Grading the off season moves

[Tables of Stats]

Edit: Going to rephrase this

He's not performed at his actual elite level since the end of 2017. In the season they won the cup, he had lost his starting job but gained it back. If you were to plot his trajectory based on the previous five years, you'd see a harsh downward curve.

Obviously the last season alone was ridiculously bad but it's also not likely for him to be the same .915-925 goalie he was from 2010-2017.

My guess is he falls somewhere in the .905-910 range.

I don't expect that he'll suddenly bounce back to being an elite goaltender again, but the way goaltending stats tend to go it's just as unlikely that he's actually a sub .900 goalie because of a single season. That .905 to .910 range would put him in the 33 to 24 range in terms of goalies which is right about where he's being paid. Those are 1B numbers that will allow Demko to take some nights off without hanging the team out to dry.

Why is he on a starting goalie contract?

Paying a significant portion of your cap to a 1B imo is wasteful, at least it's not 3 years like Ryan Miller's.

I think people are in dream land if they expect Holtby and Myers to be the expansion guys, unless Seattle extorts some sweeteners out of us to do it. Myers was barely a top 4 defensman last year and the Hughes and Edler pairings with Myers on them performed worse than with the alternatives....he spent the biggest chunk of his icetime next to Fantenberg/Benn on the bottom pair.

Because that's what it took to sign him and there weren't many better options floating around?

Here's a list of the goalies that signed this offseason (Contract Signings - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps) unless I'm mistaken about some of the 24-year-olds, here are our options among goalies that anybody is actually interested in:

M. Subban: His career stats are a 2.97 GAA and .899 Sv%. He's trash and not a realistic option to tandem with Demko.
M. Murray: He signed for 4-years at $6.25 million AAV and his numbers as a starter look like a bad rollercoaster if you care to graph them.
C. Talbot: He'd save us less than a million in AAV, signed for an extra year, and has been worse than Holtby in every season except the 26 games he played this past season.
A. Khudobin: Was never an option to sign anywhere but Dallas and a player unlikely to be willing to play a 1B role to a rookie.
K. Kinkaid: Do I even need to say anything here? He's played for some bad teams but his numbers are pedestrian at best and his last two seasons stank.
A. Forsberg: A 28-year-old with 48 NHL games played... Next.
T. Greiss: The best option thus far. He only saves 700k per season and probably wouldn't like the role Vancouver wants him for.
A. Dell: If Demko had played a full season as a starter already I'd have liked a backup like Dell but I'd have no faith in Dell to take over a starting role if Demko isn't ready.
L. Ullmark: I'd have interest but given that he went back to Buffalo he probably wasn't an option.

The goalies that haven't signed yet are a graveyard of those that are either used up or who never had the talent to stick at the NHL level in the first place.

So who among the available options would you rate as a better option than Holtby and do you think they were actually a reasonable option for the Canucks to sign?

 

[4Twenty]

Plenty of options.

I wouldn’t have gone after the highest paid goalie that’s for sure.

Demko splitting the net and only getting 25-30 games still doesn’t tell us enough about him imo.

 

[krutovsdonut]

my only definite regret this offseason is not signing tryamkin. that's on covid, but it sucks.

i am inclined to believe we can weather losing markstrom although based purely on stats i am clearly completely wrong. our whole season will turn on whether my gut feeling that demko/holtby will get by is somehow correct.

i am cool with our adds. i am not down on our losses, although i'd like to have seen tanev and stecher stick around.

if wishes were horses we'd have moved some contracts, but it never looked likely.

overall, we have not loaded up with any more long term baggage for short term gain, and there is room for youth to emerge. let's go!

 

[Tables of Stats]

Plenty of options.

I wouldn’t have gone after the highest paid goalie that’s for sure.

Demko splitting the net and only getting 25-30 games still doesn’t tell us enough about him imo.

If there are so many options why don't you outline what your offseason plans to address our goaltending would have been. Keep in mind what we know about negotiations with Markstrom and Tanev and the fact that, for once, Benning seemed to be concerned with giving anybody term.

EDIT: Given that it's a 56 game season Demko would need to play nearly every game to get a true starter's workload and that's simply not realistic given how dense the shortened schedule is. There is exactly one stretch in the entire season where the team gets more than 2 days off between games. It would be insane not to try to split the starts this season.

 

[4Twenty]

If there are so many options why don't you outline what your offseason plans to address our goaltending would have been. Keep in mind what we know about negotiations with Markstrom and Tanev and the fact that, for once, Benning seemed to be concerned with giving anybody term.

EDIT: Given that it's a 56 game season Demko would need to play nearly every game to get a true starter's workload and that's simply not realistic given how dense the shortened schedule is. There is exactly one stretch in the entire season where the team gets more than 2 days off between games. It would be insane not to try to split the starts this season.

Why do I need to outline it. You put plenty of options in your post. Those cheaper options would be better and I disagree with your notions that some of them wouldn’t be 1B’s here when it’s what they are where they went.

It’s also done. They chose Holtby and set the market. I commented that I didn’t like the addition and the high priced nature of it at the time.

Holtby is going to get 35+ starts if I had to guess. Green likes vets. I guess it possibly keeps Demko cheaper but it also prolongs knowing if he can be the #1. Demko is 25, im over dragging out goalie development until they’re ufa age.

 

[orcatown]

Should have mentioned Levio. Sounds like team left his situation on the back burner too long and let a handy player get away. Not buying out Sutter hurt here and I prefer Levio over Sutter. Give the inaction on Levio a fail.

 

[orcatown]

16 teams were within $2M of the salary cap this season, and 10 of them were at/ or over the cap....Judging by some of the reactions around here, you would think we were the only team up be up against the cap.

As we start training camp today , I am pleased with the roster, considering the circumstances...

Not being able to re sign Toffoli really bites...He was a victim of the cap..The forwards remain essentially the same as last year,

The D has improved,Schmidt and Hughes are both elite puck movers, and Myers is decent as well..Hamonic is the perfect pickup....If Juolevi can consolidate his spot...We have a really good D...Stecher was the salary cap casualty, but I think the coach and management wanted to move away from him anyway.

Goaltending is the wild card..Ian Clark and management have placed their bets on Demko..Holtby (reunited with Schmidt and Beagle) is a great 1B...No matter how many times posters here (and the OP) claim that Markstrom was lost due to the cap,..that is simply not the case..We could only retain one goalie, and Markstrom demanded an NTC....The Canucks had to decide between one or the other.

Few teams have two of their main pieces on entry salaries. That's an advantage the team will soon lose and was an opportunity lost going into this season.

Cann't see how anyone would claim that amount of dead or useless cap space on the Canucks is typical of many teams.

 

[JAK]

Are people still day dreaming about signing Markstrom to a short term contract ? It simply wasn't going to happen.

It was either Markstrom or Demko, and Benning had to stand strong on a tough decision.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Are people still day dreaming about signing Markstrom to a short term contract ? It simply wasn't going to happen.

It was either Markstrom or Demko, and Benning had to stand strong on a tough decision.

Agreed...Markstrom demanding an NTC made the decision for all parties involved..The OP's uninformed.. "Really a direct result of the botched cap situation and a big black eye on Canuck management."...is clearly out to lunch

 

[HockeyWooot]

Overall I rate this as B offseason.

Forwards- C. Letting Toffoli walk for nothing due to internal cap mismanagement stings, given he seemed to fit in right away. He signed to a reasonably affordable contract in Montreal instead. Our wing depth definitely took a hit here, with Leivo leaving also whilst we are hamstrung with many more inferior players’ contacts in the bottom 6.

Defence- A-. Tanev will be missed, but we’re better off not signing him to that. Stecher is a fan favorite, but it seems clear the organization was going to move on. He’ll get a bigger role in DRW so this is better for him too.

As another user correctly mentioned Schmidt, Hamonic, Juolevi> Tanev, Stecher, Fantenberg. I’m cautiously optimistic about Juolevi, I think he’ll have his pick moving skills on display and potentially get some PP2 time where injuries arise.

Goaltending- B. Marky leaving is a huge loss. Aside from his on ice performance he is a leade in that locker room. Similar to Tanev while it sucks he left I am happy that he got a pay day, as he deserves it. I’m also happy we’re not stuck with that contract, as will likely not be worth it a few years in.

A tandem of Demko and Holtby while not Verona caliber, will likely be decent to excellent. If the organization is as high on Demko as we suspect, making him earn the starting gig rather than handing to him is the right move.

In the modern NHL rarely is it worth overpaying for a single goaltender. Where there are two excellent starters better off keeping the younger one with upside (eg Price>Halak, Vasilevsky>Bishop).

 

[RebuildinVan]

Should have mentioned Levio. Sounds like team left his situation on the back burner too long and let a handy player get away. Not buying out Sutter hurt here and I prefer Levio over Sutter. Give the inaction on Levio a fail.

Totally agree with this. Def a fail letting a cheap useful player go

 

[orcatown]

Agreed...Markstrom demanding an NTC made the decision for all parties involved. The OP's uninformed.. "Really a direct result of the botched cap situation and a big black eye on Canuck management."...is clearly out to lunch

Markstrom was in consideration for the Vezina last year. He is clearly in the top tier of NHL goal tenders and was team's MVP. You obviously keep him if you have the cap space to do so.

Fact he wanted an NTC doesn't mean you have to let him go. Demko could have been traded to get the top end forward this team absolutely needs. Keeping Markstrom, bringing in a back up and moving Demko was clearly an option. That, at least in the near term, would have made the team stronger. We could have had a premier goaltender and legitimate top forward

That option, as well as others, was negated by lack of cap space and that, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, was Benning's fault. It seems you have problems believing Benning has made errs (and actually big ones) but hopefully some day you can accept the reality of that and not go into a dizzy of anger and denial when someone points out this out.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Markstrom was in consideration for the Vezina last year. He is clearly in the top tier of NHL goal tenders and was team's MVP. You obviously keep him if you have the cap space to do so.

Fact he wanted an NTC doesn't mean you have to let him go. Demko could have been traded to get the top end forward this team absolutely needs. Keeping Markstrom, bringing in a back up and moving Demko was clearly an option. That, at least in the near term, would have made the team stronger. We could have had a premier goaltender and legitimate top forward

That option, as well as others, was negated by lack of cap space and that, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, was Benning's fault. It seems you have problems believing Benning has made errs (and actually big ones) but hopefully some day you can accept the reality of that and not go into a dizzy of anger and denial when someone points out this out.

They tried to keep him.

He was a UFA...if he didnt get his desired No Movement Clause, he was moving on..end of story...We offered him $5.5M , and a year less than the Flames....He wanted ED protection (he stated that security was imperative to him in his 1040 interview), we couldn't give it to him..He didnt leave the Canucks because of the money (cap)...Clearly, they (Ian Clark and management) chose Demko. the younger keeper..

In my post (#23) I clearly stated that we lost Toffoli and Stecher to the cap (Benning)...You can bash Benning all you want, but at least make an effort to get the facts straight.

 

[sting101]

Markstrom was in consideration for the Vezina last year. He is clearly in the top tier of NHL goal tenders and was team's MVP. You obviously keep him if you have the cap space to do so.

Fact he wanted an NTC doesn't mean you have to let him go. Demko could have been traded to get the top end forward this team absolutely needs. Keeping Markstrom, bringing in a back up and moving Demko was clearly an option. That, at least in the near term, would have made the team stronger. We could have had a premier goaltender and legitimate top forward

That option, as well as others, was negated by lack of cap space and that, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, was Benning's fault. It seems you have problems believing Benning has made errs (and actually big ones) but hopefully some day you can accept the reality of that and not go into a dizzy of anger and denial when someone points out this out.

I thought keeping Demko was a no brainer. Marky couldn't even finish the year and then ended up watching the playoffs from the press box. He's 31 and wanted the Loui Eriksson contract and was gonna force our star young goalie out of the organization.

They could have easily afforded him? They spent 10.25 million on Schmidt and Holtby.....Tanev and Marky are 10.5

 

[orcatown]

They tried to keep him.

He was a UFA...if he didnt get his desired No Movement Clause, he was moving on..end of story...We offered him $5.5M , and a year less than the Flames....He wanted ED protection (he stated that security was imperative to him in his 1040 interview), we couldn't give it to him..He didnt leave the Canucks because of the money (cap)...Clearly, they (Ian Clark and management) chose Demko. the younger keeper..

In my post (#23) I clearly stated that we lost Toffoli and Stecher to the cap (Benning)...You can bash Benning all you want, but at least make an effort to get the facts straight.

You say that Ian Clark and management clearly wanted Demko more than Markstrom. Well if you are so keen about having facts, what information do you have that Clark and management made such a decision? This seems speculation not facts. I heard Benning say he was the intent on getting all the key players back and was working hard to do this. Moreover, they said they were negotiating with Markstrom right up to the end. If they had already made a very fundamental decision to go with Demko why even negotiate.

Seems to me, the team was trying to keep their options open and wanted to have the option of not protecting either Markstrom or Demko based on the seasons that had this year. This would have also keep open the option of trading Demko to get a good return on him. Saying you know the Canucks had made the fundamental decision to go with Demko over Markstrom requires some support from you.

It may be that the Markstrom desire for NMC was important and should have been included in the original post as one of the factors that needed to be considered in judging the loss of Markstrom. (although if you look back I did try to consider the loss from both ends) However, money was also a factor. If the Canucks wanted to retain Markstrom (as they insisted they did) they might have bumped up the salary to compensate for the lack of a NMC. Money would have given them options. But they were so strapped, b/c of baggage they taken on, they were down to counting pennies. Saying that the NMV issue was only cause in the loss of Markstrom is wide open to question. From all appearances they wanted Markstrom back. If they had more money to allocate to the goalie position that might have been possible. Also a bigger contract might have scared off Seattle if he was unprotected.

I really think that we have some 20/20 hindsight here played in to making seem like the Canucks were making some well planned moves with Markstrom. Narrative form people like you appears to be that the Canucks had decided to move on from Markstrom and were going with Demko (younger, cheaper etc,) and they had Holtby waiting in the wings. (which itself is unlikely given the tampering rules) . Way I saw it, the Canucks b/c of the cap issues, were limited in what they could provide and gave Markstrom offers below market value. And then as they were in the throes of working their way to some solution, Calgary moved in with an offer Markstrom wasn't going to refuse. Luckily, and as I credited Canuck management with in my initial post, they were able to quickly acquire Holtby which greatly reduced the damage of the Markstrom loss. (which I also noted)

You could make the argument that it was wise to move on from Markstrom (and I suggested some of that in my original post). Canucks maybe should have avoided the term and money given by Calgary. Maybe they absolutely had to keep open the option of exposing him in the Expansion draft. Maybe injuries were a factor. But there was huge downside risk. They might have ended up going with a basically rookie goalie. There was never any guarantee that they could get a good back up. (and if they hadn't got Holtby I think we would talking about this situation in much more nervous terms) Moreover we are still not sure Demko is a long term NHL goalie. Over time, many good prospects get exposed.

When you develop a stud like Markstrom teams almost never give them up. And for good reason - having the kind of goal tending he provided puts you with a chance. If you don't get this you're very likely going no where. At this point, seems like people are downplaying the loss of Markstrom (maybe little sour grapes going on) to the point that they seem almost relieved he is gone. Developing and then losing a top flight goalie like Markstrom for nothing was not a good thing. Benning let this happen and you wonder how he got himself so backed into a corner that his hands were tied. I see it as another blotch on his record.

 

[Hit the post]

Cann't see how anyone would claim that amount of dead or useless cap space on the Canucks is typical of many teams.

I think it’s more typical of a team that once was a contender/pretender but now is on the downside of it’s cycle. Or a new GM coming into a bad situation. But Gillis has been gone for five+ years now and Luongo is the only deal left from that regime. Unfortunately for us, Benning & Co. went about it backwards. Vastly overpaying for vets & worse, often virtually useless ones like Eriksson.

 

[m9]

Won't get into specifics, here's my general thoughts:

Defense - As long as Schmidt lives up to his billing, they've upgraded the blueline. I was a bit suspicious of the deal because it's weird that Vegas would send him in-division, but now that they aren't in the same division for this year I guess it makes a bit more sense. If he's as good as advertised, that's a nice upgrade on Tanev. I would still prefer Stecher to Hamonic and they are counting on some young guys to step up and it's unlikely they can stay as healthy as they did last year, but they deserve a good grade for this off-season. My grade will be a tad lower simply because I want to see Schmidt play here as that's a massive contract commitment & there was no need to move out Stecher. Grade: B

Forward - There's actually not much to work off here. I would have allocated money a bit differently to bring back Toffoli on a short deal. Lots of question marks around Leivo coming off that injury. I like Hawryluk as a depth signing & no issues with how they rounded out depth on the team. Just kind of an average, ho-hum off-season but gets dinged with the loss of Toffoli. Grade: C

Goal - This is the toughest spot to grade here. I wouldn't have paid Markstrom what he got from Calgary, but I also have little doubt that he would have signed here for a bit less and maybe 1 year shorter to stay. Then you can move Demko in a trade to take out a bad contract and maybe get a pick back as well. Then, sign someone for cheap to backup Markstrom. I kind of like that alternate universe betting than what they actually did, but there are just so many variables (Markstrom contract cost, Demko trade value, etc) that it's hard to judge good or bad. It just really seemed that they were laser-focused in keeping Demko instead of looking at all options so I do have some concerns there.

I don't like the Holtby signing. I don't like that it's two years and I don't like the cost. There are too many scenarios that leave goaltending in a mess after this season. Their only real out is if both guys play well. If Holtby plays well and Demko doesn't, do you protect Holtby? If Demko plays well and Holtby doesn't, why would Seattle want Holtby? And then the Canucks are stuck with that contract when they need cap flexibility the most. Then finally if both guys play poorly, how do you possibly come back with the same duo again? It just seemed like the team had 5 million or whatever allocated for a FA goaltender and then when Markstrom didn't take it they moved onto the next guy, and I hate that kind of thinking. Grade: D

 

[Tables of Stats]

Markstrom was in consideration for the Vezina last year. He is clearly in the top tier of NHL goal tenders and was team's MVP. You obviously keep him if you have the cap space to do so.

Why Goaltending is Basically Random and Will Always Make You Look Stupid (In 5 Graphs)

The math strongly disagrees with you.

 

[4Twenty]

I think it’s more typical of a team that once was a contender/pretender but now is on the downside of it’s cycle. Or a new GM coming into a bad situation. But Gillis has been gone for five+ years now and Luongo is the only deal left from that regime. Unfortunately for us, Benning & Co. went about it backwards. Vastly overpaying for vets & worse, often virtually useless ones like Eriksson.

This is Benning’s 7th season. Capped out with the two best players on ELC’s.

 

[4Twenty]

Why Goaltending is Basically Random and Will Always Make You Look Stupid (In 5 Graphs)

The math strongly disagrees with you.

So if Demko performs well we should just let him walk?

Why target Holtby then?
why attributed so much cap space and only $1.7m less than Markstrom on randomness?

Why not sign a random nobody and hope for the randomness to side your way.


As an aside say Demko has a .910 and is 15-10-5 this season....what do you sign him to?

Probably still not enough resume to go beyond 2 years imo. So say after that he’s our mvp in those two years of the extension with vezina votes. You let him walk for nothing because the position is random? That’s my interpretation of your position here.

Hopefully Holtby is randomly not an .897 for us.

 

[Tables of Stats]

So if Demko performs well we should just let him walk?

That's not what the article says, nor what any look into NHL goaltending would suggest. What the article does suggest is that offering goalies high cap hit long term deals is almost always going to be a terrible idea. Even if you get good, say top 10 level, goaltending for the life of the contract Montreal is proof that you can't win if your goalie is your best player over a span of seasons.

Why target Holtby then?
why attributed so much cap space and only $1.7m less than Markstrom on randomness?

Looking at their contracts it looks like the Flames are paying Markstrom $36 million and the Canucks are paying Holtby $8.6 million. So the Canucks are giving Holtby both less AAV and less term than Markstrom was asking for.

As for why target Holtby instead of spinning a wheel and picking a random joe off the street to strap on some pads, that's again not what the article I posted suggests doing. Clearly, there is some minimum level of ability to be an NHL goalie. Within that level of ability, some goalies are able to maintain many seasons of high-level play, the issue the article points out is that it's difficult to know who those goalies will be with our current methods of analysis.

This seeming randomness suggests that you shouldn't overpay for goaltending nor should you offer goaltenders term. We did neither in signing Holtby.

With Holtby the Canucks are placing two bets with the hopes that one of them pays out and gives us high-level goaltending. The first is hoping that Demko can continue the level of play he demonstrated in the bubble over the coming season. The second is that Holtby can regain his Vezina form. The cost of making these bets is letting Markstrom walk and paying the least in the North division for goaltending... Can somebody explain how a team paying less than many teams are spending on a single goalie for a tandem is overpaying for goaltending?

Team	Goalie 1 AAV	Goalie 2 AAV	Total Goalie AAV
CGY	$6 million	$2.75 million	$8.75 million
EDM	$4.5 million	$1.5 million	$6 million
MTL	$10.5 million	$4.35 million	$14.85 million
OTT	$6.25 million	$0.7 million	$6.95 million
TOR	$5 million	$1.65 million	$6.65 million
VAN	$4.3 million	$1.05 million	$5.35 million
WPG	$6.17 million	$1.5 million	$7.67 million
ANA	$6.4 million	$1 million	$7.4 million
ARI	$4.5 million	$4.25 million	$8.75 million
COL	$3.33 million	$2 million	$5.33 million
LAK	$5.8 million	$0.86 million	$6.68 million
MIN	$3.67 million	$0.79 million	$4.46 million
SJS	$5.75 million	$2.17 million	$7.92 million
STL	$4.4 million	$0.75 million	$5.15 million
VGK	$7 million	$5 million	$12 million
CAR	$3.4 million	$3.13 million	$6.53 million
CHI	$1 million	$0.85 million	$1.85 million
CBJ	$4 million	$2.8 million	$6.8 million
DAL	$4.92 million	$3.33 million	$8.25 million
DET	$3.6 million	$3 million	$6.6 million
FLA	$10 million	$0.85 million	$10.85 million
NAS	$5 million	$1.5 million	$6.5 million
TBL	$9.5 million	$1.3 million	$10.8 million
BOS	$7 million	$2.25 million	$9.25 million
BUF	$2.75 million	$2.6 million	$5.35 million
NJD	$3.9 million	$2.8 million	$6.7 million
NYI	$5 million	$2 million	$7 million
NYR	$2.43 million	$0.93 million	$3.36 million
PHI	$1.5 million	$0.73 million	$2.23 million
PIT	$3.5 million	$1.25 million	$4.75 million
WSH	$1.1 million	$0.93 million	$2.03 million

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There are only 6 teams paying less than the Canucks for their goaltending tandem this season. In most cases where a team is paying less, they're banking heavily on a young player emerging as a star. In the case of Pittsburgh, they're praying that Jarry can carry the load and Chicago seems to either be aiming to tank or is trying that spin the wheel strategy you suggested.

TLDR; The Canucks are spending below average on goaltending even with Holtby. We're not locked in for term on either goaltender and we're placing bets on either of the being good this season while most other teams are better on a single goalie to carry most of the load. I think we've made a smart move in the net given what the data about predicting goalie performance says about giving a player like Markstrom term.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I don't expect that he'll suddenly bounce back to being an elite goaltender again, but the way goaltending stats tend to go it's just as unlikely that he's actually a sub .900 goalie because of a single season. That .905 to .910 range would put him in the 33 to 24 range in terms of goalies which is right about where he's being paid. Those are 1B numbers that will allow Demko to take some nights off without hanging the team out to dry.


Because that's what it took to sign him and there weren't many better options floating around?

Here's a list of the goalies that signed this offseason (Contract Signings - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps) unless I'm mistaken about some of the 24-year-olds, here are our options among goalies that anybody is actually interested in:

M. Subban: His career stats are a 2.97 GAA and .899 Sv%. He's trash and not a realistic option to tandem with Demko.
M. Murray: He signed for 4-years at $6.25 million AAV and his numbers as a starter look like a bad rollercoaster if you care to graph them.
C. Talbot: He'd save us less than a million in AAV, signed for an extra year, and has been worse than Holtby in every season except the 26 games he played this past season.
A. Khudobin: Was never an option to sign anywhere but Dallas and a player unlikely to be willing to play a 1B role to a rookie.
K. Kinkaid: Do I even need to say anything here? He's played for some bad teams but his numbers are pedestrian at best and his last two seasons stank.
A. Forsberg: A 28-year-old with 48 NHL games played... Next.
T. Greiss: The best option thus far. He only saves 700k per season and probably wouldn't like the role Vancouver wants him for.
A. Dell: If Demko had played a full season as a starter already I'd have liked a backup like Dell but I'd have no faith in Dell to take over a starting role if Demko isn't ready.
L. Ullmark: I'd have interest but given that he went back to Buffalo he probably wasn't an option.

The goalies that haven't signed yet are a graveyard of those that are either used up or who never had the talent to stick at the NHL level in the first place.

So who among the available options would you rate as a better option than Holtby and do you think they were actually a reasonable option for the Canucks to sign?

we could have gotten fleury i think, although if we had schmidt likely does not fall to us.

 

[Tables of Stats]

we could have gotten fleury i think, although if we had schmidt likely does not fall to us.

Do we want to pay nearly twice as much for an extra year for a goalie that's likely to be worse than the one we just let walk? I frankly don't think that's a realistic move for our team to make.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Do we want to pay nearly twice as much for an extra year for a goalie that's likely to be worse than the one we just let walk? I frankly don't think that's a realistic move for our team to make.

a lot of your examples are not realistic either, but they were options and so was fleury. he's $2.7m per season more than holtby but the same term and can be exposed for expansion. he's arguably a better goalie, and an equally good option to develop demko as opposed to giving marky 6 years.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Had Benning signed Tanev and Markstrom to those contracts (or even slightly better ones) and lost Demko to Seattle in the expansion draft he’d be getting crucified. And in my view rightly so.
Longer term those were both the right moves. Had we been able to keep Toffoli I would have been ecstatic with this off season. As it is, some tough decisions were made (or forced on management because of the cap) but I think they were mostly the right ones.