Player Discussion Jacob Markstrom

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
If we don’t sign Marky which UFA would be a good target?

Khudobin :sarcasm:. I like Cam Talbot on a 1-2 year deal (maybe go 2 years as we need someone to expose in the expansion draft). I think he would be relatively cheap. He does want to go to a team that will give him a chance at the #1 spot but he's 33. At some point he needs to realize that it's better for him to sign for some term rather than chase his #1 goalie dream.
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,399
2,980
The smart thing is to sign him to a 5 x $5M (or something like that) contract and then trade him at the draft. that way we get a ton for him. Pretty sure one of the big teams would be interested if they have the cap space. And bring back a decent back up for $2M in the deal, or get draft picks.

Unwritten rule no one does it (similar to offer sheets), you could do it but it would place a negative image of the organization around the league and with players. Wouldn’t be a bad idea to sign and trade him at the deadline or before the expansion draft though.
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,399
2,980
As for Markstrom, believe they aren’t too far off reported Lehnar deal (5x5). Expansion protection is big. - Irfaan Gaffar

5 years is too much for Markstrom, deal will probably end up being 4x5M. Not sure how I feel about expansion draft protection, pretty much means goodbye Demko. I’d rather just keep Demko.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
Lots of bargains out there this year. Craig Anderson, Jimmy Howard, Keith Kinkaid, even bring back Domingue. Someone that can handle 30-40 games at a bargain price.

Umm... Depends on your definition of "handle 30-40 games." Might as well bring back Ryan Miller.
 

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
Umm... Depends on your definition of "handle 30-40 games." Might as well bring back Ryan Miller.
Benning already anchored the team’s future to a lot of old guys on term. He can’t afford to make any more of those mistakes. If Marky’s demands are such (term more than four years, salary more than 5.5, expansion draft protection) that they add another anchor contract, Benning’s must walk away.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,049
14,079
Everybody knows the Canucks are between a rock and a hard place in trying to sign their their UFA's Markstrom, Tanev and Tofoli.

The only way for it to happen is to clear some cap space....and trading any of their bottom six forwards will require the Canucks to throw in high drafts or grade A prospects--something this team simply can't afford.

So it seems obvious now that Markstrom will test the UFA market in a couple of weeks, and if somebody blows the Canucks out of the water with an offer, he's probably as good as gone. Then it comes down to either Tanev or Tofoli, which has been debated to death on these boards. I've voted for Tofoli, but regardless one of them is history.

It's unfortunate. But the Canucks would be far better advised to bite the bullet and just let some of their awful contracts run their course, rather than do what the Leafs did last season--being forced to trade a first round draft pick just to get out from under Patrick Marleau's contract.

The hope would be that Demko and a relatively inexpensive veteran backup could hold the fort for the next couple of seasons. And slowly but surely most of Benning truly brutal UFA contracts will expire, with kids like Podkolzin, Hoglander, Lind, Rathbone and maybe Juolevi or Rafferty being slowly integrated into the lineup.

For impatient Canuck fans it's all a bit of a downer.....and probably means a step back or two before springing forward. But the options for the Canucks are limited.
 

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
26,010
15,871
As for Markstrom, believe they aren’t too far off reported Lehnar deal (5x5). Expansion protection is big. - Irfaan Gaffar

5 years is too much for Markstrom, deal will probably end up being 4x5M. Not sure how I feel about expansion draft protection, pretty much means goodbye Demko. I’d rather just keep Demko.
Its looking to me like Markstrom walks...Will he take less $, less term, and not have a NMC..?..Thats just too much to ask..imo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Luckylarry

Fatass

Registered User
Apr 17, 2017
21,951
13,921
Its looking to me like Markstrom walks...Will he take less $, less term, and not have a NMC..?..Thats just too much..imo
I don’t know if it’s considered tampering, but other teams’ GMs (or in some other way) might be letting Marky’s agent know they have serious interest. Got to believe Colorado, Calagary, Edmonton, Carolina are four that might want Marky.
 

Lindgren

Registered User
Jun 30, 2005
5,948
3,850
Everybody knows the Canucks are between a rock and a hard place in trying to sign their their UFA's Markstrom, Tanev and Tofoli.

The only way for it to happen is to clear some cap space....and trading any of their bottom six forwards will require the Canucks to throw in high drafts or grade A prospects--something this team simply can't afford.

So it seems obvious now that Markstrom will test the UFA market in a couple of weeks, and if somebody blows the Canucks out of the water with an offer, he's probably as good as gone. Then it comes down to either Tanev or Tofoli, which has been debated to death on these boards. I've voted for Tofoli, but regardless one of them is history.

It's unfortunate. But the Canucks would be far better advised to bite the bullet and just let some of their awful contracts run their course, rather than do what the Leafs did last season--being forced to trade a first round draft pick just to get out from under Patrick Marleau's contract.

