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

[Canucks1096]

I'm not saying make a backup goaltender into a #1, I'm saying find a guy who has been a good backup and kick him up a level to be a good 30-40 game starter or 1b guy. That guy should cost far less than 4.3 million and provide excellent value to the team. Even if Holtby plays great, if he's splitting time with Demko it's hard to gain value when he's making 4.3 million.

This is just my opinion. There shouldn't be a 30 to 40 game 1 B goalie. If the goalie is a 30 to 40 games 1 B goalie. That means he is not a legit number 1 goalie. If you're not a number 1 guy. You shouldn't play that many games. 1B goalie playing that many games will probably hurts your chances on getting into the playoffs. It's either you're capable of 50 to 60 games number 1 goalie or a 20 to 30 Backup. Nothing in between.

 

[RobertKron]

This is just my opinion. There shouldn't be a 30 to 40 game 1 B goalie. If the goalie is a 30 to 40 games 1 B goalie. That means he is not a legit number 1 goalie. If you're not a number 1 guy. You shouldn't play that many games. 1B goalie playing that many games will probably hurts your chances on getting into the playoffs. It's either you're capable of 50 to 60 games number 1 goalie or a 20 to 30 Backup. Nothing in between.

That's kind of what 1B means?

 

[m9]

You mean someone like Nilsson? Who exactly is a good backup who hasn't proven to be a good 30-40 game starter whom you think just needs a better goaltending coach? You got to start with something to work on. Maybe a Jack Campbell type. Regardless, Demko is an unproven #1. Previously I said that any GM with playoff aspirations would be stupid to start the season with Lack and Markstrom as the team's goaltending duo. Similar thinking applies. While that "good backup" would be more proven than Markstrom was, Demko is less proven than Lack was.

Before the start of free agency, I think most of us agreed that if we were to run with Demko it was important to insulate him with a veteran goaltender who could handle 30-40 games. That's the route that the Canuccks took.

I think Holtby brings value to the Canucks if he performs well. Unless Demko plays like a Vezina contender next season, the chances are that we can extend Demko for less than $5M AAV given that he still has an RFA year.



I agree that Korn is the best goalie coach but I would not pick Korn to replace Clark (I don't think Clark would be interested in working under Korn). Korn is 63 and clearly not interested in working with goalies on a daily basis. If we swap Clark for Korn, a guy like Curtis Sanford would be the team's goaltending coach.

This is just my opinion. There shouldn't be a 30 to 40 game 1 B goalie. If the goalie is a 30 to 40 games 1 B goalie. That means he is not a legit number 1 goalie. If you're not a number 1 guy. You shouldn't play that many games. 1B goalie playing that many games will probably hurts your chances on getting into the playoffs. It's either you're capable of 50 to 60 games number 1 goalie or a 20 to 30 Backup. Nothing in between.

Ultimately, for me it comes down to thinking Holtby is a poor bet at his cost and term. I guess at the end of the day if he plays great then the rest doesn't matter, so hopefully that's the end result.

 

[Natey]

Dude has like a 900 sv% in the last couple years, god damn Jim.

I mean, in those same 3 years he's only .004 (.906 vs .910) behind Carey Price, who many still consider one of the best in the league. And lets be honest - maybe he was just bored lol

On top of that.. look at the Caps defense. It's like having two good defesenman and 4 Jordie Benns.

 

[Regal]

This is just my opinion. There shouldn't be a 30 to 40 game 1 B goalie. If the goalie is a 30 to 40 games 1 B goalie. That means he is not a legit number 1 goalie. If you're not a number 1 guy. You shouldn't play that many games. 1B goalie playing that many games will probably hurts your chances on getting into the playoffs. It's either you're capable of 50 to 60 games number 1 goalie or a 20 to 30 Backup. Nothing in between.

I see what you're saying, but this ignores the effects of fatigue on the position. We're seeing more and more teams moving away from using a workhorse goalie these days and I think it's because they're finding the difference between a starter and backup is lowering to the point where keeping your starter fresh ends up in better results. Just from a statistical perspective, if, say your starter would post a .915 save percentage if he plays 60 games but a .920 if he plays 45, and your backup plays at a .910 level regardless, you would end up with a slightly better overall team save percentage. Not that it's that simple, but I think it's something to keep in mind. We saw in the playoffs that tandems were important for the majority of the teams that went far. This might be especially true next season if the schedule is compressed to get in as many games as possible.

