Herberts Vasiljevs Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 2 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Who said this to Benning? Tanev or Meatloaf? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 12 minutes ago, Provost said: That logic doesn’t fly. Sure Clark would have a say on any goalie that comes in, but not being able or willing to go 6x6 on Markstrom doesn’t mean they think their goaltending will be as good or better without him. Those aren’t the same thing at all. They went with a cheaper option and the hope that Demko will be good in the future. I am not saying it was the wrong decision, just that you can admit that it could likely be a step back next year unless something else significant happens. Maybe they "hope" he will be good or maybe they "believe" he will be or think he already is. Neither of us rrally know. What we do know is that Benning was willing to lose Marky in order to protect demko. Considering how consiatent benning has been in trying to uild a compwting team, i see that as confidence in demko and a belief thay he is a better long term option. I just dont see benning willing to risk the future of this group over $1.7m If clark did not have faith in demko no way benning lets marky go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darius Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 i have a bad feeling hes gonna end up in Calgary...looks like they are letting Hamonic walk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishCanuck5 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 He’ll sign. Because we will pay him what he wants/deserves. He’s worth it. No questions asked. One more sleep to think about what to buy in the off season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-P Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 5 hours ago, Kobayashi Maru said: Oh I agree that there would be a 0% change they would be paired together. It would be Myers paired with Hughes and Barrie paired with Edler. I think that could work and I think it allows Edler to move from a two way D to more of a defensive D which I think matches better with his career trajectory. Agree on all that, but when it happens, watch for Edler to still quietly putting up 30-40 points while being one of the hardest D to engage with in the western conference as usual. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alienhuggyflow Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 27 minutes ago, Herberts Vasiljevs said: Who said this to Benning? Tanev or Meatloaf? That's one hell of an obscure reference. Hard to believe it was considered to racy for some radio stations. We've all had some paradise by the dashboard light that we lied and sold our soul to get, only to realize it was a costly mistake. Lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Provost said: Well that all adds up to nothing as we wouldn’t have been in the playoffs at all without Markstrom last year, so the only comparable stats would be their golf scores. The numbers showed that with “average” goaltending we would have been a bottom 5 team in the league. It was only the fact that Markstrom was the #1 rated goalie in terms of his adjusted performance and number of wins that made us a bubble team. We gave up a ton of high danger chances and Markstrom was the best in the league at stopping them. Neither Demko or Holtby is close to that level. Holtby’s game has been slipping for a couple years now. His adjuster numbers (according to Woodley who has access to the best goalie specific proprietary stats in the league), put him near the bottom of the league. Our only hope is that Clark DJs turn him around or Demko is a Vezina calibre goalie right out of the gate. There are still moved that would have to be made for us not to be a worse team on paper than last year. Well that's all an adjusted story about - one factor - which adds up to one Jacob Markstrom. The claims you make - are a story about your faith in / appeal to the authority of Woodley - your belief in, as opposed to posting the substance of, the unpresented analytics that those claims rely on. I won't dismiss it out of hand - but at the same time, I don't accept someone else's second hand assumptions/assertion/story based on an appeal to authority. And further, they don't represent an ability to foretell performance of both the goaltenders and 18+ skaters - the integrated effect as a whole - in the future. But really - the circumstances faced - particularly as you reduce them to goaltending, are pretty clearly unavoidable... Quote Flames sign free agent goalie Jacob Markstrom to 6-year, $36M contract. Jacob Markstrom has signed a six-year, $36 million contract with the Calgary Flames. ... They also gave Markstrom a no-movement clause, which protects him from the Seattle expansion draft, according to TSN's Bob McKenzie. What did you propose to do in that circumstance? Would you prefer to give Markstrom the 6 x 6 - and as, or more critically - a NMC? That decision effectively predetermines whether your future goaltender is Demko or not - so regardless of paper stories - the team had to choose on and sacrifice the other. Regardless of cap - it was the reality the team faced - with expansion looming they could not/would not offer Markstrom a NMC - obviously, a more complicated question than simply 'who is better at this point?' - they elected to keep Demko moving forward. I agree with that