Rumor: Demko available? Value?

[Flyer lurker]

Om his own Demko is worth an early 2. But if you take nothing back maybe you can dump Sutter and keep Tanev in free agency. Loui dumping seems overly optimistic.

 

[gstommylee]

why would anyone trade for Demko only to lose them to Seattle or having to give up additional asset to Seattle in order for him to not be taken. It would have to be a team that would actually protect him from being selected by Seattle imo.

 

[Cogburn]

Yeah it actually did take into consideration of them. You simply don't like it. Burns as an rhd is taking your team into consideration. Just because you don't like Jones or his contract doesn't change that fact.

The second part is not accurate because the cap space I spoke of accounts for Baertschi being buried.

You're wrong to say you don't have the cap space as I explained how you would. You can make that deal, be much better in the next two to three years, and still afford the core of the team while filling out the rest more effectively. You get Burns for cheap in assets and only have to carry Burns' 8 mil while he's useful to you and at worst carry a Jones cap hit of <3 mil if he's bought out.

Look I get it's not your dream deal but you're not going to get a player like Burns on the open market and you're not going to get him without paying a reasonable price. If you want Burns by himself, you're looking at Demko plus a lot more that are actually useful to your team's success moving forward. And if those don't work for you, you're likely looking at another bad ufa overpay that won't help you much anyway. I don't want to give up Burns to get rid of Jones but it's a possibility to consider.

We save no cap space and surrender a number of other opportunities for signing our own free agents long term. We lose (at least) one of Toffoli, Tanev or Markstrom, and more then likely Virtanen or Gaudette, then in response to signing Pettersson and Hughes next year, your reply is to let Pearson and Edler walk, as all of the banked cap relief we have gets walked and replaced with Jones and Burns. All this and we are not getting any rise in cap to help adjust.

Buying out Jones isn't a great answer either, as his cap hit of 3 ish million is almost in perpetuity. 8 years? No thank you.

All this cap hell we would be unleashing on ourselves, and I haven't even addressed Burns being right at that age where defensemen simply stop. The odds of him dropping off go up every year, as he is already 35.

In summary, we move short term cap hits, for even in the best case scenario only saves us a few million, but are locked into that amount for 4 years, for a total waste of cap and roster space, and an improvement to our RD, likely to decline heavily based on age, which we have about 5 internal options to fill two spots.

I reiterate, this is not a fit for the Canucks.

 

[Satanphonehome]

Demko plus cap as a trade chip is pretty tough to move, no?

What team is going to want to pay a real price for a goalie they aren’t going to be able to protect in the expansion draft? You’re looking at what, a half-dozen teams who might protect Demko over their starter?

And then you’ve got to find teams willing to take on cap to acquire him.

The overlap is your market and it’s going to be pretty small. Can’t see the return being much better than a mid-round pick if you make the move now.

I think you sign Markstrom, play out the season with the two of them and take the best offer prior to the Seattle draft.

 

[lawrence]

I'm curious. Are people forgetting Vancouver can trade a minor asset to Seattle to keep them from picking Demko, or do they not think he's worth it?

Seattle might not even pick him though....

Canucks can sign Demko and just trade away a 3rd to Seattle to protect him, assuming they're not forced to expose someone who's likely more valuable than Demko anyways

Is really one of the 2 goalies seattle might go after? like really? 31 teams will expose 1 goalie, is the Demko the best back up in the league right now?

 

[Kevin Musto]

If Demko is dealt, it has to be with the intention of shedding salary.

Demko and one of Eriksson/Sutter/Baertschi for a draft pick or prospect is likely the only trades the Canucks would consider.

Well then the Hawks won't be a good trade partner cause we need to do the same haha

 

[Pinkfloyd]

We save no cap space and surrender a number of other opportunities for signing our own free agents long term. We lose (at least) one of Toffoli, Tanev or Markstrom, and more then likely Virtanen or Gaudette, then in response to signing Pettersson and Hughes next year, your reply is to let Pearson and Edler walk, as all of the banked cap relief we have gets walked and replaced with Jones and Burns. All this and we are not getting any rise in cap to help adjust.

