Salary Cap: Markstrom or Demko?

[StreetHawk]

Demko

love Marky but at his age I’m not giving him 5 years. I’d go 3 years, maybe 4 if it brings down the AAV down enough to make sense and doesn’t include a full NTC/NMC.

I’m hoping Markstrom is also lenient on ED protection since Seattle is next door. That leaves the window open to still run with Demko long term

He’ll get better offers in the open market than what I’d give him.

Why would a player with leverage as ufa not want to have final say over where he plays when he has the chance? Why continue to hand the final decision to the Canucks?

he could sign with another club and get 5 years with full trade protection for the first 3 years.

 

[Nucker101]

Why would a player with leverage as ufa not want to have final say over where he plays when he has the chance? Why continue to hand the final decision to the Canucks?

he could sign with another club and get 5 years with full trade protection for the first 3 years.

I agree. See my first and last lines in that post.

 

[Didalee Hed]

I don't know why posters are criticizing Benning for being in this situation where you have a 30 year old goalie who has emerged as a top 5-10 goalie who wants to stay and a 24 year old relatively unproven goalie who might be ready to take over the #1 job. Ideally you have the younger goalie beat out the older goalie just as the older goalie's contract expires but that's calling for perfect timing.

This really isn't about cap space as much as whether you want to sign a 30 year old Markstrom to a 5 year contract at around $5M AAV.

Ideally you sign Markstrom to a short term contract at around $5M AAV with little to no NTC protection and no expansion draft protection. But that's not going to happen.

Personally, I think if the Canucks are going to bring Markstrom back, the Canucks should stand firm and not give Markstrom expansion draft protection. That way you can expose him and move on with a more proven Demko if need be.

But if I have to choose, I would roll the dice on Demko being the goalie of the present and future.



Except Markstrom didn't "break out" at age 30. He was "breaking out" just before he turned 29.

Nobody is criticizing Benning for having two good goalies. It’s just there is no faith that he can navigate the waters. He’s an idiot.

 

[Lupuls Grit]

My preference is to keep Demko but it would not break my heart to have Markstrom return at 4x5.5 and sign Lundquist as a back up for one year, one million dollars for an all-Swedish goalie tandem to go along with Edler and OEL on Defence. Would be great if the Canucks could get a late 1st for Demko or perhaps Detroit's 2nd round pick (32) along with one of their 3rd round picks. If that trade was arranged in advance, we could give Markstrom the NMC and perhaps reduce his salary or term demands.

 

[StreetHawk]

My preference is to keep Demko but it would not break my heart to have Markstrom return at 4x5.5 and sign Lundquist as a back up for one year, one million dollars for an all-Swedish goalie tandem to go along with Edler and OEL on Defence. Would be great if the Canucks could get a late 1st for Demko or perhaps Detroit's 2nd round pick (32) along with one of their 3rd round picks. If that trade was arranged in advance, we could give Markstrom the NMC and perhaps reduce his salary or term demands.

I think you have to keep Demko if you are keeping your bad contracts. There is only going to be internal improvement, no outside help coming. I don't see going with the goalie who has the shorter window and hoping that 1 year of Dipietro is enough to give you the confidence that is the better option that hoping for Demko to rise to the occasion.

 

[I am toxic]

I don't know why posters are criticizing Benning for being in this situation where you have a 30 year old goalie who has emerged as a top 5-10 goalie who wants to stay and a 24 year old relatively unproven goalie who might be ready to take over the #1 job. Ideally you have the younger goalie beat out the older goalie just as the older goalie's contract expires but that's calling for perfect timing.

This really isn't about cap space as much as whether you want to sign a 30 year old Markstrom to a 5 year contract at around $5M AAV.

Ideally you sign Markstrom to a short term contract at around $5M AAV with little to no NTC protection and no expansion draft protection. But that's not going to happen.

Personally, I think if the Canucks are going to bring Markstrom back, the Canucks should stand firm and not give Markstrom expansion draft protection. That way you can expose him and move on with a more proven Demko if need be.

But if I have to choose, I would roll the dice on Demko being the goalie of the present and future.



Except Markstrom didn't "break out" at age 30. He was "breaking out" just before he turned 29.

It's about cap space.


Same as Tryamkin.

The lineup the Canucks will be able to put on the ice is worse than it could be, because Benning effed up the cap.

Just as some here on HFBoards predicted, at the time of various terrible signings.

 

[lennor]

Demko for me. Helps cap and ends expansion draft talk.

 

[Cupless44]

Demko, he is ready for the next step, at 24 he is better than Marky ever was at 24. He fits the age of the young core. Salary ramifications obvious.

 

[F A N]

It's about cap space.

If you want to be technical sure. But if the Canucks have Colorado type cap room, is re-signing Markstrom a slam dunk? I don't think so. You still have to evaluate the signing based on the fact that the team has Demko and Markstrom will command at least what Lehner got.

 

[Fatass]

Demko, he is ready for the next step, at 24 he is better than Marky ever was at 24. He fits the age of the young core. Salary ramifications obvious.

If we sign Marky there is the trade value of Demko that needs to factored in to this situation too. Maybe (not sure really) Demko gets Benning a late first or couple seconds?

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Nobody is criticizing Benning for having two good goalies. It’s just there is no faith that he can navigate the waters. He’s an idiot.

He navigated the murky goaltending waters of the 2014 Canucks pretty well. Signed Miller to provide 3 years of stable goaltending and leadership, snuck Markstrom down for a year of crucial development, and identified Lack as the clear weak link (to the protestations of many here).

 

[VanJack]

It's about cap space.


Same as Tryamkin.

The lineup the Canucks will be able to put on the ice is worse than it could be, because Benning effed up the cap.

Just as some here on HFBoards predicted, at the time of various terrible signings.

It shouldn't really come down to either Demko or Markstrom....if the Canucks hadn't effed up the salary cap so badly, they'd be able to bring back both of them like they want to....and they'd probably be able to sign Tanev and Tofoli as well.

But when you look at the sickening amount of money the Canucks have tied up in mediocre veterans on the third and fourth lines, there's no chance. So if they have to go with Demko, maybe they can bring in someone like Henrik Lundquist as a reliable veteran backup. Since he's already got his money via a buyout from the Rangers, maybe he'd come here cheap.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Demko.

Ideally they sign Markstrom to a deal without requiring protection for the expansion draft and trade him at the deadline, assuming Demko seems somewhat ready. Or alternatively (and not likely), they work out a deal with Seattle in that they provide something like a 2nd round pick to promise not to select either goalie.

Markstrom's cap hit will hinder the rest of the roster, and the difference in quality between Markstrom and Demko likely isn't worth that cap space. It's hard to fairly judge Demko, as Tanev and Hughes were both injured when he took over the starting role last season (if my memory serves correct).

I have a gut feeling management goes with Markstrom and trades Demko for either a pick or to offload salary, but I really hope I'm wrong. Markstrom is currently the better goalie, and this management has a history of preferring the "win now" option over building for the future.

 

[StreetHawk]

Demko.

Ideally they sign Markstrom to a deal without requiring protection for the expansion draft and trade him at the deadline, assuming Demko seems somewhat ready. Or alternatively (and not likely), they work out a deal with Seattle in that they provide something like a 2nd round pick to promise not to select either goalie.

Markstrom's cap hit will hinder the rest of the roster, and the difference in quality between Markstrom and Demko likely isn't worth that cap space. It's hard to fairly judge Demko, as Tanev and Hughes were both injured when he took over the starting role last season (if my memory serves correct).

I have a gut feeling management goes with Markstrom and trades Demko for either a pick or to offload salary, but I really hope I'm wrong. Markstrom is currently the better goalie, and this management has a history of preferring the "win now" option over building for the future.

You also have to accept that Demko is rfa in 2021 and if he and his agent believe that another team is willing to drop $4 mill plus on him he’d take it. Think anything under $4.3 is a 2nd round pick.

Markstrom should sign somewhere that is prepared on the day he signs the papers to commit to him as their number one goalie for the foreseeable future. Best of luck to him.

 

[I am toxic]

If you want to be technical sure. But if the Canucks have Colorado type cap room, is re-signing Markstrom a slam dunk? I don't think so. You still have to evaluate the signing based on the fact that the team has Demko and Markstrom will command at least what Lehner got.

 

[Grumbler]

Demko, he has proven himself and is cheaper. Markstrom is getting too old. It is risky especially this day and age in hockey.

 

[tantalum]

Demko has in no way proven himself. He had some fantastic games in the playoffs, but his is a couple years removed from a low starters workload in the AHL. His play outside of a massive playoff surprise wasn’t that great this year and when Markstrom went down earlier in the year I don’t think he handled the workload very well.

It is unlikely that a Demko-? Pairing is going to be as good as a Markstrom-Demko pairing. The Canucks will take a hit if they let Markstrom walk. And it’s a hit they can ill afford to take if the last three seasons have taught us anything.

I understand sometimes you need to roll the dice a bit, but this is a self inflicted gamble that could blow up in their faces. How badly? Well sounds like the Flames are likely to make a big run at him if he hits free agency. To me this isn’t Schneider vs Luonngo. Demko hasn’t really shown he’s a top back up in the league let alone the heir apparent.
Of course at that age neither had Markstrom! I get that. It’s just a silly risk they’ve been forced into. Getting out of a cap jam shouldn’t cost you the guy who is arguably your most important player the last two years. Especially when the contract isn’t Likely to be that bad.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Demko, he has proven himself and is cheaper. Markstrom is getting too old. It is risky especially this day and age in hockey.

He didnt look too hot when Marky went down during the regular season.

He looked plenty hot during his couple games in the playoffs. Is that what you are referring to?

 

[Evgeny Oliker]

I'm curious how Vancouver fans think this situation will play out?

I would think your GM is waiting to see if he can get OEL by tomorrow (Friday) since OEL said thats the deadline for him to get traded. If Vancouver cant get OEL by noon EST tomorrow (free agency) , I would think they would focus giving Markstrom a little more to re-sign him and then use the rest of their cap to sign whoever is their Plan B UFA defenseman?

 

[Grumbler]

He didnt look too hot when Marky went down during the regular season.

He looked plenty hot during his couple games in the playoffs. Is that what you are referring to?

Yes, and playoffs is all that matters. Playoff performer > Regular season performer. And it should be that way as we've seen what happened when we don't judge this way in the Luongo era.

Now, it can be argued that Demko only played 3 games in the playoffs so consistency is a big question, but I'd still go with him despite this risk. Because those 3 games were all elimination games where the team has their backs against the wall and were outplayed severely. He only let in 2 goals in those 3 games.

Also keep in mind with the cap issues this team is dealing with.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Yes, and playoffs is all that matters. Playoff performer > Regular season performer. And it should be that way as we've seen what happened when we don't judge this way in the Luongo era.

Now, it can be argued that Demko only played 3 games in the playoffs so consistency is a big question, but I'd still go with him despite this risk. Because those 3 games were all elimination games where the team has their backs against the wall and were outplayed severely. He only let in 2 goals in those 3 games.

Also keep in mind with the cap issues this team is dealing with.

So a 3 game sample.

I have been told cap space doesnt matter.

 

[Grumbler]

So a 3 game sample.

I have been told cap space doesnt matter.

The games are not weighted the same.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Demko!

 

[VanJack]

According to the rumor mill, the Coyotes asked for Demko as part of the deal for OEL, and this was deemed a 'non-starter' by the Canucks. All of which tells me the Canucks don't have much confidence that Markstrom will be back.

 

[GetFocht]

Demko without a doubt, less cap space and will give the same results. His playoff performance is no different of when JS Giguere or Cam Ward established themselves as a #1 goalie.