decision - and at the same time, I am not going to assume that the combination of Demko's development and the teams' overall development will spell an inferior on ice ability to compete next year. You can paper your team with the belief that the Woodley story and Markstrom's absence alone will determne a 'step back' to a 'bottom 5' adjusted team - I'm not buying that pretentious, overdetermined assumption/adjustment - and certainly not at the level of a mere few lines of narrative assuming Woodley's forward projected authority. Markstrom can't be expected to sign here with the contingency of going to Seattle/being exposed as part of that deal. We could hope he was willing to forego a NMC - but clearly another team was willing to both outbid by a million, a year, and a NMC (MacIntyre stated that the team tapped out at the point the exceeded Lehner's terms - imo understandable - and whether I tend to agree with his takes or not, one thing I do consider him is an old school professional who has a source when he makes statements claiming to represent the team's negotiating position - I think he's shown repeatedly that he respects team sources - gives credible representation and does not go beyond the discretion they probably expect him to exercise. I take that as highly believable reflection of the team's likely position/limit. So - what about the rest of the team? Pettersson, Hughes and Boeser - young players who have the lowest on ice sv % on the team / that tend to give up the highest proportion of high danger chances against - as expected - (since we're talking about things like 'adjusted' peformance) - will have to continue to develop and become better as players without the puck. If 'high danger chances' and 'expected saves' that Markstrom makes are enough to believe in radically different outcomes, then reducing those high danger chances, via key exposed young players development, becomes a simple, single-metric counterpoint. I expect that will be the case, that these players will develop to give up less - based upon the consistent improvement trajectories of players like EP and Hughes in particular. Likewise with other young players in relative development stages - like Gaudette, who requires sheltering moreso than the 'stars' - he will need to develop his defensive game, be moved to wing, or be replaced (imo a healthy Leivo on the wing in the playoffs would have represented an 'adjusted' better chance of winning those series than with Gaudette in the lineup, who was overmatched/exposed and struggled notably, and moreso once they had to move him to a center role. But really - it leads back to the Markstrom question imo - that these young 20/21yr old core players' prime 'contending years' are all ahead of them, in general a few years ahead of them (or more). So the decision to offset their priorities around goaltending - from Markstrom's immediate impact - to Demko's developing impact - probably reflect the hope that his prime lines up better with the actual projectable window of the team as a whole. As much as most of us love Markstrom, I suspect when push comes to shove, that the majority of people would rather 'plan' for a window a few years in the future.. For this reason - I am relieved - or perhaps, rather, not surprised that the Ekman-larsson deal was not completed. It appears that it would also have required the team to consent to Markstrom's terms - if they were to maintain their shorter term window of opportunity with Markstrom, years that would have overlapped with the earlier stages of Ekman-larsson's contract here. The rumour that Arizona's expectation was that Demko be included - if true - would overlap with the decision to be made regarding the future of their goaltending. For which ever reason - it was not in the cards - whether it was motivated primarily as a reluctance to move Demko, or accept t reluctance to accept the terms that Markstrom commanded. Maybe there was a bit of a domino effect there - and if those two are the friends they're reported to be - perhaps the OEL deal not completing in a sense pushed Markstrom that much closer to the door. Regardless - the combination of OEL's cap hit - and Markstrom commanding $6 million - would appear to preclude that deal for the most part - very difficult to accomodate even with the most favourable trade terms, at the same time as the real tightness of the overall cap market. For me - Markstrom being the single paper difference between last season's lineup and next season's....is not enough to assume/project/predict/pretend to know - the future. The one thing Markstrom does not and cannot control - is what happens in front of him....The entire group will have a say, Demko will have a say, Ian Clark and Holtby will have a say - Tanev will have a critical say in the next few days (we obviously can't force anyone to return here on terms that make sense to this team...) For me, Hughes' partner is more a priority considering the inevitable decision that had to be made regarding goaltending. I lean towards the more conservative approach - I don't own the team and have timeline or revenue needs/expectations - but if I'm building simply to the imperative of their best 'timeline', preparing for the ensuing seasons is more critical imo than the present/immediate season ahead. At the same time, I just witnessed Demko handle a whole lot of pressure and the team bend to circumstances, and show some real