Confirmed with Link: Canucks, Demko reportedly agree to 5-Year, $25M Extension ($5M AAV)

[4Twenty]

I see what you're saying, but really I'm not someone who gets involved in the parsing out of credit/blame for decisions made in the organization over the last 7 years as I give the GM the credit/blame for every decision made over that timeframe.

However, it would also be naive to think that the GM wouldn't consult with his goalie coach that has a previous relationship with the goaltender they are signing.

Anyways, nothing really to do with Demko and the extension so I'll leave it at that.

When did Clark and Holtby previously work together? I think you might be mistaken on this premise.

 

[m9]

When did Clark and Holtby previously work together? I think you might be mistaken on this premise.

I didn't say worked together, but I will edit as "previous relationship" doesn't really fit either. Obviously they have the ties to Korn. Anyways, doesn't take away from the point that I'm sure Clark had some influence in the signing.

 

[m9]

Well, the Holtby signing absolutely has everything to do with the Demko signing. We will be paying $9.29m to those two for the position next year, and probability strongly suggests that Holtby - as he gets older- will decline further. Eff you, Mike Smith, for making me look foolish and being an Oiler.

And to which GM are you assigning responsibility for the last 7 years - Linden, FAQ, or Gillis?

Sure, on Holtby.

As I referenced in this thread previously the "day-to-day" part of management is on full display with how they managed Demko. They had enough faith in him to let Markstrom walk. But not enough faith to trust him as a starter, bringing in a guy making starter money on a multi-year deal who started opening night. But now after a hot 6 weeks or whatever, you're back all-in on Demko?

The lack of a logical process here - even if ultimately, I'm okay with the Demko contract as the result - is shocking.

 

[F A N]

When did Clark and Holtby previously work together? I think you might be mistaken on this premise.

I think Woodley mentioned that they have worked together before. But "working together" likely meant at summer camps.

Clark was an established goaltending guru during the time Holtby was moving up the ranks. It shouldn't come as a surprise that they have crossed paths. I don't know why anyone would belief that Clark had no influence on the Canucks signing Holtby.

 

[Knight53]

Absolute Steal. Wish it was one or two years longer. Always nice to see home grown star talent locked up.

 

[I am toxic]

Sure, on Holtby.

As I referenced in this thread previously the "day-to-day" part of management is on full display with how they managed Demko. They had enough faith in him to let Markstrom walk. But not enough faith to trust him as a starter, bringing in a guy making starter money on a multi-year deal who started opening night. But now after a hot 6 weeks or whatever, you're back all-in on Demko?

The lack of a logical process here - even if ultimately, I'm okay with the Demko contract as the result - is shocking.

That's weird.

Because if I understand your position correctly, you are essentially ignoring process for the past 7 years where you assign responsibility to Benning for all the moves -despite things like him having to be over-ruled by Linden to get Petey - but now you are beginning to criticize the process even though you like the result.

Hater*.

*That was sarcasm. I don't think you or anyone is a hater, it's a false label to hijack the discussion. I generally agree with your position on Demko, other than I didn't realize they let Marky walk, I thought they were trying to sign him all the way up until he signed with CGY, but I didn't follow it closely

 

[m9]

That's weird.

Because if I understand your position correctly, you are essentially ignoring process for the past 7 years where you assign responsibility to Benning for all the moves -despite things like him having to be over-ruled by Linden to get Petey - but now you are beginning to criticize the process even though you like the result.

Hater*.

*That was sarcasm. I don't think you or anyone is a hater, it's a false label to hijack the discussion. I generally agree with your position on Demko, other than I didn't realize they let Marky walk, I thought they were trying to sign him all the way up until he signed with CGY, but I didn't follow it closely

I don't really care about the semantics with Markstrom. They had ample time to get a deal done and the player wanted to continue playing here. I'm sure if they offered him what Calgary did, he would be here. If you want to call it "letting him walk" like I did or something else that you prefer, I'm good either way.

It's interesting because Blake Price a couple weeks ago on his show made a great point about Markstrom/Demko - only Aquilini truly knows what Benning's plan was with goaltending. Did he intend to move on from Markstrom all along, or did he fall into Demko/Holtby as a backup option when they couldn't bring Markstrom back? That information is incredibly important as if Benning wanted Markstrom and not Demko and then brought in Holtby as a 1A it reflects very poorly on Benning despite Demko working out this year.

