Player Discussion Jacob Markstrom

Luck 6

\\_______
Oct 17, 2008
10,190
1,783
Vancouver
I hope we can convince Markstrom to take a short term extension at a reduced rate. I’m hoping for something like 3 years at 5mil. Wishful thinking, sure, but it wouldn’t absolutely shock me considering the circumstances. Markstrom wants to play here, he’s at the wrong side of 30, and we do have leverage to let him walk with Demko.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bertuzzzi44

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,591
9,425
If you are concerned about term doesn’t that mean you should keep Demko instead? Like this team is not Pitt with Sid and geno at 33/34. Petey and Hughes turn 22/21 later this year. 3 year runway versus a decade or more.
 

Peter Griffin

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
34,783
7,030
Visit site
With Demko in the mix and the expansion draft on the horizon the Canucks shouldn’t feel forced into giving Jacob a NMC through the expansion draft. Benning hinted that they’d like to keep both goalies and re-evaluate at the trade deadline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tv9924

Grumpy1

Registered User
Feb 8, 2015
118
70
I hope we can convince Markstrom to take a short term extension at a reduced rate. I’m hoping for something like 3 years at 5mil. Wishful thinking, sure, but it wouldn’t absolutely shock me considering the circumstances. Markstrom wants to play here, he’s at the wrong side of 30, and we do have leverage to let him walk with Demko.
Only way he takes shorter term is with way too high salary. Its his one and only chance to get paid. I think hes gone unless benning is stupid and overpays
 
  • Like
Reactions: David71

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,591
9,425
Only way he takes shorter term is with way too high salary. Its his one and only chance to get paid. I think hes gone unless benning is stupid and overpays
I agree.

he’s made roughly $14 mill so far in his career. This contract should secure him another $25 mill on the low end. So he’ll make $40 mill at least in his career.

with high escrow can’t be taking a discount now.
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,399
2,980
Lehner & Fleury outplayed Markstrom, Canucks had to overcome a disastrous game 6 from Markstrom against the Blues. Markstrom was good but didn't have a great playoffs, however Demko was unbelievable and is probably the future of this franchise. Markstrom will be 31 coming into the season and a 4 year contract could end up biting the Canucks. A 50/50 split between Demko and a capable veteran goaltender is the smart choice for next season. Canucks should protect Demko and expose Markstrom (if resigned) at the expansion draft, if they lose Marky at least they got an extra year out of him.

If Markstrom is willing to take a home town discount without any no movement/trade clauses then resign him, but if his demands are too high let him walk and roll with Demko. Canucks have the luxury of drawing a a firm line with Markstrom that they didn’t have before, 4.5Mx4 or 5MX3 should be that line.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ChilliBilly

iceburg

Don't ask why
Aug 31, 2003
7,602
3,959
Three options:
1. Let Markstrom walk
2. Sign Markstrom long term (>3 years, probably 5 years) at $5 to$5.5M
3. Sign for 3 years or less at about $6M

To me scenario 3 is the preferred one. As long as there is no NMC, they can trade him at the deadline, leave him exposed in the expansion draft and still have the potential to retain the tandem with Demko for the next few years. Demko gets the chance to show the playoff performance is who he really is. If Markstrom is signed for 5 years, my guess is that Demko will want to move on.
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,399
2,980
Three options:
1. Let Markstrom walk
2. Sign Markstrom long term (>3 years, probably 5 years) at $5 to$5.5M
3. Sign for 3 years or less at about $6M

To me scenario 3 is the preferred one. As long as there is no NMC, they can trade him at the deadline, leave him exposed in the expansion draft and still have the potential to retain the tandem with Demko for the next few years. Demko gets the chance to show the playoff performance is who he really is. If Markstrom is signed for 5 years, my guess is that Demko will want to move on.