Buying out Jones isn't a great answer either, as his cap hit of 3 ish million is almost in perpetuity. 8 years? No thank you.

All this cap hell we would be unleashing on ourselves, and I haven't even addressed Burns being right at that age where defensemen simply stop. The odds of him dropping off go up every year, as he is already 35.

In summary, we move short term cap hits, for even in the best case scenario only saves us a few million, but are locked into that amount for 4 years, for a total waste of cap and roster space, and an improvement to our RD, likely to decline heavily based on age, which we have about 5 internal options to fill two spots.

I reiterate, this is not a fit for the Canucks.

If you're worried about keeping Tanev then you're not really needing an rhd when you have him, Myers, and Stecher. The premise for needing an rhd is predicated on not wanting to keep Tanev long term or somehow dumping Myers. Maybe there's a deal to be had where Myers is coming the other way to alleviate those concerns. I think I'd need to see what you think all these players' new cap hits are going to be in a flat cap situation. Chances are I think your numbers will be too high for the circumstances. I don't think keeping Toffoli and Markstrom will be a problem. Virtanen and Gaudette are likely getting a two year bridge to see if they've legitimately taken that next step. And no the Jones buyout hit isn't 3-ish in perpetuity. It's 2.875 the first year if bought out this offseason and there's no retention involved which there could be. The rest is 1.875, 2.375, 2.875, then 1.625 for four seasons before retention. I think it's likely they'd give Jones a year to turn it around then try to move him either in the expansion draft or elsewhere then do a buyout with similar figures.

You're exaggerating the cap situation here. You have other movable and expendable players that will help create room needed down the road to make a deal like this. Plus the reality is that the Canucks would move Burns at a convenient time to make room to keep anyone if it came to that. While you may have a decline concern with Burns, it's not likely in the next two years based on his performance. He will have trade value even if he starts to decline.

Again, if there's an opening on the rhd side then there is a fit here but not everyone is going to look at keeping Tanev the same way nor do we know if there's a move to be made where Myers goes but there's a lot of chatter that rhd is a need for Vancouver so just you not liking certain particulars of the deal doesn't mean it isn't a fit.

 

[gstommylee]

Seattle might not even pick him though....



Is really one of the 2 goalies seattle might go after? like really? 31 teams will expose 1 goalie, is the Demko the best back up in the league right now?

Only 30 teams Vegas is exempt.

 

[93LEAFS]

Sharks would probably be interested in Demko but it’d have to be a pretty big trade as I doubt Vancouver has much interest in trading him in division unless it really blows their socks off. I’d be interested in a big deal that maybe addresses their need by dangling Burns out there but they may not like what would be tagged with him to make a deal. Something around Burns and Jones for Demko and cap dumps. I don’t know.

Can't see Burns being traded to the Canucks. I'd be a bit surprised if they are one of the three teams he would accept a trade to. I'd guess his list is probably something like LA, Anaheim, Vegas.

 

[AveryStar4Eva]

I’d say if they can trade him and dump a guy like Sutter it’s worth it if you can keep Markstrom, Taney, Toffoli on decent deals. If you’re dealing him to avoid losing him in the expansion draft... well you’re still gonna lose someone so you might as well keep Demko for the season and then let him go to Seattle

 

[gstommylee]

I’d say if they can trade him and dump a guy like Sutter it’s worth it if you can keep Markstrom, Taney, Toffoli on decent deals. If you’re dealing him to avoid losing him in the expansion draft... well you’re still gonna lose someone so you might as well keep Demko for the season and then let him go to Seattle

That's if Seattle wants him. he's one a whole lot of goalies Seattle could take. Here's the thing there might be 3 better back up goalies from 3 other teams that are better than Demko.

 

[AveryStar4Eva]

That's if Seattle wants him. he's one a whole lot of goalies Seattle could take. Here's the thing there might be 3 better back up goalies from 3 other teams that are better than Demko.