The hope would be that Demko and a relatively inexpensive veteran backup could hold the fort for the next couple of seasons. And slowly but surely most of Benning truly brutal UFA contracts will expire, with kids like Podkolzin, Hoglander, Lind, Rathbone and maybe Juolevi or Rafferty being slowly integrated into the lineup.


For impatient Canuck fans it's all a bit of a downer.....and probably means a step back or two before springing forward. But the options for the Canucks are limited.

I think this is exactly right. Drance and others have argued that the Canucks need to try to go for it all in the coming season, while Pettersson and Hughes are on their ELCs, etc. I don't think it can be done. There are too many bad contracts standing in the way.

The Canucks have to hope that Podkolzin, Hoglander, and one of the handful of prospects on the back end make an impact quickly, along with Demko, and that those good contracts will make the difference while big dollars are being spent on the second contracts for the stars. Just let the bad contracts run out. Hope to get lucky with one of them with an early retirement.
 

deckercky

Registered User
Oct 27, 2010
9,379
2,452
I don’t know if it’s considered tampering, but other teams’ GMs (or in some other way) might be letting Marky’s agent know they have serious interest. Got to believe Colorado, Calagary, Edmonton, Carolina are four that might want Marky.

That's super clear tampering, far worse than the typical mention of interest in a player during a media interview that typically gets punished.
 

WetcoastOrca

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
38,142
21,937
Vancouver, BC
I’m leery of rolling with Demko. It reminds me a bit of when a lot of people thought Eddie Lack was a viable starter. There’s a pretty big drop off from an elite starter like Markstrom and a below average starter. I know Demko has a much better pedigree than Lack but it’s still a gamble.
I’d push hard to sign Markstrom with a limited no trade and roll with both goalies this year.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,049
14,079
I’m leery of rolling with Demko. It reminds me a bit of when a lot of people thought Eddie Lack was a viable starter. There’s a pretty big drop off from an elite starter like Markstrom and a below average starter. I know Demko has a much better pedigree than Lack but it’s still a gamble.
I’d push hard to sign Markstrom with a limited no trade and roll with both goalies this year.
If somebody offers up Markstrom a $6-$7m contract with term and NTC protection on Oct. 9th, then forget about it. Even if the Canucks wanted to match, they couldn't.

I'd rather see Benning spend the money on patching up the blueline in front of Demko, than blowing the wad on a contract like that for Markstrom. But just for context, $6m under the cap is exactly what it'll cost them to carry Eriksson's contract through to its merciful end. Tell me again these awful UFA signings don't end up costing you in the end.
 

Diversification

Registered User
Jun 21, 2019
2,954
3,657
Everybody knows the Canucks are between a rock and a hard place in trying to sign their their UFA's Markstrom, Tanev and Tofoli.

The only way for it to happen is to clear some cap space....and trading any of their bottom six forwards will require the Canucks to throw in high drafts or grade A prospects--something this team simply can't afford.

So it seems obvious now that Markstrom will test the UFA market in a couple of weeks, and if somebody blows the Canucks out of the water with an offer, he's probably as good as gone. Then it comes down to either Tanev or Tofoli, which has been debated to death on these boards. I've voted for Tofoli, but regardless one of them is history.

It's unfortunate. But the Canucks would be far better advised to bite the bullet and just let some of their awful contracts run their course, rather than do what the Leafs did last season--being forced to trade a first round draft pick just to get out from under Patrick Marleau's contract.

The hope would be that Demko and a relatively inexpensive veteran backup could hold the fort for the next couple of seasons. And slowly but surely most of Benning truly brutal UFA contracts will expire, with kids like Podkolzin, Hoglander, Lind, Rathbone and maybe Juolevi or Rafferty being slowly integrated into the lineup.

For impatient Canuck fans it's all a bit of a downer.....and probably means a step back or two before springing forward. But the options for the Canucks are limited.

It’s not clear that we would have to pick between Toffoli and Tanev. Really depends on the terms of those two contracts. We would also have the wiggle room of declining Virtanen’s arbitration and dealing him off with say Baertschi or Beagle. It would be a blow to downgrade to MacEwan, but if I had to choose between Toffoli or Tanev vs. JV, the choice is a pretty easy one IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WetcoastOrca

WetcoastOrca

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
38,142
21,937
Vancouver, BC
If somebody offers up Markstrom a $6-$7m contract with term and NTC protection on Oct. 9th, then forget about it. Even if the Canucks wanted to match, they couldn't.