We lose Toffoli or Tanev, that’s the only problem. Moving on from Markstrom solves a lot of our cap problems.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,043
14,072
it isn't just the money and term with Markstrom....if he wants a guarantied NTC and exemption from the expansion draft, then the Canucks have to simply walk away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hellstick

VancouverJagger

Not trying to fit in
Feb 26, 2017
2,213
2,025
Vancouver - Coal Harbour


That quote actually gives me some hope that Benning doesn't have blinders on with reference to signing Markstrom. He tends to telegraph his moves and this is the most he's backed off of saying he wants him signed. It's a clear indication to me that he's at least hopefully in the right headspace here. If he wants to play by what we are comfortable with offering him then great - if not you have the right to test free agency. Really glad to see this as last thing I want to see is term and a NMC here.
 

lawrence

Registered User
May 19, 2012
15,883
6,620
I think the best thing to do is trade Markstroms right now to the highest bidder, (trading his negotiation rights). If he's locked up long term for whatever reason it seems much harder to trade a goalie at that point, as we've seen previously in the past with Luongo and even when Pittsburgh tried to get rid of Marc Andre Fleury and at that time it's not like MAF had a bad contract too, it's just much harder.

option, trade his rights after the playoffs to the highest bidder, be nice to recuperate some draft picks in 2020.
 

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
25,983
15,854
Benning said that Demko was the goalie of the future...Does this mean that Benning won’t offer Marky a NMC..?

That could be a game changer..
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
I think Benning wants to keep both goalies as long as possible. It is possible sign Markstrom to 4 years, first 2 year nmc and last 2 years ntc on 15 teams. Offered Gaudette or Virtanen to Seattle for them not to take Demko. 2 years time decide who to trade.
 

orcatown

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
10,250
7,395
Visit site
I hope we can convince Markstrom to take a short term extension at a reduced rate. I’m hoping for something like 3 years at 5mil. Wishful thinking, sure, but it wouldn’t absolutely shock me considering the circumstances. Markstrom wants to play here, he’s at the wrong side of 30, and we do have leverage to let him walk with Demko.

In the light of the supposed Lehner contract maybe the 5 mill is not out of line. I'm beginning to re-think this. Think the term might have to be extended. The whole key here is the NMC.

With Benning: I hate to say this but I get so down on Benning's thinking processes that I think he might say that Demko is the goalie of the future and forget the ED. Maybe that's overkill but he said a few things in the past which might let you believe this.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
Markstrom on a 4 year deal at ~$5M AAV with no expansion draft protection and limited NTC is probably the best the Canucks can achieve. With the NHL looking at an 82 game season, I think it's more important than ever to have good goalie depth and spread the workload. Realistically, a backup we are comfortable playing 30+ games is going to cost $3M+ but you can sign him to short term. There aren't that many attractive candidates either. A guy like Cam Talbot is probably once again looking to land on a team where he is given a chance to be the #1 but he would be a good fit on a 2 year deal.
 

82Ninety42011

Registered User
Jul 2, 2011
7,526
5,456
Abbotsford BC

Yes he has earned that right and we should hope he takes it elsewhere. Demko is fine moving forward were just starting to come into our playoff window. Marky as good as he's been is older, expensive and were already in cap trouble. No need to sign him as we need to give Demko a chance to prove he's ready. We should be looking to the future, not just next season that's how to build a winner.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,043
14,072
Have to agree that this is pretty strong signal that Markstrom won't have a contract in place from the Canucks when free agency opens on Oct. 9th. If somebody steps up with ridiculous money and term, then the Canucks walk away.

But if he and his agent explore the best deal out there, they can still double back to the Canucks and negotiate I guess. But seems pretty apparent to me that Markstrom will become a UFA next month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David71

lowerlameland

Registered User
Jul 4, 2011
35
1
Wouldn’t the best asset management be signing Markstrom (if reasonable) and trading Demko? I like Demko and don’t want to see him gone, but purely biz... Or maybe it depends on what is a better asset, what you can sign with Markstrom’s money versus what you can get for Demko. I think that’s what I mean. What has higher value? Markstrom’s cap hit or Demko’s trade return?
 

Bourne Endeavor

Registered User
Apr 6, 2009
37,287
5,297
Montreal, Quebec
I wouldn't give any of Tanev, Markstrom, and Toffoli more than three years.

Problem is that we gave four+ years to a bunch of bad UFA's over previous years.

It really depends on their dollar amount. If Toffoli wants four and is willing to go under 5M to secure that extra year, you give it to him. That only puts him at 32, which is perfectly fine. Same argument with Tanev and Markstrom. The important thing isn't just the term but what they're willing to do for it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->