Yeah I didn’t even factor that in. I think the Nucks are gonna over think things this offseason instead of just staying on track

 

[gstommylee]

Yeah I didn’t even factor that in. I think the Nucks are gonna over think things this offseason instead of just staying on track

I don't expect to see a lot of goalie movement via the FA and/or via trades in the off-season/trade deadline unless that team plans on protecting him.

 

[Springfield Isotopes]

Same value as Georgiev..

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Sharks would probably be interested in Demko but it’d have to be a pretty big trade as I doubt Vancouver has much interest in trading him in division unless it really blows their socks off. I’d be interested in a big deal that maybe addresses their need by dangling Burns out there but they may not like what would be tagged with him to make a deal. Something around Burns and Jones for Demko and cap dumps. I don’t know.

Burns is too old and signed for too much for too long. He'd give us a legit chance for a few years, but he doesn't really match the team's core and will end up eating up the cap in his declining years. I'd honestly prefer Vlasic at 50% retained, but I know that wouldn't happen based on how much money SJ would be on the hook for. But I don't think there's a deal between the two teams, Van should only be after young defencemen at this point.

 

[Halla]

Demko is worth a high second round pick at the least. He'll be a #1 somewhere in a couple of seasons.

high 2nd? as in a top 35ish pick?

nah. with the expansion draft coming no team is doing that to lose him to seattle for nothing.

his #'s also arent great and there should be a few guys available, so that drives the price down.

Georgiev,Jarry/Murray,Demko, Raanta...lots of options

 

[Richard88]

That's if Seattle wants him. he's one a whole lot of goalies Seattle could take. Here's the thing there might be 3 better back up goalies from 3 other teams that are better than Demko.

Just because a team has a backup goalie better than Demko doesn't mean that Seattle will pick that goalie. It will depend on who else is available from each team.

For example, from Colorado Francouz will probably be exposed and he'd make a fine selection, but someone like Graves or Compher might be the smarter choice. It'll come down to who else other than Demko that Vancouver has exposed.

 

[TOGuy14]

24 year old with only 31 games NHL experience, and poor stats to boot?

I would say a 2nd is the top end value if a team really likes him, otherwise maybe a 3rd +

 

[Cogburn]

If you're worried about keeping Tanev then you're not really needing an rhd when you have him, Myers, and Stecher. The premise for needing an rhd is predicated on not wanting to keep Tanev long term or somehow dumping Myers. Maybe there's a deal to be had where Myers is coming the other way to alleviate those concerns. I think I'd need to see what you think all these players' new cap hits are going to be in a flat cap situation. Chances are I think your numbers will be too high for the circumstances. I don't think keeping Toffoli and Markstrom will be a problem. Virtanen and Gaudette are likely getting a two year bridge to see if they've legitimately taken that next step. And no the Jones buyout hit isn't 3-ish in perpetuity. It's 2.875 the first year if bought out this offseason and there's no retention involved which there could be. The rest is 1.875, 2.375, 2.875, then 1.625 for four seasons before retention. I think it's likely they'd give Jones a year to turn it around then try to move him either in the expansion draft or elsewhere then do a buyout with similar figures.

You're exaggerating the cap situation here. You have other movable and expendable players that will help create room needed down the road to make a deal like this. Plus the reality is that the Canucks would move Burns at a convenient time to make room to keep anyone if it came to that. While you may have a decline concern with Burns, it's not likely in the next two years based on his performance. He will have trade value even if he starts to decline.

Again, if there's an opening on the rhd side then there is a fit here but not everyone is going to look at keeping Tanev the same way nor do we know if there's a move to be made where Myers goes but there's a lot of chatter that rhd is a need for Vancouver so just you not liking certain particulars of the deal doesn't mean it isn't a fit.

The player is a fit, the cap situation absolutely, positively, without a doubt isn't. And in the cap world you're trading for the contract. We move all of our expiring cap dumps into a Burns and Jones, who we are then stuck with long term. Things are looking tight already.

Having other moveable players isn't the issue, we are paying to dump Eriksson, Sutter and Baertschi to avoid having to move them. We are doing that to avoid trading Boeser or walking our UFA, and to a small extent keeping other, less terrible players so as to not need having to find them a home.