I'd rather see Benning spend the money on patching up the blueline in front of Demko, than blowing the wad on a contract like that for Markstrom. But just for context, $6m under the cap is exactly what it'll cost them to carry Eriksson's contract through to its merciful end. Tell me again these awful UFA signings don't end up costing you in the end.
Agreed. I’m of the view that having Benning tight against the cap is not necessarily all bad news given his abysmal history of FA signings.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
it's times like this you wonder how much gms run interference on other gms.

if i am calgary or edmonton looking at taking a run at marky i definitely would start talking to any team benning is talking to on any deal he's trying to make to dump cap space. if i am a gm talking to vancouver about such a deal, i definitely call calgary and edmonton or any other goalie hungry team right afterwards and see what they will do.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,607
9,435
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.
Great plan unless Demko who is rfa in 2021 gets an offer sheet where the compensation is a 2nd round pick which is anything that is $2.1-$4.2 mill.
 

nergish

Registered User
Jun 1, 2019
703
777
I’m leery of rolling with Demko. It reminds me a bit of when a lot of people thought Eddie Lack was a viable starter. There’s a pretty big drop off from an elite starter like Markstrom and a below average starter. I know Demko has a much better pedigree than Lack but it’s still a gamble.
I’d push hard to sign Markstrom with a limited no trade and roll with both goalies this year.

Is it more likely that Markstrom can sustain his high play into his 30s than it is for Demko to continue the steady trajectory he's been on since the day he was drafted? I'd argue it's just as safe to go with Thatcher, even though he isn't as "proven" at NHL level.

Markstrom looked like he'd have to consider playing out his career in Sweden when he was Thatcher's age...
Demko has been remarkably consistent at every level he's played.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deckercky

Bourdon

Registered User
Mar 20, 2007
4,491
1,105
Citing Lack as a cautionary tale is disingenuous; the dude suffered some major injuries and tried to play through them constantly because he felt he had to, otherwise he would lose his chance at becoming no. 1.

I'm certainly not saying that Demko will be able to replace Markstrom and the level he's performed at the last few years. There will be growing pains with Demko. He was great early on this season, but he struggled in the 2nd half. He came off his 1st full season in the NHL, and was still a rookie. But he showed a glimpse of how he can perform in the highest pressure moments, and he performed like a true stud.

I think you have to take a chance. Demko's age fits in better with this group, and financially it makes more sense than to invest big in a 30 yr old, injury prone goalie. I have faith Ian Clark will turn Demko into something special.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David71

Hammer79

Registered User
Jan 9, 2009
7,223
1,033
Kelowna
I’m leery of rolling with Demko. It reminds me a bit of when a lot of people thought Eddie Lack was a viable starter. There’s a pretty big drop off from an elite starter like Markstrom and a below average starter. I know Demko has a much better pedigree than Lack but it’s still a gamble.
I’d push hard to sign Markstrom with a limited no trade and roll with both goalies this year.

Eddie Lack never had the draft pedigree or junior career Demko had. It's an apples vs oranges comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F A N

David71

Registered User
Dec 27, 2008
16,966
1,402
vancouver
let marky go his age and injury history will be troublesome TO WHOEVER gets him. demko will be the number 1 goalie moving forwards. just find a capable 1b type backup cheap.
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
If somebody offers up Markstrom a $6-$7m contract with term and NTC protection on Oct. 9th, then forget about it. Even if the Canucks wanted to match, they couldn't.

I'd rather see Benning spend the money on patching up the blueline in front of Demko, than blowing the wad on a contract like that for Markstrom. But just for context, $6m under the cap is exactly what it'll cost them to carry Eriksson's contract through to its merciful end. Tell me again these awful UFA signings don't end up costing you in the end.

It didn't costed the Canucks yet. I will tell you if it does end up costing in the end.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
I’m leery of rolling with Demko. It reminds me a bit of when a lot of people thought Eddie Lack was a viable starter. There’s a pretty big drop off from an elite starter like Markstrom and a below average starter. I know Demko has a much better pedigree than Lack but it’s still a gamble.
I’d push hard to sign Markstrom with a limited no trade and roll with both goalies this year.

I think it's about trying to make the best decision going forward. Like you are suggesting, there is a difference between a legitimate top 10 starter and a average to above average starter. How good can Demko be? If the Canucks really believe he can develop into a top 10 starter over the next couple of years I think the Canucks should seriously look into giving Demko the #1 job and extending him. The plan was to groom Demko into the #1 role right? But yes. Markstrom is a bonafide top 10 goalie in the league (Vezina candidate even). Injuries are, however, a bit of a concern and normal aging curve suggests that he should be able to maintain his play for a couple of years before his decline gets sharper.

For me, the problem with going with Lack at the time was that the plan was to pair him with an unproven NHL backup in Markstrom. For a team looking to make the playoffs that's just stupid. So if we are to let Markstrom walk, the Canucks should certainly go out and acquire a 1A/1B type goalie.

Citing Lack as a cautionary tale is disingenuous; the dude suffered some major injuries and tried to play through them constantly because he felt he had to, otherwise he would lose his chance at becoming no. 1.

It should be a cautionary tale though. Demko has had hip surgery. Schneider's career was cut short by hip problems. Luongo was basically forced to retire due to hip issues. Given what Lack was saying, it appears that he was never 100% after his hip surgery in 2013. The Canucks better know if any of their goalies are playing through hip pain.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->