 

[Canucks1096]

I see what you're saying, but this ignores the effects of fatigue on the position. We're seeing more and more teams moving away from using a workhorse goalie these days and I think it's because they're finding the difference between a starter and backup is lowering to the point where keeping your starter fresh ends up in better results. Just from a statistical perspective, if, say your starter would post a .915 save percentage if he plays 60 games but a .920 if he plays 45, and your backup plays at a .910 level regardless, you would end up with a slightly better overall team save percentage. Not that it's that simple, but I think it's something to keep in mind. We saw in the playoffs that tandems were important for the majority of the teams that went far. This might be especially true next season if the schedule is compressed to get in as many games as possible.

Great points, agree with everything you said. Didn't really think of the fatigue factor

 

[F A N]

This is just my opinion. There shouldn't be a 30 to 40 game 1 B goalie. If the goalie is a 30 to 40 games 1 B goalie. That means he is not a legit number 1 goalie. If you're not a number 1 guy. You shouldn't play that many games. 1B goalie playing that many games will probably hurts your chances on getting into the playoffs. It's either you're capable of 50 to 60 games number 1 goalie or a 20 to 30 Backup. Nothing in between.

I think you should reevaluate your thinking. Traditionally (from the era where #1 goalies are expected to play 60+ games), a good backup goalie is capable of playing well despite a long time between games and also starting a few consecutive games when the #1 guy is out with an injury. The traditional backup goalie cannot handle #1 duties for too long. Take Demko, he was playing great as a backup but when Markstrom went down with an injury and he basically had to take on that #1 goalie duties he faltered. It is hopefully a valuable learning experience. I remember Kiprusoff was a great backup goalie in SJ but played poorly when he was given the opportunity to run with the puck. He went to Calgary and the rest was history.

A 1B guy, compared to a backup, is capable of handling #1 duties for longer stretches. He's just considered 1B because he's not a guy you necessarily trust to start 50-60 games and play all the playoff games without a trusty secondary option.

These days, the prevailing theory is that you don't want your #1 goalie playing 60 games. Ideally your #1 goalie plays 50-55 games. So who do you want starting those 27-32 games? A Dany Sabourin and Curtis Sanford type or someone who you think is an average #1 calibre goalie if he's the team's starter?

 

[F A N]

Ultimately, for me it comes down to thinking Holtby is a poor bet at his cost and term. I guess at the end of the day if he plays great then the rest doesn't matter, so hopefully that's the end result.

I think differently. The cap room allocated to goaltending is entirely predictable. In the past, I said that a team can spend $8M-9M AAV on goaltending and still win the Cup. I don't expect that extending Demko would cost $6M AAV. Considering that there would be RFA years, I expect Demko's extension to come in under $5M AAV. Ideally, you want Demko to grab the #1 spot in the same year as your #1 goalie's contract expires.

Holtby was at one time one of the best goaltenders in the league. He's only 31. Last season, we had Markstrom and a rookie Demko. I don't expect Holtby or Demko to be as good as Markstrom but I expect Demko to be improved and giving the team better starts.

Did you hear Kevin Woodley talking about Holtby on 1040 that I linked previously? He thinks Holtby is a good fit for the Canucks. I say Holtby is a solid bet and his term is better than the 3 years that many comparable options got.

 

[Canucks1096]

I think you should reevaluate your thinking. Traditionally (from the era where #1 goalies are expected to play 60+ games), a good backup goalie is capable of playing well despite a long time between games and also starting a few consecutive games when the #1 guy is out with an injury. The traditional backup goalie cannot handle #1 duties for too long. Take Demko, he was playing great as a backup but when Markstrom went down with an injury and he basically had to take on that #1 goalie duties he faltered. It is hopefully a valuable learning experience. I remember Kiprusoff was a great backup goalie in SJ but played poorly when he was given the opportunity to run with the puck. He went to Calgary and the rest was history.

A 1B guy, compared to a backup, is capable of handling #1 duties for longer stretches. He's just considered 1B because he's not a guy you necessarily trust to start 50-60 games and play all the playoff games without a trusty secondary option.

These days, the prevailing theory is that you don't want your #1 goalie playing 60 games. Ideally your #1 goalie plays 50-55 games. So who do you want starting those 27-32 games? A Dany Sabourin and Curtis Sanford type or someone who you think is an average #1 calibre goalie if he's the team's starter?

