Agreed. I don't see the Canucks trading Holtby at the deadline unless they are out of it. Even then, they need a goalie to expose in the expansion draft and they currently don't have another. But if they are in a playoff position you likely want to have both Holtby and Demko.
Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign G Braden Holtby to 2-Year Deal ($4.3M AAV)
- Thread starter Peen
- Start date
- Status
Agreed. I don't see the Canucks trading Holtby at the deadline unless they are out of it. Even then, they need a goalie to expose in the expansion draft and they currently don't have another. But if they are in a playoff position you likely want to have both Holtby and Demko.
Still think there's a good possibility Holtby is 'one and done' with the Canucks for the coming season. Even though his contract is a back-end-loaded, it could still be attractive to the Seattle Kraken who might want to fill out their team with a proven veteran goaltender on a one year deal. Holtby could give them solid goaltending in their inaugural season, without the liability of taking on a long-term contract.
There's a chance he could do for Seattle what Marc Andre Fleury did for Vegas.
There's a chance he could do for Seattle what Marc Andre Fleury did for Vegas.
Here are some other options in net, pending who teams decide to protect:
Jon Quick, 3MM and 2.5MM salary left, 5.8MM caphit. Probably not likely given he'll be 34 and has been on a big downswing not dissimilar to Holtby.
Cal Peterson, 850k x 1 year left, but this is probably the guy LAK protects in expansion.
Pavel Francouz, 1 year 2MM, will be 31, but economical choice. Colorado will have to expose either him or Grubaer.
Jack Campbell, 1 year 1.6MM, will be 29. Another economical choice, and TOR will expose if they don't re-sign Andersen.
Korpisalo or Merzlikins. One of these guys has to be exposed unless CBJ pays up. Korpi 1 year 2.8MM, Merzlikins 1 year 4MM, but will be 27.
I think I take the shot on anyone of these options except for Holtby if I'm Seattle.
Seriously? Most of the guys you've listed are career backups at best, and there's no way Columbus is losing either of their goalies in an expansion draft. They'll trade one of them first. And Quick hasn't been very good for going on three seasons now.
I can understand Holtby not getting much love because of his last couple of seasons with the Caps. But he has won a Cup and been a Vezina winner. Seattle is going to want a goalie with some proven pedigree to get them through their first season. If things don't work out, they can always dump him at the trade deadline as a veteran on an expiring contract. Makes too much sense for it not to happen imo.
I can understand Holtby not getting much love because of his last couple of seasons with the Caps. But he has won a Cup and been a Vezina winner. Seattle is going to want a goalie with some proven pedigree to get them through their first season. If things don't work out, they can always dump him at the trade deadline as a veteran on an expiring contract. Makes too much sense for it not to happen imo.
Or in a time where revenues are going to be hampered in the short term and no cap raises for multiple seasons, you're going to want to secure the low cost option to have the best chance at A) moving them at the deadline or B) having room to take on more expensive contracts from other teams for assets.
Ron Francis may indeed follow your line of thinking given his track record for acquiring competent goaltending.
Vegas raised the bar dramatically for NHL expansion teams. I doubt Seattle can match them, but they're not going to write off their first season, COVID or not. What makes Holby attractive is his expiring contract.
If he plays well, you've got a valuable trading chip for a team looking for playoff goaltending. And if he doesn't pan out, then you just walk away from him at the end of the season. Almost a 'no lose' for the Kraken, other than the money they'll pay him for one year.
If he plays well, you've got a valuable trading chip for a team looking for playoff goaltending. And if he doesn't pan out, then you just walk away from him at the end of the season. Almost a 'no lose' for the Kraken, other than the money they'll pay him for one year.
Francis has also seen a lot of Holtby over the years which may or may not mean anything. Personally, Jake Allen would be one of my primary targets if I was Seattle's GM. At the end of the day it all depends on who is available.
I think one of the underlying reasons why the Canucks signed Holtby in the first place, is that they didn't have a goalie to expose in the expansion draft. It's one of the major reasons they couldn't re-sign Markstrom. His NTC would have forced them to expose Demko.
Now, it's a simple matter of leaving Holtby unprotected. If the Kraken take him, fine. If not, then he returns for the second year of his contract. And then the Canucks have a potential trade chip at next year's trade deadline.
