Seachd
Registered User
- Mar 16, 2002
- 24,939
- 8,947
Dude, he’s not a cap dump. He had a .917 this year, which, for his salary, is pretty respectable.
Year one of that contract was a success, and there are only two more on it.
Rumor: Oilers hard after Markstrom
- Thread starter Canucks LB
- Start date
Dude, he’s not a cap dump. He had a .917 this year, which, for his salary, is pretty respectable.
Year one of that contract was a success, and there are only two more on it.
Hockey Rush
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2018
- 505
- 169
So in your mind McDavid and Drai haven't had more success than Petersson and Horvat? Interesting....
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,975
- 8,453
Treliving traded down twice this draft and still got his guy. Something like this, I doubt he flinches, or will call other's bluff with a grin on his face.
Merrrlin
Grab the 9 iron, Barry!
- Jul 2, 2019
- 6,768
- 6,925
So has Seravalli, Dreger and Lebrun. Not saying it’s gonna happen but they’ve been talking about it quite frequently the last couple days.
Holland can’t be too serious about Markstrom with his current predicament on defense. Oscar Klefbom has a sweetheart of a deal and won’t be easy or cheap to to replace; unless Holland is ok going into the season with 4 youngsters and Kris Russell, Nurse and Larsson.
Then there’s Markstrom’s perspective, is he ok going to a team that already has their established #1 on a multi year deal? I doubt he likes the idea of battling for starts this season. If Holland says something like we’ll trade him before the season starts, is that even realistic given his cap hit and the glut of goaltenders on the market? Trading Fleury’s contract at a reduced price has already been tough and he’s a future hall of famer.
From Markstrom’s perspective, I don’t think picking the Oilers makes as much sense as other teams as their already have a #1 and their #1 defenseman looks to be out next season. Doesn’t sound like an attractive proposition given the optics.
Then there’s Markstrom’s perspective, is he ok going to a team that already has their established #1 on a multi year deal? I doubt he likes the idea of battling for starts this season. If Holland says something like we’ll trade him before the season starts, is that even realistic given his cap hit and the glut of goaltenders on the market? Trading Fleury’s contract at a reduced price has already been tough and he’s a future hall of famer.
From Markstrom’s perspective, I don’t think picking the Oilers makes as much sense as other teams as their already have a #1 and their #1 defenseman looks to be out next season. Doesn’t sound like an attractive proposition given the optics.
YYCLetangStan
Registered User
McDavid and Draisaitl have gotten as far as 2nd round Game 7.
As have the Canucks young core.
That was my point.
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
Koskinen is a better goalie than Fleury is today, and doesn't bring the off ice headaches that Fleury's agent does. 2.5 mil cheaper is a significant cap savings as well.
If Murray can pull a 2nd+ after the season he just had and his rumoured contract ask, I can't see any reason that Koskinen couldn't do the same.
Koskinen was pretty good this year. He's not a high end goalie, but neither are guys like Murray and Fleury. The Oilers biggest hole will be defense this year with Klefbom out. After that, wing is a black hole of suckage too.
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
I think there'd be a market for him, for sure. But that's also why I'm not convinced we even need to chase Markstrom.
With RNH on the wing, Yamamoto emerging, and Puljujarvi back, it's not as bad as it used to be. Definitely need to add another top six winger, though.
Bankerguy
Registered User
- Apr 28, 2013
- 3,826
- 1,967
Real rich is generational money...and they don't always flex it like "new money". I will say though, out of everywhere i've been, the most baller area's in terms of just concentration of wealth would be Knightsbridge in London, Ginza and Apugeong / Gangnam in Seoul. The nightclub alleys that flank the main road near ganganam station... Bentley's Lambos, Mclaren's all night O.O ... the apartments there are reeeeeeeal nice tooMoney laundering
Real rich is London or Dubai IMO.
What is Puljujarvi? I don't think anyone knows right now. It wouldn't shock me if he puts up 20 or ends up in the AHL either. Yamamoto is looking good and RNH is good anywhere from 3C to 1W, but that's 2 top 6 wingers by my count.
Is Koskinen definitively better though? He had a good season this year, but had a rough playoffs and from what I can remember a very bad second half of 18-19. He’s still in the unproven category when it comes down to it for me.
Fleury’s age is obviously a concern and his play has deteriorated lately, but he’s still a Stanley Cup winner, 2 calendar years removed from a finals appearance and 1 year removed from being an all star. He’s got higher end ability that Koskinen has yet to reach.