You want the average number 1 calibre goalie starting those 27 to 32 games instead. We can call it 1B, however if the starter is healthy. There is no way that 1 B should be playing 30 to 40 games a season. 1B/backup, They shouldn't play more than 30 games. 1B they should still be classified as a backup. Of course given a choice you want a 1B instead of a backup.

 

[m9]

I think differently. The cap room allocated to goaltending is entirely predictable. In the past, I said that a team can spend $8M-9M AAV on goaltending and still win the Cup. I don't expect that extending Demko would cost $6M AAV. Considering that there would be RFA years, I expect Demko's extension to come in under $5M AAV. Ideally, you want Demko to grab the #1 spot in the same year as your #1 goalie's contract expires.

Holtby was at one time one of the best goaltenders in the league. He's only 31. Last season, we had Markstrom and a rookie Demko. I don't expect Holtby or Demko to be as good as Markstrom but I expect Demko to be improved and giving the team better starts.

Did you hear Kevin Woodley talking about Holtby on 1040 that I linked previously? He thinks Holtby is a good fit for the Canucks. I say Holtby is a solid bet and his term is better than the 3 years that many comparable options got.

All your stuff with Demko is true and I agree with it. As mentioned, it will just come down to how Holtby plays. I would have allocated my money differently and done whatever possible to avoid a 2nd year on an expensive goaltender contract, but that's me.

 

[NinjaKick]

I don't mind this one bit... a good mentor to Demko

 

[F A N]

All your stuff with Demko is true and I agree with it. As mentioned, it will just come down to how Holtby plays. I would have allocated my money differently and done whatever possible to avoid a 2nd year on an expensive goaltender contract, but that's me.

That's fair and I do think that Benning overpaid here (unless Holtby really was the 2nd best goalie on the market). I just see 2 years as more of an ideal term with DiPietro in the system. Except the guys who maybe 1 year away from retirement, we see that the market is giving out 2 year deals or more. We can probably trade for a 1B goalie like Montreal did next season but obviously giving away draft picks isn't desirable. So I think a 2 year deal gives us some stability in net (unless the expansion draft changes things). Holtby should also be tradeable if he performs well.

 

[F A N]

You want the average number 1 calibre goalie starting those 27 to 32 games instead. We can call it 1B, however if the starter is healthy. There is no way that 1 B should be playing 30 to 40 games a season. 1B/backup, They shouldn't play more than 30 games. 1B they should still be classified as a backup. Of course given a choice you want a 1B instead of a backup.

Your thinking simply doesn't reflect current thinking in terms of ideal workload for a #1 goalie. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong as this is an inexact science, but no goalie has backstopped his team to the Stanley Cup after having played more than 60 games in the regular season since 2009. The numbers back this up. Markstrom's play dropped off when he was overworked.

Teams have been looking to reduce the workload of their #1 goalies in an attempt to maximize their efficiency, lower the risk of injury, and maximize their performance potential come playoff time. Like pitch count for pitchers in baseball, if you subscribe to to the current theories on managing your #1 goalie's health, you DO want to have someone else starting 27-32 games at the very least. In fact, I think many playoff teams would be happy if they can afford to have a platoon tandem where regular season starts are more evenly split - say a 45-37 game split.

 

[Canucks1096]

Your thinking simply doesn't reflect current thinking in terms of ideal workload for a #1 goalie. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong as this is an inexact science, but no goalie has backstopped his team to the Stanley Cup after having played more than 60 games in the regular season since 2009. The numbers back this up. Markstrom's play dropped off when he was overworked.

Teams have been looking to reduce the workload of their #1 goalies in an attempt to maximize their efficiency, lower the risk of injury, and maximize their performance potential come playoff time. Like pitch count for pitchers in baseball, if you subscribe to to the current theories on managing your #1 goalie's health, you DO want to have someone else starting 27-32 games at the very least. In fact, I think many playoff teams would be happy if they can afford to have a platoon tandem where regular season starts are more evenly split - say a 45-37 game split.

I did write 50 to 60 games. Quick actually played 69 games in 2012. Thomas played 57 games, Crawford 58 games, Holbty 55 games, Vaselisky played 52 games when the season shut down. You can still have a heavy workload and still win the cup. I agree it's not the best option because of injuries and performance.