In the meantime Demko develops further over a couple of seasons with Holtby as a veteran backup. I know most pundits are predicting that the Canucks goaltending will slip this year. But I'm not so sure. The games will be split more evenly between Demko and Holtby, ensuring that each guy is getting the appropriate rest and recovery between starts. It might not be much worse that it would have been with Markstrom making most of the starts.
Now, it's a simple matter of leaving Holtby unprotected. If the Kraken take him, fine. If not, then he returns for the second year of his contract. And then the Canucks have a potential trade chip at next year's trade deadline.
In the meantime Demko develops further over a couple of seasons with Holtby as a veteran backup. I know most pundits are predicting that the Canucks goaltending will slip this year. But I'm not so sure. The games will be split more evenly between Demko and Holtby, ensuring that each guy is getting the appropriate rest and recovery between starts. It might not be much worse that it would have been with Markstrom making most of the starts.
For sure and Dipietro in the system is also another factor. Holtby was willing to sign a 2 year contract when many comparable goalies were signing for longer term. Keeping Demko as the goalie of the future simply doesn't jive with re-signing Markstrom to a long term contract. Both goalies deserve better (in the case of Demko that's if he's a bonafide #1). We've seen the Schneider and Luongo situation play out.
Keeping Markstrom short term and have Demko take over and on a long term cheaper contract is likely ideal. But Holtby having a bounce back season and Demko looking like he's ready to take over wouldn't be far behind.
Who is the last goalie (assuming there is one) to backstop 3 different teams to the Stanley Cup finals? There are a few 2 team guys.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,867
- 16,365
i don’t know about last one but glenn hall did it. finals with detroit as a rookie, won the cup with chicago (and lost two more finals while he was there), won the conn snythe as an old man in st louis (three straight finals woth them).
Didalee Hed
I’m trying to understand
- Sep 14, 2019
- 1,963
- 2,005
Didalee Hed
I’m trying to understand
- Sep 14, 2019
- 1,963
- 2,005
holy shit yes he did, and even got into a game
Hasek played in the final for 3 different teams- hawks, sabres, wings
someone find another one!
I was asking more about goalies who were actually the main starter for a team that reached the Finals so I counted Hasek as a 2 team guy. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a backup goalie who "appeared" in the Finals for 3 different teams.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,867
- 16,365
also, i have to say i didn't want to like holtby but from these quotes i'm starting to.
he didn't get defensive, he didn't try to minimize it, he apologized and acknowledged that he will try to learn and do better.
as i said in another thread, he's new, he's lived in the US for a long time, and even if he was a little naive about Indigenous protocols and probably should have thought it through a little more beforehand, he's handled the aftermath admirably.
Canucks' Holtby apologizes for goalie mask accused of cultural appropriation - Vancouver Is Awesome
EDIT: lol
“I wanted to make sure I apologize to anyone I offended,” said Holtby in an interview with CTV News. “It was definitely not my intent and I definitely learned a valuable lesson through this all and will make sure I’m better moving forward.”
Holtby made it clear that he wanted to connect with his new home in Vancouver by incorporating Indigenous art into his mask.
“The goal was and still is to include Indigenous artist and try and pick their brain to see how they would design a mask to best represent the history and culture around this area especially because it’s so vast,” he said.
Holtby made it clear that he wanted to connect with his new home in Vancouver by incorporating Indigenous art into his mask.
“The goal was and still is to include Indigenous artist and try and pick their brain to see how they would design a mask to best represent the history and culture around this area especially because it’s so vast,” he said.
he didn't get defensive, he didn't try to minimize it, he apologized and acknowledged that he will try to learn and do better.
as i said in another thread, he's new, he's lived in the US for a long time, and even if he was a little naive about Indigenous protocols and probably should have thought it through a little more beforehand, he's handled the aftermath admirably.
Canucks' Holtby apologizes for goalie mask accused of cultural appropriation - Vancouver Is Awesome
EDIT: lol
Last edited:
Tables of Stats
Registered User
You literally cannot separate them when talking about Canada's First Nations populations and their culture being stolen from them and commercialized by their oppressors. If you think that there's a disconnect I suggest you actually look at the history and then come back here.