Similar deal with Matt Murray, bad recently, but his high end ability and multiple Stanley Cups says he can be a legit #1 when healthy. Ottawa clearly sees something there, the real question is, does another team see that with Koskinen that they don’t see in any other goaltender on the market currently? I have to think that if Holland is in the market for a #1 goalie on the market, then maybe he doesn’t fully believe in Koskinen which says a lot I think.
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
He deteriorated a bit in 18-19, but you have to remember that we didn't really have a backup goalie at that point and Koskinen ended up playing something like 23 of the last 24 games. He wasn't used to that workload coming from the KHL.
I'd take the sample size of 40 over the sample size of 4, personally. and really he just didn't deliver a game-saving performance in the playoffs. He had one bad game and two meh ones. Crawford stepped up and stole the Hawks a game, he couldn't do the same - but again it's really small sample size.
Fleury's at the age where the bottom can fall out at any time and two straight years in decline is concerning. Vegas apparently shopped him around with a 2nd round pick and couldn't get anyone to take him. Koskinen being younger and better right now means to me he'd have some value - like I said, probably akin to what Murray returned.
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,975
- 8,453
The more I think about it, the more I'm curious about the concept of trading Koskinen for a refresh tandem move. It's not to say that there's no trust in Koskinen, but that IMO Edmonton needs a fresh air reset.
Instead of VGK retaining half, Koskinen for Fleury should work cap wise and Edmonton in theory should still pick up an asset from VGK. If VGK doesn't retain on Fleury, even with Koskinen going back, I think Edmonton can still demand the rumored 2nd if not more. Koskinen + Lehner tandem is respectable and it sure beats retaining half on MAF and still needing another inexpensive goalie.
This doesn't fill a tandem though and isn't a great option long term, so I wonder if then Edmonton opening their wallet to CBJ and nabbing an expansion exempt young guy to tandem with MAF makes sense. Moving Klefbom in this type of move might make sense as well for both teams (Klefbom calibre asset as a future asset eased back in for CBJ could work vs Edmonton needed NHL calibre assets immediately). Protect the young kid, MAF meets expansion requirements. MAF should be in theory an upgrade on Koskinen if not on par. The asset would help a bit to recoup extra assets lost this season due to Covid.
Markstrom doesn't make a ton of sense for Edmonton. It's too messy and too many moves to be cap compliant to ice a reasonable roster unless a team like Minny or Detroit are on speed dial to slurp up a trade like that easy peasy. IMO they're better off seeing if they can roll Holtby (if he goes FA) for less term (2-3 years) at a slightly lower cap hit than Markstrom is asking.
Bonham
Registered User
I love Markstrom and he has been, without a doubt, the Canuck's most important player the last few seasons.
That said, giving him a 6-7 year big money contract is extremely risky (crazy).
If this is the case, I am happy to see him move on and wish him the best.
That said, giving him a 6-7 year big money contract is extremely risky (crazy).
If this is the case, I am happy to see him move on and wish him the best.
My guess is the NTC is the holdup not the cash or term. He probably wants to be protected in the expansion draft and the Canucks (arguably rightly so) want to be able to protect Demko.
I don’t see it the same way. Ottawa traded for Murray because he has elite potential and they hope he can get back to form. Koskinen hasn’t reached that level yet, so he’s an unproven commodity that teams aren’t going to specifically target.
Like I said before, if Holland is looking to ante up big for Markstrom, then that says a lot about what he thinks of Koskinen IMO. Despite the similar numbers, Holland would rather pay millions more with considerably more term for an older goaltender? Something doesn’t add up there. So if Holland doesn’t believe in Koskinen, which teams will with the massive supply of goaltenders.
If I’m in Markstrom’s shoes, I’m going to a competitive team that meets my salary demands and has a #1 position gifted to me. I would want an NMC and the assurance of 55-60 games a season + all playoff games. Until the Canucks get rid of Demko and until the Oilers do the same for Koskinen, I don’t think I could sign on the dotted line.
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
Markstrom is steadier and has a longer history of success, it's not rocket science that we're interested. There's also the fact that he robs the Oilers blind every time we play him.
With Murray you have to weigh potential vs current performance. Saw it off and I think he and Koskinen have similar value.
Allegedly our offer is 7 years at 5 million and change. That won't get it done, but thats not that much more than Koskinen is making. Even assuming we land at 5.5-6, it's sensible.
NTC/NMC won't be an issue.
