82 games next season, and who knows how often and how long the season might be disrupted because of COVID.   And who knows what Markstrom will look like when he's turning 32 in the 2021-2022 season, when the NHL goes back to "normal", if it does.

 

Might put Demko behind the 8 ball next year, but if we don't want to handcuffed ourselves for 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, I think that is the move to make.  Maybe snag Khudobin instead for cheaper?

[Ilya Mikheyev]

3 hours ago, mll said:

Reimer is under contract in Detroit for 1 more year at 3M.

 

 

Last week Pat Steinberg assured that the Flames covet Markstrom (audio in the Markstrom thread).   They have not had a real number 1 since Kiprusoff retired.   It's been a real goalie carousel under Treliving.  

Reimer plays for Carolina, not Detroit. There's some speculation that he could be traded from CAR this off-season.

[mll]

12 minutes ago, Teemu Selänne said:

Reimer plays for Carolina, not Detroit. There's some speculation that he could be traded from CAR this off-season.

Thanks - I'll correct.  It's Bernier in Detroit.  I always mix them up somehow.   

 

Reimer is owed 850K in salary and Carolina is apparently getting a lot of calls on him.  They want to clear cap to upgrade in goal so it's probably prospects or draft picks.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by mll

[Provost]

If they are really interested, they have a ton of cap space.  Make a deal that includes Markstrom’s rights, Virtanen and Eriksson.

[mll]

7 minutes ago, Provost said:

If they are really interested, they have a ton of cap space.  Make a deal that includes Markstrom’s rights, Virtanen and Eriksson.

Going after Markstrom would signal more ambition.  Eriksson/Virtanen is some 9M not sure Detroit would want to tie up that kind of cap space when there could be more impactful players available this off-season.  Someone like Killorn just had 26 goals this season for Tampa but will likely be a cap casualty and there's familiarity.   If they take Eriksson I would think they'd want to swap him with a declining vet of their own - Nielsen or Abdelkader.

 

[Provost]

15 minutes ago, mll said:

Going after Markstrom would signal more ambition.  Eriksson/Virtanen is some 9M not sure Detroit would want to tie up that kind of cap space when there could be more impactful players available this off-season.  Someone like Killorn just had 26 goals this season for Tampa but will likely be a cap casualty and there's familiarity.   If they take Eriksson I would think they'd want to swap him with a declining vet of their own - Nielsen or Abdelkader.

 

I don’t think it would particularly indicate that they plan on being a cap team with pretensions at being a playoff or contending team.  That is the only scenario where the $9 million in cap would ever come into play as a consideration. Otherwise it is just $5-5.5 million in real dollars for two seasons for two roster players who would be in your top 9, similar to what you would spend in the UFA market for players.

 

It could easily be that they want to stabilize their team a little by putting in a great veteran goalie so their kids don’t get buried every game and continue to be a historically terrible team.  Very much like us picking on Ryan Miller didn’t mean we had great ambitions.  Markstrom is a goalie that has shown to play well behind a bad defence that gives up a lot of shots and high danger scoring chances.  Exactly what Detroit can realistically expect to face this season.  Bernier actually wouldn’t be bad coming back to even money up, but would have to be conditional on them signing Markstrom. 

 

It IS possible that Detroit plans on completely reshaping their roster this offseason by leveraging their cap space (god knows this would be the one year that could be possible)... but I don’t think interest in Markstrom tells that story yet.

If they start auctioning off good young players and high picks for veterans under contract, then I think they are going for it.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Provost

[mll]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

I don’t think it would particularly indicate that they plan on being a cap team with pretensions at being a playoff or contending team.  That is the only scenario where the $9 million in cap would ever come into play as a consideration. Otherwise it is just $5-5.5 million in real dollars for two seasons for two roster players who would be in your top 9, similar to what you would spend in the UFA market for players.

 

It could easily be that they want to stabilize their team a little by putting in a great veteran goalie so their kids don’t get buried every game and continue to be a historically terrible team.  Very much like us picking on Ryan Miller didn’t mean we had great ambitions.