Hansen
tyler motte simp
We have no clue why she quit twitter. Taj just happened to notice that (and has been fuming relentlessly for the past couple days over this stuff)
Its pretty funny actually, the whole issue of cultural appropriation is a serious one and it has roots that go much deeper than this. Holtby's response has been great and the voices being brought up have been overall quite lukewarm to the issue. It's basically "Hey this isn't cool, would be cool if you did it a different way" and Holtby being like "Ah true my bad I'll do it that way" meanwhile folks on twitter are going into meltdown about snowflakes and cancel culture
Hansen
tyler motte simp
Also, I shared my thoughts as an Indigenous person about the topic of cultural appropriation in the mainboards thread on the issue:
Holtby apologizes for new mask (cultural appropriation)
Holtby apologizes for new mask (cultural appropriation)
Mr. Canucklehead
Kitimat Canuck
Man. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. A lot of things I hadn't considered/remained ignorant to, and I appreciate you sharing to help others learn.
bandwagonesque
I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
- Mar 5, 2014
- 7,152
- 5,471
A well-known treatise on cultural appropriation from YungSnuggie:
I think the big hoopla over cultural appropriation comes from situations in which a certain aspect of a culture is accepted, but the actual people aren't.
What you get a lot of the times is historically marginalized groups having aspects of their culture appropriated, while at the same time still being discriminated against by those same people. You like what I create, but you don't like me. People who hate gay people dancing to house music, or people who wanna build a fence on the mexican border eating a quesadilla. That's when it can be offensive. It's like rubbing it in their face. But that's not everyone, not even a majority of people, that do this. Problem is, how am I supposed to know your intent? I don't know your political background. So people get angsty about it pretty fast.
For example - Jazz. Jazz was culturally appropriated. Jazz was a music genre created by black people, appropriated by white people, who then shut the door behind them and didn't let black people participate in their own genre. You should read up on the Cotton Club in Harlem: it's probably the most famous case of this. It was a Jazz club, in a black neighborhood, that featured all black acts but only white patrons. Black people were not allowed to attend a jazz club in their own neighborhood. White people could walk freely through Harlem, but black people could not do the same in white neighborhoods. I don't think its a stretch to say that this is pretty wrong. This idea of cultural manifest destiny never went anywhere. It's become less pronounced, but still exists.
So cultural appropriation is a thing, and it has a long storied history in America.
The problem is that cultural appropriation is not just "white people did a thing a minority came up with". Your cultural landmarks will never get the due respect that they deserve if the majority aka the people in power/with money don't respect it as such. Jazz would never be revered as it is today were it not for the majority giving it credence. Maybe you think it's wrong that white people have to validate your shit so it can be respected, but if thats how you feel then don't complain when you aren't on tv/in the movies/in whatever. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't complain about Macklemore then turn around and ask why Hip-Hop doesn't get more love at the Grammy's. They come hand in hand, that's a reality.
I think the fear of most minorities is that white people do not understand them or their culture, and just see them as a novelty. As something that's "in", or "chic", or "stylish". Not really understanding the deeper meaning behind it. It's like if someone took your religion and started saying they were Christian because Jesus is hot.
But on the other side, as a white person, it must suck to have to carry the burdens of your forefathers. Unfortunately, we all do. That's not a choice we get to just shrug off because its awkward. Just make sure that you don't pass down a heavy burden on your children. Stop the buck here and fix it instead of complaining about it. It's not about being "guilty". Being guilty implies that you did something wrong. You didn't do anything wrong. But at the same time doing nothing at all still leaves us at -100, so its our duty to improve upon the past instead of complaining about its existence.
We must learn about each other if we are to progress as a people. We must learn each other's past, present, and future. We must accept every aspect of our fellow man, not just the parts we deem as cool. If we can do that, then cultural appropriation won't even be a thing. But both sides gotta be open enough to let that happen, and let bygones be bygones.
I think the big hoopla over cultural appropriation comes from situations in which a certain aspect of a culture is accepted, but the actual people aren't.
What you get a lot of the times is historically marginalized groups having aspects of their culture appropriated, while at the same time still being discriminated against by those same people. You like what I create, but you don't like me. People who hate gay people dancing to house music, or people who wanna build a fence on the mexican border eating a quesadilla. That's when it can be offensive. It's like rubbing it in their face. But that's not everyone, not even a majority of people, that do this. Problem is, how am I supposed to know your intent? I don't know your political background. So people get angsty about it pretty fast.