And yes, of course lots of members in the organization are involved in key decisions. I just think after 7 years of failure with this regime I'm past trying to nitpick who is responsible for what at what time. There is one person who has at least some involvement in all hockey decisions over that time and that's the GM so I'm holding him accountable for the generally awful state of the team the last 7 years.

 

[mossey3535]

I think this is where Im at. And isnt the average tender costs per team in the 8 mil range for both? So if hes struggling you could still fill the gaps with a decent backup.

Soooo if you had a promising young goalie who was on a ELC that might be a good way to save some money for say, a d-man.

What we absolutely cant do is sign another HOltby-esque contract.

 

[PavelBure10]

I'm very happy with the deal. Demko has shown what he can do under pressure, and he has shown that he can get into the oppositions heads, "Vegas". The contract could be a gamble, but it's a gamble I'm willing to take. Demko has been fantastic ever since Markstrom's departure. He also has been one of the only bright spots on this piss poor Canuck season. I am very happy with this Demko signing. The time, and development of this 2nd round steal, looks like it was worth the wait. The future of the Canucks goaltending is here.

Now it's time to resign our other upcoming franchise free agents, "Pettersson, Hughes".

 

[Get North]

These are the kind of gambles the Canucks are going to need to make with their young guys if we want success long term. We've already squandered their cheap years and there is little in the pipeline so its worth the risk to get us out of the bad team -> bubble team tier. If we could get Hughes and Pettersson on similar deals 6x5 ish then we have the base for a stew.

Great point, a lot of fans overlook the real important stuff to having success.

We finally have a competitive team with a few young stars. Our draft record from 2006-2014 is basically the reason we weren't able to continue after the Sedins peak.

 

[rypper]

I didn't see it discussed yet but Capfriendly has the breakdown of the contract up.

21/22 - 2.5m.
22/23 - 3.5m + 1m signing bonus.
23/24 - 6m + 1m signing bonus.
24/25 - 6m.
25/26 - 5m.

No trade protection whatsoever.

 

[canuckking1]

This signing has me reminiscing on that crazy post season run by Demko last year.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Who's responsible for the front office managerial budget cuts?.and pulling the financial strings in this pandemic?..Benning?..Once again, you're completely ill informed......(I'm sure Benning would sign Clarke in a NY minute)


Seravalli: At least 17 NHL teams have reduced pay amid COVID-19 crunch - TSN.ca
Seven NHL coaching staffs still working for reduced pay amid COVID-19 crunch - TSN.ca

The funny part is you actually think there's a single person here who doesn't know you'd absolve Benning for any blame of losing Clark regardless.

 

[bandwagonesque]

The funny part is you actually think there's a single person here who doesn't know you'd absolve Benning for any blame of losing Clark regardless.

The really funny part is that you don't realize this is something you and PoM have in common. If you insist every event supports one specific view, you happen to be right whenever one actually does.

 

[F A N]

I don't really care about the semantics with Markstrom. They had ample time to get a deal done and the player wanted to continue playing here. I'm sure if they offered him what Calgary did, he would be here. If you want to call it "letting him walk" like I did or something else that you prefer, I'm good either way.

It's interesting because Blake Price a couple weeks ago on his show made a great point about Markstrom/Demko - only Aquilini truly knows what Benning's plan was with goaltending. Did he intend to move on from Markstrom all along, or did he fall into Demko/Holtby as a backup option when they couldn't bring Markstrom back? That information is incredibly important as if Benning wanted Markstrom and not Demko and then brought in Holtby as a 1A it reflects very poorly on Benning despite Demko working out this year.

I don't think it's that black and white. You can even go back to our discussions here. Many of us wanted Markstrom back but keep Demko and have the ability to expose Markstrom in the expansion draft. Very few to none of us wanted to see the Canucks give Markstrom what he got in Calgary. So wanting to bring back Markstrom does not, in itself, rule out Demko as the goalie of the future. Certainly most of us here wanted the unrealistic scenario to happen.

The sad part is that keeping the door open for Markstrom lost us Toffoli and possibly even Stecher.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The funny part is you actually think there's a single person here who doesn't know you'd absolve Benning for any blame of losing Clark regardless.

I demonstrated to you that the ball is in Aqua's court as far as coaches salaries are concerned....You obviously had zero intention of debating anything (colour me surprised..lol).....just stoking more of the clueless 'us vs them' posts.

Lazy.

 

[VancouverJagger]

The funny part is you actually think there's a single person here who doesn't know you'd absolve Benning for any blame of losing Clark regardless.

You really think it's Benning's fault Clark isn't signed? I dunno - we can rightfully blame him for a lot of things (and believe me if I had my wish he'd be out the door tomorrow) however I tend to think this is much more on ownership..........however it's all conjecture at this point. I haven't seen any indication as to why Benning would not want Clark here.

 

[Javaman]

The really funny part is that you don't realize this is something you and PoM have in common. If you insist every event supports one specific view, you happen to be right whenever one actually does.

One of these things is not like the other.

Try harder bandy.

 

[I am toxic]

You really think it's Benning's fault Clark isn't signed? I dunno - we can rightfully blame him for a lot of things (and believe me if I had my wish he'd be out the door tomorrow) however I tend to think this is much more on ownership..........however it's all conjecture at this point. I haven't seen any indication as to why Benning would not want Clark here.

If people are claiming money is the reason ownership won't authorize signing Clark, then we have to look at the hundreds of millions of dollars Benning has cost the org in wasted salaries and asset value.

That's all on Benni . . . Trevor Linden. It's all on Linden.

Whew, almost effed that up.

 

[VancouverJagger]

If people are claiming money is the reason ownership won't authorize signing Clark, then we have to look at the hundreds of millions of dollars Benning has cost the org in wasted salaries and asset value.

That's all on Benni . . . Trevor Linden. It's all on Linden.

Whew, almost effed that up.

So you really think Benning doesn't want to sign Clark?

 

[I am toxic]

So you really think Benning doesn't want to sign Clark?

I thought we had already established that Benning clearly wants to sign Clarkie. (It's Clarkie, ok? Try to keep up).

However, if it's being held up because of money issues, then that is on Be . . . I mean Gill . . . I mean Linden. Linden!

Linden, right? He's still the scapegoat du jour? I can never keep up with the latest spin

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The really funny part is that you don't realize this is something you and PoM have in common. If you insist every event supports one specific view, you happen to be right whenever one actually does.

Still pissed off about Tryamkin, huh? How's that slap bass solo coming, Mr Technically Right?

I demonstrated to you that the ball is in Aqua's court as far as coaches salaries are concerned....You obviously had zero intention of debating anything (colour me surprised..lol).....just stoking more of the clueless 'us vs them' posts.

Lazy.

If Clark's presence is truly important to developing Demko, wouldn't it be incumbent on the GM to convince the guy holding the purse strings to cough up to keep him?

 

[Fatass]

Still pissed off about Tryamkin, huh? How's that slap bass solo coming, Mr Technically Right?



If Clark's presence is truly important to developing Demko, wouldn't it be incumbent on the GM to convince the guy holding the purse strings to cough up to keep him?

Clearly Benning convinced the owner to pay extra to buy UFA years from Demko. Why Benning isn’t able to convince our owner of Clarke’s importance is definitely worrisome. Maybe it’s Clarke who doesn’t want to come back? We might be trying to sign him, but he prefers to move on. Florida could be where he goes next. More money, less tax, great weather. Hopefully Demko can continue to be good without Clarke.

 

[VanJack]

Still pissed off about Tryamkin, huh? How's that slap bass solo coming, Mr Technically Right?



If Clark's presence is truly important to developing Demko, wouldn't it be incumbent on the GM to convince the guy holding the purse strings to cough up to keep him?

Based on the precedents with the Canucks hockey ops department, I'm not that optimistic they'll be able to retain Clark. And fans have reason to be concerned.

It's more than a coincidence that Markstrom is having a 'down year' in Calgary. Clark seems to have an uncanny ability to get goalies back on track before they get into an extended funk.

If Clark leaves this off-season, there's no doubt Demko will miss him.

 

[Hit the post]

Based on the precedents with the Canucks hockey ops department, I'm not that optimistic they'll be able to retain Clark. And fans have reason to be concerned.

It's more than a coincidence that Markstrom is having a 'down year' in Calgary. Clark seems to have an uncanny ability to get goalies back on track before they get into an extended funk.

If Clark leaves this off-season, there's no doubt Demko will miss him.

If I was Calgary, offer Clark a blank cheque. Not only helps them but hurts us.