I did some digging. I looked at 2018/2019 season. There were 19 goalies that played 50 plus games. There would of been more if it weren't for injuries which means teams are still giving the number 1 goalie a heavy workload and 41 goalies that played 35 plus games. There are 31 number 1 goalies. That means there were 10 1B type of goalie ( 35 plus games is just my meaning of 1b goalie ) you can change it if you like) Only 1 out 3 teams are going with the direction you're saying. Coaches might want to play the backup more but there not doing it. Standings are so tight, you can't afford to let your backup/1b play more games at times.

You're right that 60 games is too much of a workload. But the number 1 should still play beteeen 50 to 55 and the other goalie no more 27 to 32

 

[F A N]

I did write 50 to 60 games. Quick actually played 69 games in 2012. Thomas played 57 games, Crawford 58 games, Holbty 55 games, Vaselisky played 52 games when the season shut down. You can still have a heavy workload and still win the cup. I agree it's not the best option because of injuries and performance.

I did some digging. I looked at 2018/2019 season. There were 19 goalies that played 50 plus games. There would of been more if it weren't for injuries which means teams are still giving the number 1 goalie a heavy workload and 41 goalies that played 35 plus games. There are 31 number 1 goalies. That means there were 10 1B type of goalie ( 35 plus games is just my meaning of 1b goalie ) you can change it if you like) Only 1 out 3 teams are going with the direction you're saying. Coaches might want to play the backup more but there not doing it. Standings are so tight, you can't afford to let your backup/1b play more games at times.

You're right that 60 games is too much of a workload. But the number 1 should still play beteeen 50 to 55 and the other goalie no more 27 to 32

I stand corrected - Quick in 2012 would be the last goaltender to play 60+ games in the regular season and backstop his team to a Cup victory.

Anyhow, I think we'll just agree to disagree. I think if you can get away with having a 1B goalie split the workload that's good. Most teams don't have that luxury and in that case under 55 games played by a #1 goalie would be a good target.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Paterson brought up a good point on radio today:

Why didn't the team lock Toffoli down for the same cost and then bargain shop for a goaltending back up afterward? He suspects that it's conservative thinking on building from the net out. Deprioritizing wingers. However, Toffoli was a known asset that was willing to come back for the same cost as Holtby, so...?

One thing to consider with Toffoli is that when he was bumped up to the Pettersson line and Boeser was dropped down, Boeser and Horvat didn't mesh that well with each other. It was also unclear whether Pearson-Horvat-Toffoli worked well together either. And so, you're kind of left with a sub-optimal chemistry on the 2nd line.

Maybe that was enough for them to think they could do better than Toffoli?

Horvat's line is a continual rotation of spare parts and pieces that don't fit. They have to get him a playmaker.

The value bet between Toffoli and Holtby is going to be an interesting one next season.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

 

[Fatass]

Paterson brought up a good point on radio today:

Why didn't the team lock Toffoli down for the same cost and then bargain shop for a goaltending back up afterward? He suspects that it's conservative thinking on building from the net out. Deprioritizing wingers. However, Toffoli was a known asset that was willing to come back for the same cost as Holtby, so...?

One thing to consider with Toffoli is that when he was bumped up to the Pettersson line and Boeser was dropped down, Boeser and Horvat didn't mesh that well with each other. It was also unclear whether Pearson-Horvat-Toffoli worked well together either. And so, you're kind of left with a sub-optimal chemistry on the 2nd line.

Maybe that was enough for them to think they could do better than Toffoli?

Horvat's line is a continual rotation of spare parts and pieces that don't fit. They have to get him a playmaker.

The value bet between Toffoli and Holtby is going to be an interesting one next season.

Seems like Benning has Jake playing top six RW. Maybe Podkolzin will be on Bo’s wing next June? Hoglander?

 

[F A N]

Paterson brought up a good point on radio today:

Why didn't the team lock Toffoli down for the same cost and then bargain shop for a goaltending back up afterward? He suspects that it's conservative thinking on building from the net out. Deprioritizing wingers. However, Toffoli was a known asset that was willing to come back for the same cost as Holtby, so...?

I think the priority was clearly goaltending. And there's also the belief that Pods and Hoglander can contribute sooner rather than later.

Personally, accounting for the Schmidt deal, I think the Canucks are better off (wins wise) with a better goaltender to pair with Demko and lose some firepower on the wings than to sign Toffoli and bargain hunt for goalies.

 

[strattonius]

Can't understand why some are upset with this contract.

Signing a backup to a 1 yr deal is an awful strategy. In the event that Demko struggles you need an experienced goaltender to fill the void. Expecting a backup to fill in 30 games and giving Demko a heavy workload can easily backfire. The assumption that Demko is going to continue to improve next year isn't a sure thing - goalies develop weird in case no one has paid attention the last 20 years.

Canucks paid a veteran goaltender to mentor Demko the next couple years. Don't sign a backup and let Demko sink....absolutely awful strategy. Benning made the right choice here.

 

[m9]

Can't understand why some are upset with this contract.

Signing a backup to a 1 yr deal is an awful strategy. In the event that Demko struggles you need an experienced goaltender to fill the void. Expecting a backup to fill in 30 games and giving Demko a heavy workload can easily backfire. The assumption that Demko is going to continue to improve next year isn't a sure thing - goalies develop weird in case no one has paid attention the last 20 years.

Canucks paid a veteran goaltender to mentor Demko the next couple years. Don't sign a backup and let Demko sink....absolutely awful strategy. Benning made the right choice here.

Demko turns 25 this year and has a goalie coach who is considered one of the best in the league. Needing a veteran goalie to mentor him is pure garbage.

Having a 2nd good goaltender who plays well is important, and hopefully Holtby provides that. That will be much more important than any "mentoring".

 

[strattonius]

Demko turns 25 this year and has a goalie coach who is considered one of the best in the league. Needing a veteran goalie to mentor him is pure garbage.

Having a 2nd good goaltender who plays well is important, and hopefully Holtby provides that. That will be much more important than any "mentoring".

I think you're arguing semantics of the word 'mentoring' too much. I think Van needed to sign a capable veteran goaltender and they did.

 

[2011 still hurts]

I think you're arguing semantics of the word 'mentoring' too much.

i mean it's prob because this management has stressed and brought in enough overpaid "mentors" that the word is probably worthless to hear when discussing a new acquistion for us

thought yeah I would agree that their is a difference from skaters to goalies in how they look at their partners/tandems so I'm not gonna fully discredit it either

 

[F A N]

Demko turns 25 this year and has a goalie coach who is considered one of the best in the league. Needing a veteran goalie to mentor him is pure garbage.

Having a 2nd good goaltender who plays well is important, and hopefully Holtby provides that. That will be much more important than any "mentoring".

I agree that the mentoring part should only be a slight importance. With that said, Demko has 41 NHL appearances and just finished his first full year in the NHL. I think having a guy who can push him, support him, and mentor him is important. It worked with Schneider and Luongo and Markstrom and Miller. Demko may be the goaltender of the future but he's not given the net right now. He's going to have to earn his starts.

 

[MarkMM]

I did write 50 to 60 games. Quick actually played 69 games in 2012. Thomas played 57 games, Crawford 58 games, Holbty 55 games, Vaselisky played 52 games when the season shut down. You can still have a heavy workload and still win the cup. I agree it's not the best option because of injuries and performance.

I did some digging. I looked at 2018/2019 season. There were 19 goalies that played 50 plus games. There would of been more if it weren't for injuries which means teams are still giving the number 1 goalie a heavy workload and 41 goalies that played 35 plus games. There are 31 number 1 goalies. That means there were 10 1B type of goalie ( 35 plus games is just my meaning of 1b goalie ) you can change it if you like) Only 1 out 3 teams are going with the direction you're saying. Coaches might want to play the backup more but there not doing it. Standings are so tight, you can't afford to let your backup/1b play more games at times.

You're right that 60 games is too much of a workload. But the number 1 should still play beteeen 50 to 55 and the other goalie no more 27 to 32

That's the thing, coaches may be worried about fatigue/injury with their starter but in a close league if they look at their back-up and just don't feel that confident then they'll be tempted/forced to risk wearing out their starter and keep pushing more games on him. But if you have a 1b whose performance isn't that different from your starter then you can more confidently and responsibly split loads, losing less games with your backup while keeping your starter at peak performance. This will be all the more important with a condensed schedule.

I agree that the mentoring part should only be a slight importance. With that said, Demko has 41 NHL appearances and just finished his first full year in the NHL. I think having a guy who can push him, support him, and mentor him is important. It worked with Schneider and Luongo and Markstrom and Miller. Demko may be the goaltender of the future but he's not given the net right now. He's going to have to earn his starts.

I think mentoring has its place, various players have commented on its importance over the years (I think Kesler on Sundin, Hughes with Tanev, etc) but I think this is all the more important when it comes to a young starter who really only has one other person on the team who knows what he's going through.