For example - Jazz. Jazz was culturally appropriated. Jazz was a music genre created by black people, appropriated by white people, who then shut the door behind them and didn't let black people participate in their own genre. You should read up on the Cotton Club in Harlem: it's probably the most famous case of this. It was a Jazz club, in a black neighborhood, that featured all black acts but only white patrons. Black people were not allowed to attend a jazz club in their own neighborhood. White people could walk freely through Harlem, but black people could not do the same in white neighborhoods. I don't think its a stretch to say that this is pretty wrong. This idea of cultural manifest destiny never went anywhere. It's become less pronounced, but still exists.
So cultural appropriation is a thing, and it has a long storied history in America.
The problem is that cultural appropriation is not just "white people did a thing a minority came up with". Your cultural landmarks will never get the due respect that they deserve if the majority aka the people in power/with money don't respect it as such. Jazz would never be revered as it is today were it not for the majority giving it credence. Maybe you think it's wrong that white people have to validate your shit so it can be respected, but if thats how you feel then don't complain when you aren't on tv/in the movies/in whatever. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't complain about Macklemore then turn around and ask why Hip-Hop doesn't get more love at the Grammy's. They come hand in hand, that's a reality.
I think the fear of most minorities is that white people do not understand them or their culture, and just see them as a novelty. As something that's "in", or "chic", or "stylish". Not really understanding the deeper meaning behind it. It's like if someone took your religion and started saying they were Christian because Jesus is hot.
But on the other side, as a white person, it must suck to have to carry the burdens of your forefathers. Unfortunately, we all do. That's not a choice we get to just shrug off because its awkward. Just make sure that you don't pass down a heavy burden on your children. Stop the buck here and fix it instead of complaining about it. It's not about being "guilty". Being guilty implies that you did something wrong. You didn't do anything wrong. But at the same time doing nothing at all still leaves us at -100, so its our duty to improve upon the past instead of complaining about its existence.
We must learn about each other if we are to progress as a people. We must learn each other's past, present, and future. We must accept every aspect of our fellow man, not just the parts we deem as cool. If we can do that, then cultural appropriation won't even be a thing. But both sides gotta be open enough to let that happen, and let bygones be bygones.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,904
- 9,581
it is nice holtby wanted to incorporate first nations art into his mask.
i can see how first nations people would prefer a public figure incorporating their artistic style into his uniform in public way would use a native artist and have the image presented correctly. the representation has symbolic meaning as well as being a piece of art. so get it right.
i chuckled at the salish artist complaining it wasn't salish though.
i can see how first nations people would prefer a public figure incorporating their artistic style into his uniform in public way would use a native artist and have the image presented correctly. the representation has symbolic meaning as well as being a piece of art. so get it right.
i chuckled at the salish artist complaining it wasn't salish though.
[Edit: Oh shit, I missed the first sentence where you credited another poster! Oh well, I will leave my commendations that I included in my original resply....]
Wonderful post. I don't agree with everything, but I am pleased you took the time to articulate it and flesh it out so well.
Your example of jazz is great. It also highlights a key difference between the Holtby mask issue and what I consider true cultural appropriation (like the jazz example) - nothing about the mask shows that he does not respect the native community, nor does it shut them out in any way. I also doubt that he chose the design because it was 'cool' (like the 'Jesus is hot' example). Of course it would have been better if he commissioned a native artist.
The issue I take with cultural appropriation is that the definition has shifted so far that it no longer has to include 'shutting people out' or 'disadvantaging them'. I also do not agree that only those in power/with privilidged can commit cultural appropriation - it can absolutely happen the other way IMO. Another problem I see is that that the outrage comes with demands of great penalty consequences (what 'the mob' demands).
So here in New Zealand there is a huge push/pressure to incorporate more and more Maori language into everyday life. To the point that the majority people miss the point of radio commentary because their Maori vocabulary is more and more lacking. So here is the question - should a European NZ'er use the Maori language, or does this cross the line of cultural appropriation? I find it contradictory.
Anyway - great post.
Last edited:
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Series Talk: Atlantic Division Final: (1) Panthers vs. (2) Bruins- Latest: Bruinswillwin77
-
Series Talk: WCSF - Vancouver Canucks vs Edmonton Oilers- Latest: Chairman Maouth
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $12,250.00Event closes- Updated:
