[Discussion] Demko to Ottawa

[Thirston]

10 hours ago, BowtieCanuck said:

Same. Trading Demko could easily end up being one of those 'Cam Neely' level trades that fans would regret.

We've finally got a strong core with this team and it seems like so much of CDC wants to break it up ASAP.

I believe it’s not that anyone wants to trade Demko but is worried Canucks will lose him anyway in expansion draft so may as well get something for him. Unless marky walks then a Demko trade would be ludicrous. 

[BCNate]

A couple of points on things I've seen in this thread:

-We don't hardly anything sending Loui to Utica.  His Contract is set up in a way that his cap hit stays even if he is sent down.

-Demko and LE won't get a return.  They would return a late pick at best if we don't take a bad contract back.

-We don't have to move LE this year.  If we can move Sutter, Baertschi, Benn, it won't cost us too much and will open up some wiggle room on cap.  Moving or buying out LE after next year is more cost effective.

-Yes, Ottawa has space and the dollar value of LE provides them good value, but 2 3rds of the league is looking to dump cap.  Ottawa's space will be in demand and they will take the contracts that return the best assets if they are taking on cap.

[timberz21]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

Ummm $8 million ($6+1+1) out and about $5.5-6 million back ($3.5 For Tierney and 2.5 for a veteran back up to replace Demko) not sure how the math eludes you.   That $2 million in cap savings looms large when trying to sign out UFAs.  Getting that while upgrading two positions is a good deal.

 

Tierney isn’t a $5 million dollar player... that is ridiculous.  He scored 11 goals and 37 points last year.  We are talking worries about Virtanen with a $3 million arbitration case and he scored a lot more goals.  Tierney is a 40ish point (give or take) 3C.... he would get a modest $500-600k raise and thank his stars that he is out of Ottawa.

 

Obviously if you trade for Cernak, you aren’t signing Tanev or Stecher unless they take a huge haircut.  You have your replacement top 4 RHD and one of our young guys is on the 3rd pairing.  Killorn is also a top 6 forward so you don’t need to sign Toffoli.  You still could, but that would require moving out two of Beagle, Sutter or Roussel (one of them if you knew Ferland was on LTIR for all of next season).
 

This all fits under the cap...

 

Miller-Petterson-Toffoli

Killorn-Horvat-Boeser

Pearson-Tierney-Leivo

Motte-Sutter-MacEwan

Ferland

 

Edler-Myers

Hughes-Cernak

Benn-Rafferty

XX

Markstrom

Veteran backup @ $2.5 million

 

That fits under the cap and gives one of the best top 9 forward groups in the league.  Our D is a wash in the short term, but upgraded in the long term with an improving Cernak instead of a declining Tanev.  Our goaltending is better with a proven top 5 Markstrom than an unproven Demko.  We give up some future upside with Demko, but no reason to believe we can’t get 5 years of solid goaltending to develop DiPietro or another young goalie... it is certainly a better bet than Demko right now who is an amazing prospect but entirely unproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol questioning my math?  Youre trading three players and getting two back in return....you'll need a body to replace Gaudette.  So even if you could get Tierney for 3.5M and your backup for 2.5M, you need to add another 1M to replace Gaudette....so basically losing Demko and Gaudette to save 1M$ and a late 1st?  Even with Benning's track record it's not worth it, that pick won't play for at least 2 full season, if not more.

 

FYI Tierney has the same amount of points than Toffoli the past 3 seasons...what do you think he'll ask if/when we sign Toffoli for whatever it's going to be?  He's an RFA who's 26.  He's pretty close to UFA status, you'll need to buy those UFA years off if you want him more than 1 year.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by timberz21

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Thirston said:

I believe it’s not that anyone wants to trade Demko but is worried Canucks will lose him anyway in expansion draft so may as well get something for him. Unless marky walks then a Demko trade would be ludicrous. 

Ya, it is a forced decision.  Let Markstrom walk because we won't give him term and a NMC for expansion... or keep him and then have to trade Demko or lose him for nothing in expansion.

There doesn't seem to be a solution that keeps them both, at least beyond this coming season... so folks can't really just think of current state today as what we will have moving forward.

Right now if you are assessing risk... letting Markstrom go is WAY riskier than running with Demko.  Very few, even highly touted goalie prospects, can become top end starters and maintain that rate for more than a year or two.  Markstrom alone was the difference in wins above replacement between us being a bottom 5 lottery team and being a bubble playoff team.  If Demko is just an average starter (which would normally be a huge success) over the next couple of years, we are in a world of hurt.  What are the odds that over the entire course of the next 5 years, Demko is a Vezina calibre goalie like Markstrom is right now?  The odds are REALLY poor of that happening in the next year or two... and still pretty poor beyond that.

If I am laying odds... Keeping Markstrom gives us 3-5 years of elite level proven goaltending and will allow us to develop another young goalie to take his place like DiPietro or someone else.  Losing Markstrom means we can "hope" for average goaltending in the short term and that we can use some of those cap dollars to improve the defence.

Without taking into consideration any trade value, I probably STILL go with Demko's potential even at the cost of some quality goaltending in the short term.  In general it has been shown that a better defence helps you more than having a high paid goalie.

IF trading Demko means you can keep Markstrom AND improve the defence... that just has to be a serious consideration.  The "Cam Neely" spectre has to go away for fans.  How many years ago was that?  How many young players with upside have we traded since then that folks kept saying "this will bite us in the ass just like Cam Neely"... and then never turned out to be anything.  I mean Michael Grabner had one of the most successful post-Canucks careers after we traded him away... and that isn't anything you can't easily replace.

[Provost]

Just now, timberz21 said:

Lol questioning my math?  You trading three players and getting two back in return....you'll need a body to replace Gaudette.  So even if you could get Tierney for 3.5M and you're backup for 2.5M, you need to add another 1M to replace Gaudette....so basically losing Demko and Gaudette to save 1M$ and a late 1st?  Even with Benning's track record it's not worth it, that pick won't play for at least 2 full season, if not more.

 

FYI Tierney has the same amount of points than Toffoli the past 3 seasons...what do you think he'll ask if/when we sign Toffoli for whatever it's going to be?  He's an RFA who's 26.  He's pretty close to UFA status, you'll need to buy those UFA years off if you want him more than 1 year.

 

 

I am, like pretty much everyone else, assuming Eriksson isn't on our roster next year at all or is just an extra body we have to carry as a 14th forward because we happen to be paying him.. so you aren't replacing a roster player and adding $1 million since we don't have one now.  We have to replace him regardless of adding a body in the trade or not, or we can run with 13 forwards instead which is preferrable. 

Tierney replaces Gaudette so you don't need to account for 1M to another player to replace him, and the veteran backup replaces Demko.

Watch what Tierney gets... it isn't going to be close to $5 million even if he stays in Ottawa where they would have to overpay to get him to sign on the dotted line and give up his UFA rights to stay on a terrible team.

[timberz21]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

I am, like pretty much everyone else, assuming Eriksson isn't on our roster next year at all or is just an extra body we have to carry as a 14th forward because we happen to be paying him.. so you aren't replacing a roster player and adding $1 million since we don't have one now.  We have to replace him regardless of adding a body in the trade or not, or we can run with 13 forwards instead which is preferrable. 

Tierney replaces Gaudette so you don't need to account for 1M to another player to replace him, and the veteran backup replaces Demko.

Watch what Tierney gets... it isn't going to be close to $5 million even if he stays in Ottawa where they would have to overpay to get him to sign on the dotted line and give up his UFA rights to stay on a terrible team.

Ahhhh, now I understand the math....you're making unfounded assumptions to fit your arguments, gotcha!

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Ahhhh, now I understand the math....you're making unfounded assumptions to fit your arguments, gotcha!

Says the guy that has to assume Tierney gets $5 million per year to make his argument. 

I am also assuming that a veteran backup to Markstrom costs us $2.5 million.  We could easily get a cheaper guy than that who costs $1 million less because we have... well Markstrom, and not an unproven young goalie like Demko.  A back up who has to play 20 games a year in spot duty is a lot easier and cheaper to find than a backup that has to play 30-40 games a year as a 1A/1B with a young prospect.

It is all assumptions, don't pretend otherwise.  In any scenario, moving Eriksson saves us cap space as was my original contention.  The exact dollars is all based on assumptions.  Does Markstrom sign for $5 million instead of $6 million per year if he gets term and a NMC for expansion?  Quite possibly.  Other moving parts as well, as I mentioned if you could flip that pick for Cernak you get him cheaper than you would otherwise pay Tanev.  Killorn is cheaper than Toffoli as a top 6 option.  It all adds up to significant savings that could allow you retain players, and even upgrade.

[timberz21]

19 minutes ago, Provost said:

Says the guy that has to assume Tierney gets $5 million per year to make his argument. 

I am also assuming that a veteran backup to Markstrom costs us $2.5 million.  We could easily get a cheaper guy than that who costs $1 million less because we have... well Markstrom, and not an unproven young goalie like Demko.  A back up who has to play 20 games a year in spot duty is a lot easier and cheaper to find than a backup that has to play 30-40 games a year as a 1A/1B with a young prospect.

