Rumor: Markstrom is asking for Connor Hellebuyck $$$$$

[y2kcanucks]

Tanev walking is eh. If he's asking for more than 5.5 x 3 years I'd rather let him walk.

Markstrom not re-signing is a death blow to the next three years of playoff aspirations. That 2021 1st now owned by NJ could be a top-10 pick...

If the Canucks miss the playoffs this season, and Markstrom walks, we won't make the playoffs next year either. I'm very high on Demko and think he would be fine as a number 1, but he isn't as good as the guy I see as the best goalie in the league this season.

Markstrom should be able to fetch in the $7-8M range on the open market, given what other goalies have gone for. He doesn't have the Vezina's that Bobrovsky had which is why he won't get that monster deal, but I don't think he's $4M behind Bobrovsky.

 

[Michael Dal Swolle]

If the Canucks miss the playoffs this season, and Markstrom walks, we won't make the playoffs next year either. I'm very high on Demko and think he would be fine as a number 1, but he isn't as good as the guy I see as the best goalie in the league this season.

Markstrom should be able to fetch in the $7-8M range on the open market, given what other goalies have gone for. He doesn't have the Vezina's that Bobrovsky had which is why he won't get that monster deal, but I don't think he's $4M behind Bobrovsky.

I think the issue of what Markstrom is offered on the open market will determine whether or not Vancouver can keep him. I think he wants to stay, but he won't give up substantial salary to do it. If he gets good term and money from another team he's almost certainly gone.

Bobrovsky is an interesting precedent - Does he get used as the measuring stick for Markstrom? Or does that contract serve as a reminder of how badly giving goalies big money can turn out, and scare GMs away from offering Markstrom more? I'm not sure we will know until after July 1.

 

[racerjoe]

I would assume the reasoning on that is that Marky is going to cost us A LOT more than Tanev - including term. We can probably get Tanev to sign for 3 years or less. Unless Marky REALLY wants to be here that just isn't going to happen. We are looking at 4 or more likely 5 years......which makes his contract riskier.

Couple that with the fact that we have a young back up that appears poised to take over the #1 job and you have your answer. We don't have anyone in the system that looks poised to take over Tanev's job.

Tough choice but if I had to take 3 years of Tanev at 4 mill per or 5 years of Marky at 6 mill per I would def. choose Tanev.

I agree that there is more that goes into it then just Tanev vs Marky.

Having said that I think you can probably make Marky work on a 5 year deal, and he is more valuable. You should be able to bring in a cheap backup for a year or two, while Marky should still have his game, then have to transition years with a younger guy like a Dipietro, and in that 5th year you are hoping that young guys is the number one on a cheap contract where you still have Marky on a higher cap hit.

I love Tanev. I think he is probably one of the most underrated dmen in the NHL. I do see him close to falling off a cliff though. He is a dman that took so much punishment over his career I just wouldn't want to bet on him. I would be happy to keep him if we can make it work, but I take Marky before him.

This is all if my goal is to win in the next 2-3 years. Otherwise I well them both this season.

 

[RandV]

There have been a number of critical offseasons now for this management.

The reprecautions of the decisions made then include the fact that we are now questioning if we can or cant afford resign our no.1 goalie.

I had always said this at the time though no one else seemed to care but 2014 was also a critical offseason, where we had one prime shot to do a successful quick retool while we still had the Sedins so it would have been prudent to keep the existing management team in place who knew the staff and players, rather than tossing them all out and rolling the dice on someone brand new. And hey look how that turned out.

Funny how these things only ever seem to be used to shield Benning.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

So you are more willing to bet on a flukey 9 months of health then 18-24 months of insane goaltending? Interesting.

Yes, cause I’m not a fan of giving out term to 30 years old goaltender, especially with what happened to Bobrovsky and Martin Jones
it’s as simple as that

 

[racerjoe]

Yes, cause I’m not a fan of giving out term to 30 years old goaltender, especially with what happened to Bobrovsky and Martin Jones
it’s as simple as that

Are either of those guys comparable to Markstrom? Did he ask for 1o mil a year?

I could just as easily say I don't want to sign Tanev, we are all seeing what happened with Karlsson...

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Are either of those guys comparable to Markstrom? Did he ask for 1o mil a year?

I could just as easily say I don't want to sign Tanev, we are all seeing what happened with Karlsson...

1. Tanev isn’t going to ask for as big of a contract as Markstrom will

2. I don’t mind paying Markstrom 6 or even 7m, I’m afraid of anything longer than 3 years

 

[racerjoe]

1. Tanev isn’t going to ask for as big of a contract as Markstrom will

2. I don’t mind paying Markstrom 6 or even 7m, I’m afraid of anything longer than 3 years

As I said in an earlier post, I think 5 years is manageable. It is not ideal, but that is another story. I think signing Markstrom for 4 years or more means you probably are moving Demko, and looking to dipietro or someone else as the next goalie, and they would need another few years in the minors when Markstrom is still going to be lights out, and then as he declines you should have the cheap young guy to balance the cost.

I really again worry about Tanev's health moving forward. He is at the age where he will decline on top of significant injury history. I think we have already started to see some decline this season. While I wouldn't just walk away from him, I take Markstrom at 5 years 6 mil over Tanev at say 6 mil and 3 years. Preferably I don't have to make that choice but between the two.

It is compounded as well by the sheer lack of blueline prospects we have that look capable of doing what Tanev do.

 

[Bobby Digital]

You cannot let Markstrom walk for nothing. I'm personally against giving goalies 30+ long term with a high cap hit and even more so when you have a good young goalie who fits our cores age group and who could be had for much cheaper.

Personally I would trade Markstrom but that will never happen in our position. Sucks that this is the year we decide to overachieve as Tanev + Markstrom could land us a great haul. Both of them have a pretty high risk to really screw our cap up with the deals they'll command and letting them walk for nothing would really suck.

 

[Bubbles]

Personally I would trade Markstrom but that will never happen in our position. Sucks that this is the year we decide to overachieve as Tanev + Markstrom could land us a great haul. Both of them have a pretty high risk to really screw our cap up with the deals they'll command and letting them walk for nothing would really suck.

Tanev, I agree with. But when's the last time a no.1 goalie gets traded in the season heading into UFA? Markstrom's value was the highest in the offseason, when teams address their goaltending. All playoff contending teams are set in their goaltending. His TRADE value is ZERO, his real value is a lot.

You have to find a team that absolutely loves Markstrom, and you might get an ok pick. Florida wanted Bobrovsky bad and even put feelers to get him, but they just waited until the offseason to get him.

 

[mossey3535]

Everyone here knows I love Marky. But I think his window of elite play is 2-3 years as I stated above. After that is bonus and uncertain.

Do I believe that this team can compete for the Cup in 2-3 years? No. It saddens me to say it, but I don't. Even with some of the contracts expiring, their timing stinks.

If this was a team with just an average cap situation, then I could see the financial room to add improvements especially on the back-end. Then hopefully some of the forward prospects come along and the team would come together. With our cap situation, I just don't see it.

There might be an outside chance of us being really good at year three, but until then you have to roll with Demko and DiPietro. With where I see this team, those two faltering a little but continuing to develop is probably good for this team - they could miss the playoffs 1/3 years and it wouldn't matter and maybe even let us add a significant piece through the draft. This is one area of relative strength (although nobody is after DiPietro...) where we can skimp on salary.

 

[mossey3535]

Having said all that, although I believe in Demko long term and think he is potentially a special goalie....if we trade Marky I expect him to crater next year. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that he takes on a 50+ game starter's role with the increased opposition scouting and just the sheer mental toughness of the transition to starter and performs on the level we've seen this year in very limited viewings. IMO we've already seen even this season where he can absolutely bomb it, and instances where skilled and/or fast opposition has exploited known weaknesses.

I would love to be wrong about the previous paragraph, but it wouldn't change the cap situation and the general team composition in front of him.

But again, I think that's actually good for the team overall since this year's playoffs is a mirage.

 

[Bobby Digital]

Tanev, I agree with. But when's the last time a no.1 goalie gets traded in the season heading into UFA? Markstrom's value was the highest in the offseason, when teams address their goaltending. All playoff contending teams are set in their goaltending. His TRADE value is ZERO, his real value is a lot.

You have to find a team that absolutely loves Markstrom, and you might get an ok pick. Florida wanted Bobrovsky bad and even put feelers to get him, but they just waited until the offseason to get him.

The Bobrovsky situation was different. Firstly CBJ went all in last year for a cup run so Bob was not available. We dont know what Flordia was willing to give up. Not to mention the rumors during the season that Bob already had his sights set on Florida which played into their hand.

I think interest in Markstrom could be higher than you're led to believe. He will not command a monstrous dollar amount on an extension which should lead to more suitors. I could see a playoff team like Carolina being interested as well as a few non playoff teams. I dont think getting a late 1st or early to mid 2nd + another pick or B level prospect being out of the question. I do agree however that moving him in the off season would have been much easier.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I'd try trading Baertschi and Sutter for at 50% for anything, and trade Pearson for futures. Use the cap savings to sign Markstrom at a higher cap hit but lower term, and pay Hughes and Pettersson's bonuses. If Markstrom won't sign 4 or less years then walk away.

 

[42]

Why would you not give him 5 years if the AAV can be kept lower? 5 years at 5.5 mil per is a reasonable c0ntract. It's not like Markstrom is likely to see a huge drop in his game between years 4 and 5 and if one year makes the difference between getting him signed or not, it should not be the sticking point.

 

[BerSTUzzi]

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy does this always happen. I could imagine a team like Carolina to pay through the moon for Marky, Toronto desperately needs Tanev. This is 2006 season all over again when we lost Jovo, Ohlund and Salo down the stretch and ended up with Carney, Weinrich and Noronen? Whenever we have a chance to take a half step back to make four steps forward this team gets stuck looking at their toes instead of what is down at the end of the street.

 

[Hit the post]

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy does this always happen. I could imagine a team like Carolina to pay through the moon for Marky, Toronto desperately needs Tanev. This is 2006 season all over again when we lost Jovo, Ohlund and Salo down the stretch and ended up with Carney, Weinrich and Noronen? Whenever we have a chance to take a half step back to make four steps forward this team gets stuck looking at their toes instead of what is down at the end of the street.

Funny it don’t look like 2006 to me. Back then we had a guy named Kevin who should’ve been played over the likes of Weinrich and or Brown.

 

[absolute garbage]

Looking at 6 plus million goalie club

Price
Lundqvist
Bob
Holtby
Crawford
Rask
Gibson
Hellebuyck
Crawford
Holtby

Markstrom doesn't have the resume of these goalies when they got those contracts. I don't think Markstrom deserve 6 M. He is more of a 5 M goalie similiar to Anderssen.

You realize Andersen signed his contract in 2016? It was 7% of the cap, which would be 5.8-6M with 83-85M cap.

I think that, at this stage of his career, the most important thing for Markstrom is the total money. I bet the bottom line for him is that he wants 30+ million. Wonder if the Canucks would go for max term to keep the cap hit down, like 8 years at 4M/yr. Money front loaded. Would obviously be an anchor in 5 or so years, but they would get him for cheap before that which would help with the cap issues. It's not like Benning will be employed at that time anymore anyway.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Why would you not give him 5 years if the AAV can be kept lower? 5 years at 5.5 mil per is a reasonable c0ntract. It's not like Markstrom is likely to see a huge drop in his game between years 4 and 5 and if one year makes the difference between getting him signed or not, it should not be the sticking point.

Considering what Markström has shown and what he has done for this team, I think it's crazy to talk about letting him walk for this kind of money. I mean, come on, around $6m for a goalie that is zoned in, is competitive, big, athletic, what else do you want?

Why are the albatross contracts a part of the discussion of Markström's payment towards the cap?

Vancouver fans: "Markström is the MVP. He's the absolutely biggest reason we're not a bottom feeder."
Also Vancouver fans: "$6 mil at 5 years? What a ripoff."

Come on. So you're willing to dump Markström for the prospect of Demko maybe being an elite first starter? Talk about HF gamblers. Let's dump proven skill, let's always hope for the "if".

I really hope Markström can come to a fair deal and stay, because he has just entered his prime. You want Demko because he's potentially better. Well.... Vancouver just traded for Toffoli. You want to push for the playoffs, while getting rid of the perhaps best player on the team?

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Just found this
Huh

 

[keslerburrows]

3x6

 

[iceburg]

Just found this
Huh

I think you just cost Markstrom $500k

 

[MarkMM]

Considering what Markström has shown and what he has done for this team, I think it's crazy to talk about letting him walk for this kind of money. I mean, come on, around $6m for a goalie that is zoned in, is competitive, big, athletic, what else do you want?

Why are the albatross contracts a part of the discussion of Markström's payment towards the cap?

Vancouver fans: "Markström is the MVP. He's the absolutely biggest reason we're not a bottom feeder."
Also Vancouver fans: "$6 mil at 5 years? What a ripoff."

Come on. So you're willing to dump Markström for the prospect of Demko maybe being an elite first starter? Talk about HF gamblers. Let's dump proven skill, let's always hope for the "if".

I really hope Markström can come to a fair deal and stay, because he has just entered his prime. You want Demko because he's potentially better. Well.... Vancouver just traded for Toffoli. You want to push for the playoffs, while getting rid of the perhaps best player on the team?

The reason for me is that Benning continuously saddled the team with idiotic contracts, so we're now looking at the prospect of having to nickel and dime or even lose a starting goaltender because Benning blew his tiny brains out with a bunch of overpaid replaceable bottom sixers. Either we keep the cap space to keep our stars when their contracts come up in Petersson and Hughes or we lose Markstrom/Tanev, all because Benning and his defenders thought Eriksson and Beagle and Roussel were smart decisions.

 

[Luck 6]

We could probably afford to sign Toffoli for about 5mil, Markstrom at 5.75mil, and Tanev at 5.5mil as long as the cap went up to 83.5mil, we can trade Sutter (or Eriksson) without taking cap back, and we buy out Roussel and Baertschi to free up some space.

We’d need to get Virtanen at about 3mil and Gaudette at about 2.5mil as well.

It would be tight, but we could do it. Sutter with 1 year left is very tradable Id think, there would just need to be a player buy in to keep everyone together.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

It’s the Edler situation all over again
If you can’t get the term that favourites the team, you don’t resign him, I don’t want to see Markstrom on this team when he’s 36+