 

It IS possible that Detroit plans on completely reshaping their roster this offseason by leveraging their cap space (god knows this would be the one year that could be possible)... but I don’t think interest in Markstrom tells that story yet.

If they start auctioning off good young players and high picks for veterans under contract, then I think they are going for it.

 

I don't see them going for it.  I also doubt they are going to be moving high potential young players for veterans.

 

This year there might be the opportunity to find some pretty good players as teams have some cap/financial constraints.  It could make some unexpected players available - for example several teams are unsure to qualify some of their RFAs.  Most teams can't draft their full playing roster and are often going to add to their roster through trades or free agency.  They have to develop their kids but they also have to find a way to add other good players and this might be the off-season to do it.  

 

[oldnews]

I'm not in the 'trade Markstrom's rights' camp.

 

Markstrom's rights do not add enough value for it to really make sense.  Ie if they are looking to dump Eriksson - I think a player like Gaudette is what we 'should' be offering - is probably the starting point in value - and adding Markstrom's rights is not that much of a sweetener - in other words if dumping Eriksson is a possibility, Markstrom's rights should not and probably don't make enough difference to be a prime mover.  Adding a late pick is probably an equivalent sweetener imo.

 

And more fundamentally - Markstrom is ours - he's one of us - he's risen through the hard times here - and he will be very difficult to replace.  It may be 'easy' to add a 'good', cheaper tandem, however, would it be wise?  I thnk we might be forgetting/minimizing his impact this past year (in the haze of Demko's unreal playoff performance).  We still need more than Demko, and ideally, enough that the starter role is not clearly put on Demko's shoulders already.  There's no hurry to rush Demko into the void Markstrom would leave - and it might not be wise to in any event - in which case the team takes a step backwards at that critical position - one I doubt they will be looking to do at this point.

 

Re-sign Markstrom.  Bite the cap bullet.  Give him his salary ask, and moderate term, but hold out on the exclusion of a NMC - so the team has the flexibility and necessary option moving forward of which goaltender to protect.  That commitment imo is an important statement, one I think Benning has somewhat tipped his hand towards making.  And further - there is nothing conclusive in doing so - they would still have the option of negotiating with Seattle - to determine the form of Seattle's take ie they could offer or leave exposed a relatively comparable asset value/asset - and they still have a relative wealth of young forwards, they still have a very good young goaltending prospect....they have more than simply two options here.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by oldnews

[Provost]

8 minutes ago, mll said:

 

I don't see them going for it.  I also doubt they are going to be moving high potential young players for veterans.

 

This year there might be the opportunity to find some pretty good players as teams have some cap/financial constraints.  It could make some unexpected players available - for example several teams are unsure to qualify some of their RFAs.  Most teams can't draft their full playing roster and are often going to add to their roster through trades or free agency.  They have to develop their kids but they also have to find a way to add other good players and this might be the off-season to do it.  

 

That is how I see it.  Using a unique offseason to shortcut a rebuilding process... not “going for it”.

 

Getting Markstrom helps them.  They can also add pieces like Killorn and Stepan for low prices.  They can pick up non-qualified RFAs (Like Stecher may be).  None of that costs them futures or young players, but also gives them a foundation to build on rather than entirely foundering for several years like they are currently poised to do.

 

Their defence is non existent and they don’t have a platoon of great prospects coming up... they probably can’t start to really rebuild that until expansion.

[86Viking]

11 hours ago, ktcy2 said:

Just sign Markstrom. Stop with the Demko talk already. This is insane. It took marky like 5 years to get to the peak of his career and now you let him walk for free? Reasons? Knee jerk reaction because of demko’s 3 games in the playoffs? This is insane. I think Demko is good but if you think the window to win is now then Markstrom is the guy to sign. 

Comes down to cap space, GM put us in this predicament. If we had lots of cap space we would keep him and then expose 1 goalie next year or make a deal with Vegas not to take either G.

[86Viking]

10 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

COL is already good enough oh hockey gods please do not let him sign there

Good enough? That is the TO fans/media thinking they are the be all end all. TO can't win 1 playoff round to date, Colorado hasn't gotten to a conference final let alone the cup final.

 

Marky to Colorado or Carolina would give him a decent chance at continued playoff hockey and I would be okay with him going to either team. Just not a division rival, if he goes to TO hope they overpay him or he declines and they continue to stink!

[wildcam]

7 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

absolutely right. Its Marky's turn to take care of good ol #1 which is himself, he deserves it. NHL careers are so finite that they need to cash in at some point, and after the 3 years Marky's shown, hes going to get maximum value and security whether its here which I doubt or somewhere else. I really do think he ends up in Carolina. Almost a mirror image of this team in terms of talent and where they are in their development. Only difference is they have the cap room and he's not looking over his shoulder for the foreeable future. If I was his agent, anything less than 6 - 6.5 and less than 5 years, Im hanging up the phone

I agree with so much interest and his agent will be saying there are teams willing to pay 6 million and over with no trade clause say for first 3 years..

I predict  Colorado or Carolina  saying 5 yrs X 6.2  million no trade clause in first 4 yrs...Colorado  has good chance at cup..I also like Carolina...

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by wildcam

[Angry Goose]

21 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Good enough? That is the TO fans/media thinking they are the be all end all. TO can't win 1 playoff round to date, Colorado hasn't gotten to a conference final let alone the cup final.

 

Marky to Colorado or Carolina would give him a decent chance at continued playoff hockey and I would be okay with him going to either team. Just not a division rival, if he goes to TO hope they overpay him or he declines and they continue to stink!

The only Western conference team I'm good with is DET. Any eastern conference team is fine, even TOR

[24K PureCool]

2 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

The only Western conference team I'm good with is DET. Any eastern conference team is fine, even TOR

DET is in the East.

[BarnBurner]

21 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

I still think Benning offers him $5 and he takes it.

Which is fine, but under the condition that he can be exposed for the ED or traded.

[Jayinblack]

I liked an idea someone else had a while ago... structure Marky's contract so that the annual cap hit works for us, but have it pay out a huge bonus due right after the expansion draft and expose him.

 

ie.  5 year deal for $30M.   cap hit of 6M annually.  but have it pay only 1M in the first year with a 13M bonus due after the ED.  Then the remaining 4 years each paying 4M

 

   If you think Seattle still might take him with $29M due for a 4 year contract, then negotiate a deal to have them pick someone else. 

[mll]

10 minutes ago, Jayinblack said:

I liked an idea someone else had a while ago... structure Marky's contract so that the annual cap hit works for us, but have it pay out a huge bonus due right after the expansion draft and expose him.

 

ie.  5 year deal for $30M.   cap hit of 6M annually.  but have it pay only 1M in the first year with a 13M bonus due after the ED.  Then the remaining 4 years each paying 4M

 

   If you think Seattle still might take him with $29M due for a 4 year contract, then negotiate a deal to have them pick someone else. 

 

Not possible like structure.  The lowest salary can't be less than half of the highest.   IE if the lowest salary is 1M then any other year can't be more than 2M.  

 

[Jayinblack]

 

6 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Not possible like structure.  The lowest salary can't be less than half of the highest.   IE if the lowest salary is 1M then any other year can't be more than 2M.  

 

 

Thanks.  Just threw out a quick example.   So change it to 2M in year 1, and the bonus to 12M after the ED.  Then still 4M each remaining year.

 

 

 

[ktcy2]

Honestly, I can see a situation where the Canucks trade Demko for a first round pick. Remember Schneider - Horvat? 

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

Comes down to cap space, GM put us in this predicament. If we had lots of cap space we would keep him and then expose 1 goalie next year or make a deal with Vegas not to take either G.

I don't get how anyone can honestly think that? 

 

We can afford to pay him +/-$6m. Cap is not the issue.

 

If he goes (which is likely IMO) it's because we can't/won't offer him security from the ED and have a young 'goalie of the future' looking to displace him as starter. We offer no security and no/little input on his eventual destination whether that's via expansion in year 1 or trade in years 2 or 3. All for the pleasure of likely reduced $ and term from what he could get on the open market where he can also pick his team, get protection and not have a young upstart clawing at his back.