It is all assumptions, don't pretend otherwise.  In any scenario, moving Eriksson saves us cap space as was my original contention.  The exact dollars is all based on assumptions.  Does Markstrom sign for $5 million instead of $6 million per year if he gets term and a NMC for expansion?  Quite possibly.  Other moving parts as well, as I mentioned if you could flip that pick for Cernak you get him cheaper than you would otherwise pay Tanev.  Killorn is cheaper than Toffoli as a top 6 option.  It all adds up to significant savings that could allow you retain players, and even upgrade.

At least my assumption was based on a pts vs pts comparison with another guy on our team.    Not just, yeah well, we're going to send Eriksson home and pay him for not playing...while the guy was on the ice in the playoffs a few weeks ago.  Teams don't just send a bad contract home and say don't show up, we'll just pay you....hence the unfounded assumption.

 

The guy is overpaid, not living up to his contract...but the guy can still play hockey.   He's not winning us games, but not really costing us either.  Might as well just ride the storm out, rather than making a dumb trading that will backfire and continue to hurt us way past the 2 years left on his deal.

 

Anyway, Benning is a pretty transparent guy and basically just said he won't pay a premium to ship in out.  So he's not trading Gaudette and Demko for that reason.  Also defeats the purpose of shedding cap space....you actually need young cheap talent like Demko and Gaudette to actually manage your cap.

 

 

[UKNuck96]

17 hours ago, Coconuts said:

If Ottawa needs a placeholder, they could easily grab one from what looks to be a saturated goalie market and not have to give up and take on assets. Ottawa isn't going to be competing for at least a few years, not sure if Demko being young really entices them or not. 

 

They could sign one and get Hogberg some pro experience, they're going to sink regardless given the division they're in. They're extremely unlikely to beat out the Habs, Panthers, Leafs, Lightning, and Bruins. Bringing in a young goaltender with #1 potential isn't going to change that with the team they've got. I could see them being interested in Demko, but realistically I think they'd be fine grabbing someone that only costs them cash and standing pat as they continue to rebuild. 

 

And I'm not as sold on DiPietro, though I think he's a great prospect. Not when we've got Demko where he's at right now. Not sure about Markstrom as he ages either. Does he sustain his level of play? I'd rather roll the dice on Demko and use the cap savings to get him a solid guy to share the load with. We've put years into his development, he looks like he could be great, I want to see what he does. 

 

And no, there are no magic beans that are going to fix the fact that we've got cap sunk into Eriksson. But waiting another year allows Sutter, Pearson, Baer, Edler, and Benn to come off the books while making Eriksson's buyout much more manageable. Edler likely comes back, but I doubt it'll be for 6m. Riding things out during a season where a number of teams likely regress as well due to cap complications wouldn't be the end of the world. 

This - it’s almost like there was a plan that next season cap space for freed up, and the season after a bit more.

 

its almost like there was a consideration on which year we would want/need cap space 

[Patel Bure]

The only way I’d consider moving Demko, is if the conversation started with Eriksson and Ferland as poopners (opposite of a sweetener I guess).    
 

Even then, I’d very likely pass.  Demko is almost in Pettersson and Hughes category does me.   He’s the next Carey Price.  Watch those three playoff games Demko player, and tell me that he wasn’t just as impressive as 1994 McLean and 2007 Luongo.  
 

Ive never seen anything like that.  Demko broke Vegas, and Vegas were affected in their series against Dallas.

[UKNuck96]

2 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

The only way I’d consider moving Demko, is if the conversation started with Eriksson and Ferland as poopners (opposite of a sweetener I guess).    
 

Even then, I’d very likely pass.  Demko is almost in Pettersson and Hughes category does me.   He’s the next Carey Price.  Watch those three playoff games Demko player, and tell me that he wasn’t just as impressive as 1994 McLean and 2007 Luongo.  
 

Ive never seen anything like that.  Demko broke Vegas, and Vegas were affected in their series against Dallas.

Demko played great don’t get me wrong, but it was 3 games and the team played tight around him and a tight defence, being super vigilant at sweeping rebounds away. He got a lot of support. (At the detriment to the offence) 

 

binnington last year played great, but the blues also played tighter with him in the net than they had earlier in the season. This year they lossened it up a bit and his stats were not as good coming into the playoffs and we all saw what happened.

 

im not saying that the same will happen to Demko, but earlier in the season we saw him post some not so stellar figures when taking a longer run in then net. 
 

a 3 game sample of the team playing ultra defence is not enough to claim he is the next Carey Price. 

[Barnstorm]

I say no