Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign G Braden Holtby to 2-Year Deal ($4.3M AAV)

[Bougieman]

Quality signing. Way cheaper and less of a term than pretty much every hockey prognosticator predicted. Take Steve Dangle, for instance. Everyone was expecting an overpayment for Holtby. This is the right guy, at the right term, to back up Demko and give him the support net he needs to flourish into our #1, and best of all he means we aren't going to lose Thatcher to the Kracken.

Gonna miss Marky, but this is the real world, bros. Best possible outcome considering the situation.

 

[Bougieman]

Like, you guys do realize that Demko himself is not under contract for next season, right?

Are you seriously insinuating that Demko is not going to be a Canuck next season? There is no way they're going to let their future goalie walk.

 

[HockeyWooot]

Like this signing.

 

[Ryp37]

Are you seriously insinuating that Demko is not going to be a Canuck next season? There is no way they're going to let their future goalie walk.

he’s probably referencing how much we’ll be paying for goaltending in year 2 of holtbys contract which is backloaded in pay and less appealing to Seattle, not that the be that interested anyway

 

[Melvin]

Are you seriously insinuating that Demko is not going to be a Canuck next season? There is no way they're going to let their future goalie walk.

No? Why on earth would I think that?

 

[Get North]

Uh, both of my points proven?

People said the same thing about Miller when he got traded to the Blues and had an atrocious playoffs. He was done, but we signed him and he backstopped us to the playoffs. Holtby with a very similar story.

Eddie Lack put up career numbers with a terrible team. The 2 years is what matters not the 4.3 AAV. We need the stopgap and believing Holtby is not a capable starter is not a realistic argument. Capitals have no depth, that's why they lost not because of Holtby.

Did you see what Cam Talbot got, 3 years for 3.7m AAV.

 

[Frank Garrett]

"Other teams".

Holtby's agent be like:

"Can't talk right now Jim we've got other teams calling as we speak! *click*

*silence*















He'll call back."















*5 minutes later*



*ring, ring*

 

[Raistlin]

its the same negative ppl here that complains about every move the organisation makes. I guess its really their outlook on everything. you think Griess will sign a 1 year deal? Crawford already proved you wrong. How can you argue about signing a guy that has won everything, was not that far removed from said success, is a solid contributor to his community, took less money and less term to play for us and is willing to mentor our young goalie??? Its a 2 year signing of the second best goalie available for christ sake. The jewel in our organisation is Clark, not a goalie; was Brackett/Benning, not just Benning. I have absolute confidence that Holtby will bounce back, he came here for Clark, and he will learn from the best.

 

[geebster]

This was a good move at a lower cap hit than would be expected for Holtby. Good value. Would've been nice to have signed some of our RFAs or signed some league minimum UFAs to plug some of the holes tho. Too many empty roster spots right now.

 

[RandV]

I find the Ian Clark thing absurd. Sure he's a great goalie coach and he'll pay huge dividends if you're picking up a struggling 20 something goalie or developing a prospect through the system. You can't expect the same returns on a 31 year old goalie who has 468 NHL games all with the same team and probably coach who's sv % has dropped from .925 to .910* to .897 over 4 seasons. He can help but there's no guarantee Holtby can bounce back here, that's more on Holtby himself.

 

[ahmon]

I don't mind this move.

I think the decision to let Markstrom go and build around Demko is the correct one.

And it makes sense to pair him up with a veteran, especially one who has won and is still likely capable to be a #1 goalie.

Both Holtby/Crawford fit thatr role. Crawford probably would be my 1st choice, played behind a really really poor defensive team in Chicago.

 

[xtra]

People said the same thing about Miller when he got traded to the Blues and had an atrocious playoffs. He was done, but we signed him and he backstopped us to the playoffs. Holtby with a very similar story.

Eddie Lack put up career numbers with a terrible team. The 2 years is what matters not the 4.3 AAV. We need the stopgap and believing Holtby is not a capable starter is not a realistic argument. Capitals have no depth, that's why they lost not because of Holtby.

Did you see what Cam Talbot got, 3 years for 3.7m AAV.

If the capitals had no depth does this make the canucks an AHL team?

you can’t seriously use the capitals having no depth as a reason holtby will rebound on the current team we have.

 

[geebaan]

My hope is Ian Clarke can help him out. Washington fans said he was flat out bad the last couple years. Here’s hoping Demko is ready to be number one so this isn’t even an issue.

 

[Get North]

If the capitals had no depth does this make the canucks an AHL team?

you can’t seriously use the capitals having no depth as a reason holtby will rebound on the current team we have.

Capitals didn't score more than 2 goals against the Islanders in 4/5 games. Backstrom was injured and out. So yeah, their top 4 centers were Kuznetsov, Eller, Boyd and Dowd. They are nowhere close to the same team that won the Cup 3 seasons ago.

A goaltenders stats will reflect the teams performance. Holtby is a former Vezina trophy winner that is the same age as beloved Chris Tanev. What's the argument against Holtby again?

 

[F A N]

I find the Ian Clark thing absurd. Sure he's a great goalie coach and he'll pay huge dividends if you're picking up a struggling 20 something goalie or developing a prospect through the system. You can't expect the same returns on a 31 year old goalie who has 468 NHL games all with the same team and probably coach who's sv % has dropped from .925 to .910* to .897 over 4 seasons. He can help but there's no guarantee Holtby can bounce back here, that's more on Holtby himself.

It's only absurd because of your view on Holtby. Kevin Woodley was on 1040 today and talked about Holtby. He talked about him having a terrible year. Woodley said Holtby had the lowest expected save percentage in the NHL at .879. The Capitals were that bad.

Woodley also talked about him being a good fit for the Canucks defensive environment quite well (not as good of a fit as Markstrom but Woodley said Holtby checked a lot more boxes than the other goalies Woodley was hearing).

I'm a lot more optimistic about this signing after hearing Woodley's analysis. Assuming Ian Clark likes him as well, that's two guys who knows a lot more about goaltending than anyone of us here and whose opinions I respect.

Holtby isn't going to fully replace Markstrom. But like many of us here, Benning clearly didn't want to lose Demko.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Capitals didn't score more than 2 goals against the Islanders in 4/5 games. Backstrom was injured and out. So yeah, their top 4 centers were Kuznetsov, Eller, Boyd and Dowd. They are nowhere close to the same team that won the Cup 3 seasons ago.

A goaltenders stats will reflect the teams performance. Holtby is a former Vezina trophy winner that is the same age as beloved Chris Tanev. What's the argument against Holtby again?

He’s a fringe starter/high end back up at this point and it doesn’t matter what he was years ago. What is he right now?

If you’re making a bet on a player to bounce back, then you’re giving him a 1 year show me deal, not a 2 year deal that leads into your major re-signing window.

Nobody is saying he can’t bounce back to some degree. They’re saying he’s unlikely to based upon recent data. That is the correct opinion unless you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[F A N]

He’s a fringe starter at this point and it doesn’t matter what he was years ago. What is he right now?

If you’re making a bet on a player to bounce back, then your giving him a 1 year show me deal, not a 2 year deal that leads into your major re-signing window.

Nobody is saying he can’t bounce back to some level. They’re saying he’s unlikely to based upon recent data. That is the correct opinion unless you have evidence otherwise?

Why are people so fixated on this deal being 2 years? We're basically betting on Holtby being a good 1B option. We also need to expose a goaltender for the expansion draft and this checks that box. If Holtby signed a one year contract and he doesn't do well we need to find another 1B option on a one year contract for the following year. If he does really well on a 1 year contract he's not going to come back on a 1 year contract and we need to find another 1B option on a one year contract the following year. What are the chances of finding a good 1B option on a one year contract that we could reasonably be comfortable with? Montreal traded for Jake Allen and was praised for it.

And why is your opinion correct? Why can't it be wrong? Go hear Woodley's opinion in the segment I linked above. An opinion is an opinion. There's no such thing as a correct opinion.

 

[mossey3535]

At this number and term I think Holtby makes sense.....to an extent. Overall still an overpayment. Should have gotten it done for less than $4M - lots of comparable signings today at that number and as of this moment Holtby is trending down.

I really like the guy but the chances of him bouncing back are about 50/50. He's had a rough few years and that's on a pretty solid team. Physically I still think he has the tools. IMO he just loses tracking and/or focus sometimes, which is what has made Marky so consistently good for us. If he continues his recent performance there's going to be a lot of ups and downs with him.

This signing is a bit of a gamble. Sort of hedging their bets with Demko which is a bit weird to me.

Clark actually works better with older guys but Holtby has a lot of mental preparation quirks....going to be interesting to see how Clark deals with this as he has gotten Demko to abandon a lot of excess preparation routine.

Hope Holtby regains his form with us. Also sad to see Marky go but as I've said previously I think it was best that we just sacrifice this year and try to reset with QH/EP. And part of that would be walking away from Markstrom.

 

[m9]

If Ian Clark is so good, why can't we sign a guy he likes for 2 million and he can turn him into someone worth much more? Why sign a reclamation project who has to hit such a high bar to be worth his contract?

 

[4Twenty]

People said the same thing about Miller when he got traded to the Blues and had an atrocious playoffs. He was done, but we signed him and he backstopped us to the playoffs. Holtby with a very similar story.

Eddie Lack put up career numbers with a terrible team. The 2 years is what matters not the 4.3 AAV. We need the stopgap and believing Holtby is not a capable starter is not a realistic argument. Capitals have no depth, that's why they lost not because of Holtby.

Did you see what Cam Talbot got, 3 years for 3.7m AAV.

This is Fan fiction.

Miller got injured. Eddie Lack played the heaviest starters work load for the 2nd half of the season in the entire league, comparable to Jonathan Quick’s and .929’d the team into the playoffs.

At least try to remember what happened not what you want to believe.

 

[m9]

Why are people so fixated on this deal being 2 years? We're basically betting on Holtby being a good 1B option. We also need to expose a goaltender for the expansion draft and this checks that box. If Holtby signed a one year contract and he doesn't do well we need to find another 1B option on a one year contract for the following year. If he does really well on a 1 year contract he's not going to come back on a 1 year contract and we need to find another 1B option on a one year contract the following year. What are the chances of finding a good 1B option on a one year contract that we could reasonably be comfortable with? Montreal traded for Jake Allen and was praised for it.

And why is your opinion correct? Why can't it be wrong? Go hear Woodley's opinion in the segment I linked above. An opinion is an opinion. There's no such thing as a correct opinion.

Expansion draft part is meaningless, can easily be handled when we sign our other minor league goaltender. As for your scenarios if we signed up Holtby for 1yr, try it again with him on a 2yr deal. We might be stuck with a bad backup goalie on a very large contract for the first season we are paying EP/Hughes. Is that a good risk to take? Seems completely unnecessary to me.

 

[JenniferH]

Again, judging Holtby's "bounce-back ability" on his stats is just looking at the numbers. From someone who watched every single game... the defense in front of him got worse over the last three years. The coaching got WAY, WAY worse. (Tood Reirden was TERRIBLE.) The team relied on him way, way too much. He faced more high danger shots than almost every goalie in the league consistently. Yet, with all of that, Holtby kept the Caps in games on a regular, consistent basis allowing them to come back and win more often than not in the 3rd period with their offensive prowess.

The reason that the Caps were able to maintain the Metro lead position (or near it) every year--including the last three years when Holtby was supposedly "in decline" is because his stats were sacrificed to keep his team in the game. Many times the Caps would have been down 5-9 goals were it not for Braden Holtby's efforts and games would have been impossible to come back and win. That they were only down 3-4 goals--which at times was a dang near miracle was because of how Holtby was able to keep them in the game. The stats made Holts play look bad, it was actually the team effort (or lack thereof and really, really bad coaching) in front of him. I'm not saying that he didn't let in some soft goals. All goalies do, but more often than not, no, he was just not getting proper defense and was a victim of bad coaching. (Todd Reirden was terrible!)

 

[Catamarca Livin]

I guess we can compare Holtby to all the goalies signing one year deals. Who has signed a one year year so far? 38 year old Henrik Lunquist. Even fringe nhl/ahl goalies get more than one year. ie Richard Bachman. 2 years is the best contract we could have hoped for. We will see if he is worth the money based off his play.

 

[Ryp37]

Again, judging Holtby's "bounce-back ability" on his stats is just looking at the numbers. From someone who watched every single game... the defense in front of him got worse over the last three years. The coaching got WAY, WAY worse. (Tood Reirden was TERRIBLE.) The team relied on him way, way too much. He faced more high danger shots than almost every goalie in the league consistently. Yet, with all of that, Holtby kept the Caps in games on a regular, consistent basis allowing them to come back and win more often than not in the 3rd period with their offensive prowess.

The reason that the Caps were able to maintain the Metro lead position (or near it) every year--including the last three years when Holtby was supposedly "in decline" is because his stats were sacrificed to keep his team in the game. Many times the Caps would have been down 5-9 goals were it not for Braden Holtby's efforts and games would have been impossible to come back and win. That they were only down 3-4 goals--which at times was a dang near miracle was because of how Holtby was able to keep them in the game. The stats made Holts play look bad, it was actually the team effort (or lack thereof and really, really bad coaching) in front of him. I'm not saying that he didn't let in some soft goals. All goalies do, but more often than not, no, he was just not getting proper defense and was a victim of bad coaching. (Todd Reirden was terrible!)

Have you seen our roster? Our blue line?

 

[4Twenty]

Again, judging Holtby's "bounce-back ability" on his stats is just looking at the numbers. From someone who watched every single game... the defense in front of him got worse over the last three years. The coaching got WAY, WAY worse. (Tood Reirden was TERRIBLE.) The team relied on him way, way too much. He faced more high danger shots than almost every goalie in the league consistently. Yet, with all of that, Holtby kept the Caps in games on a regular, consistent basis allowing them to come back and win more often than not in the 3rd period with their offensive prowess.

The reason that the Caps were able to maintain the Metro lead position (or near it) every year--including the last three years when Holtby was supposedly "in decline" is because his stats were sacrificed to keep his team in the game. Many times the Caps would have been down 5-9 goals were it not for Braden Holtby's efforts and games would have been impossible to come back and win. That they were only down 3-4 goals--which at times was a dang near miracle was because of how Holtby was able to keep them in the game. The stats made Holts play look bad, it was actually the team effort (or lack thereof and really, really bad coaching) in front of him. I'm not saying that he didn't let in some soft goals. All goalies do, but more often than not, no, he was just not getting proper defense and was a victim of bad coaching. (Todd Reirden was terrible!)

We get it youre a goalie lover.

How much Vancouver defending have you seen?

Do you use any stats when evaluating your fav position ?