resliency, already. Pettersson continues to improve dramatically, particularly without the puck - and I 'expect' that Hughes will continue to as well - he was better in general than I 'expected' already - but it's crucial imo to focus on the best possible partner for him - and Tanev will be critical if they hope to relatively sustain imo. If he does not sign - I'm skeptical about how easy it will be to replace him and would be more inclined to concede another factor in a potential 'step back'- if factors like that start to overlap.... I also seem to tend to view the team as more in 'flux' than most people. For me, they were a fundamentally different team with Miller and Sutter at center than they were when forced/those players moved to the wing. How much difference can they endure before they regress? Is the healthy version of the current lineup capable of supporting Demko sufficiently that they can once again contend into the playoffs? My take would tend to be that they can - particularly if they continue to get uptick from their talented youth and stay relatively healthy. A few injuries to centers - one top line, one foundation - and imo it doesn't necessarily matter that much whether it's Markstrom or Demko - the curve becomes too steep to expect to win on a consistent basis at this point. Compound that with Toffoli / or Boeser limping, Pearon's production disappearing - no sustained forecheck, no real puck pressure up ice - and a zone collapse to protect the hard areas and prevent second scoring chances - and imo that is a team in harm reduction mode. The performance of a goaltender only delays the relatively inevitable underlying inability to compete. That ability fluctuates considerably imo, particularly with so many young variables. I think they are still at a stage where their core is that young, and these cap circumstances are additionally limiting their options (we can blame Benning - some of the difficulty is a few veteran contracts, some of it Luongo recrap, some of it cap stall and the subsequent market tightness where it's so difficult to move contracts or get returns on players....) - a stage where it probably makes more sense to be conservative - deal with the next year or two proactively/prudently - and acknowledge that it isn't a great time to go as all in as accepting Markstrom's terms and making a deal like Ekman-larsson would have committed them. And we can factor the expansion draft in as well - and our inability to give Markstrom the assurance that he'd be protected from going to a franchise he didn't select in free agency. For me - there is too much contingency- and they're not necessarily going to be an inferior team on paper, regardless of 'big moves' or not. If we are going to backwards adjust the assumption of a 5th last place finish without Markstrom, I'm going to counterpoint with the forwards development adjustment of numerous key young players. In the end it's all relatively pointless imo - as so many other factors play in, including the critical health of key players (the 'foundation' remains important at this stage imo). One of the implications of not moving cap might actually be sustained depth within the organization - combined with an upticking prospect pool - with a number of wildcards - Juolevi, Rathbone, Hoglander, Lind.... Gaudette...I'm not going to assume that the 'conservative' version of the team would be inferior to the past transition stage. Edited October 10, 2020 by oldnews 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 If Tanev is sleeping on an offer, that means he has other offers to consider. I hope we are close enough that staying in Vancouver is worth it to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Don’t see how going into next season with the same D core and no Markstrom makes us better. Still need to add a top 4 and upgrade the bottom pair. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenspear Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Darius said: i have a bad feeling hes gonna end up in Calgary...looks like they are letting Hamonic walk... Gotta think Pittsburgh would be his first choice if he were to move on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amplified0ne Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 27 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Don’t see how going into next season with the same D core and no Markstrom makes us better. Still need to add a top 4 and upgrade the bottom pair. I agree, but Holtby should also help because he plays the puck better than Markstrom. Too many times Markstrom couldnt make a pass to the Dman and the puck died in the corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Don’t see how going into next season with the same D core and no Markstrom makes us better. Still need to add a top 4 and upgrade the bottom pair. I’m not sure next season is about getting better - but I’m definitely sure our D needs an overhaul. Not sure this is the best time to strike though. We can’t add Tanev plus as then someone needs to be exposed. Leaves AP...OEL is done. Or a trade Edited October 10, 2020 by IBatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millerdraft Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Ewwww Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millerdraft Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Well... Overhaul here we come! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts