This a direct quote from your first post, exactly as you typed it in -
"Clearly, they (Ian Clark and management) chose Demko. the younger keeper.."
Where is the word after???
You only brought that in later when actual events didn't support your time line and you invented, without a single fact or source, your little scenario - like first they negotiated with Markstrom , then he wouldn't sign right away so then they asked Clark who should we keep, he said Demko, so then then they moved on from Markstrom ....
Fact is they were negotiating with Markstrom right up to the time he signed with Calgary. Also where is you evidence that Clark told management to go long term with Demko at this precise moment in negotiations. And don't tell me we can presume that.
That would be a huge decision on Clark's part and you provide nothing to prove he did that. This just seems like a way of passing the buck to Clark. And if Benning is such an astute judge of players and talent shouldn't he be making his own decisions
Fact is, as well, that negotiations had been going on with Markstrom for months - all the way back into last season. Surely they would have been in contact with Clark throughout this period and knew his thoughts on Demko and Markstrom.
Saying that Clark made some 11th hour intervention that caused Benning to move on from Markstrom seems ludicrous. If so, then Benning deserves heavy criticism since he should have such information long before negotiations started.
Also you continue to contradict yourself . You say, (and I'm quoting you directly here):
Benning wasn't boxed in..He could have simply given Marky the NMC, but given Demko's playoff performance..I don't believe they wanted to let him go....They could have afforded to run with both goalies this year, which would have given them more time to let things play out, and facilitate a trade for one of them.(before the ED?).
Well if had given Marky a NMC how he could facilitate a trade for him? If he had the NMC, Markstrom could have shot down any trade. Also, it would have created an ugly situation.
More than that you undercut the whole argument you been repeating through out. You say Benning couldn't give a NMC, that this was the key hang in negotiations, then you say but he could have simply given Marky the MNC. Again the fact is he couldn't give Markstrom a MNC (something you been saying constantly) without losing Demko in the ED. He was boxed in.
Also, you say (and again I'm quoting you directly)
"Knowing Markstrom was likely leaving for
more term and a no-movement clause, Benning had to keep Demko".
But before you stated
"Markstrom demanding an NTC made the decision for all parties involved."
if he didnt get his desired No Movement Clause, he was moving on..end of story.
First you say it was only about the NMC (like end of story) yet now you say but was also term. Again I'm not contradicting you, you are contradicting yourself. If it was only about the NMC why bring up term
Moreover, though you somehow don't recognize it was also about money. Having both Markstrom and Demko was going to be too expensive and any number of sources recognize that and the lack of wiggle room Benning had was because of his self-created cap problems (some I referred to in other sources)
Here Benning admits he has to move money out to keep players like Markstrom
Benning: Suppose there's a chance of re-signing Markstrom, Tanev & Toffoli but dependent on moving money out
Finally you say no one criticized Benning for losing his best player and MVP. There was plenty of criticism. There is some below. Criticism would have much heavier if Holtby hadn't been quickly signed which muted criticism and is, as I have said from the start, something for which Canuck management should be congratulated.
Former Canucks goaltender Eddie Lack calls out GM for handling of Markstrom negotiations | TradeRumours.com
Canucks: Why Jim Benning’s job is in jeopardy now
Canucks fans aren't pleased after Markstrom, Toffoli and Stecher all sign elsewhere - Article - BARDOWN
Not sure there is anything left to say. I can agree with you that I should have considered the NMC in the Markstrom negotiations more than I did in the initial post. But I really don't understand why you got so nasty and bent out of shape b/c I didn't.