You're essentially giving us Burns, according to you, so we can flip him later, when he is older and that cap hit is looking worse, while keeping/buying out Jones and his awful dead cap space, according to that first paragraph. Burns becomes our highest paid player, and when he declines (he is 35 after all), that contract will be a boat anchor, at almost 10 percent of the cap. Jones is already nothing to us as a player, and his cap hit is almost as bad as Eriksson, but for longer. We are perhaps not the team to try to unload him on.

We are looking to clear cap, and compete further down the line through keeping key pieces we have already acquired. This barely accomplishes the former for us (we save close to the equivalent of just trading Demko for a pick), while sacrificing a lot of flexibility to do the latter. Once again, due to contracts, this doesn't work for the Canucks. If that means not getting Burns, I for one at least, won't be losing sleep over it.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think Vancouver would be making a mistake to trade Demko. Markstrom is 30 years old. He's had his best career season, and he still probably wasn't even a top 10 goalie in the league this year. The guy is an average goalie, and this is as good as he'll get. Giving a significant contract to a 30 year old whose been a career back up and might've elevated himself to a middle of the road starter, at best, during his absolute prime is a recipe for disaster. Many fanbases are sure that their goalie who doesn't put up great numbers is actually great because its all the fault of the defense. With a better defense, their goalie would win the Vezina. In reality, the best goalies tend to be the ones that stop the puck at the best rate. Markstrom is a career .911 goalie. In his career best season there were still 13 goalies with a better SV%.

What happens if Demko is traded and Markstrom is back to .911 next season? That might end up being the worst contract on the team, considering you are probably paying him the highest salary of all the bad contracts, and for the longest term. Detroit or Ottawa can get away with that. A team up against the cap cannot. Demko has been a good enough back up so far in his career. He's only 24. He's had success everywhere he's went, and has always projected as an NHL starting goalie at some point. It seems highly unlikely that his peak won't be at least as good as Markstrom's. Maybe you get slightly worse play with Demko and a cheap veteran UFA back up as the tandem next year, but it'll take away a lot of their cap problems, and I think the chances that that tandem could play as well as Markstrom aren't all that low.

 

[mrinsane]

I dont know what kind of deal Marky wants but ira time for Nucks to build a young core

 

[FreeMcdavid]

Demko with a shutout during scrimmage yesterday! His value is sky rocketing up.

 

[FreeMcdavid]

2 ways it can go for Demko.

1. The Canucks use Demko as a trade chip and attach a bad contract with him but sell him for cheap to a team that needs a top young goalie. (Eriksson, Beagle, Baertschi, )

2. The Canuck's dont re-sign Markstrom because they believe Demko is the is ready and can lead the core.


What won't happen is the Canucks will re-sign Markstrom to a long contract and they just keep Demko as a backup and allowing him to be exposed in the expansion draft and possibly lose him for nothing.

 

[Bankerguy]

I know that fans of other teams will look at his stats and question whether or not he has what it takes to be a starter...but poor stats on a small sample size shouldn't take away from all he built up until now.
I think he has what it takes to be a legit starter, a good starter.
I'd prefer we actually keep him over Markstrom. I think Demko if given starting responsibilities next year posts a .915 save percentage. He just needs a chance to carry the load and crack out 60 games in a season.

 

[Qwijibo]

2 ways it can go for Demko.

1. The Canucks use Demko as a trade chip and attach a bad contract with him but sell him for cheap to a team that needs a top young goalie. (Eriksson, Beagle, Baertschi, )

2. The Canuck's dont re-sign Markstrom because they believe Demko is the is ready and can lead the core.


What won't happen is the Canucks will re-sign Markstrom to a long contract and they just keep Demko as a backup and allowing him to be exposed in the expansion draft and possibly lose him for nothing.

Just food for thought. I don’t really have an opinion on what they do with him. But every team has to expose 1 goalie who meets the requirements for the expansion draft. Currently the Canucks don’t have one that actually meets the requirements, including Demko.