Player Discussion Replacing Jacob Markstrom

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
What do people think Markstrom is entitled to? Sure he is 29 and will be signing his last big contract, likely, but he hasn't done much so far to merit big money. His highest wins total is 28, has career SV% of .909 and has never done anything in the playoffs. I don't see him getting much more than $4.5 AAV. Something like 22 - 23 million over 5 years is a reasonable contract for him.

What he's entitled to doesn't really matter, it's all about what the market will give him. And that can be quite unpredictable, as can be seen this past summer where UFA started with Jeff Skinner signing a $9Mx8 contract and ended with Jake Gardiner signing $4.05x4 - different positions but two players who were probably considered roughly close in value going into the summer.

The safest thing to say is that the starting price for Markstrom should be $5M a year, fairly standard for a starting goalie, but he'll aim for higher but how much he gets and for how long depends on the teams pursuing him if he makes it to July 1st. For a 'reasonable' low/high range I'd anticipate from 3/$15m to 5/$30m.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Extrapolater

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,593
9,427
What he's entitled to doesn't really matter, it's all about what the market will give him. And that can be quite unpredictable, as can be seen this past summer where UFA started with Jeff Skinner signing a $9Mx8 contract and ended with Jake Gardiner signing $4.05x4 - different positions but two players who were probably considered roughly close in value going into the summer.

The safest thing to say is that the starting price for Markstrom should be $5M a year, fairly standard for a starting goalie, but he'll aim for higher but how much he gets and for how long depends on the teams pursuing him if he makes it to July 1st. For a 'reasonable' low/high range I'd anticipate from 3/$15m to 5/$30m.
He's 29 now, but will be 30 when the new contract begins.

How many teams are in the market for a goalie in the off-season? If teams have a $4 million plus starter, chances are not high that they can move off that contract. They will have to eat it, via buyout.

There's really like 4 or so other teams that would be in the market for Markstrom. Holtby, as a UFA would eat up one of those spots. Washington in the same situation as Vancouver, with Samsonov in the backup role right now looking to take over once Seattle enters the NHL. But, he'd have to be the top guy as they can't afford Holtby. Lehner is UFA in Chicago. Only took a 1 year deal. Numbers this season with Chicago are good. 14 starts, 2.71 GAA .929 SV%. He could extend longer term with Chicago given the concussion history for Crawford. Thomas Greiss is UFA (Isles will let him if. They are still trying to pry Ilya Sorokin out of the KHL.) Greiss has very good numbers under Trotz, but that may be more the system than the goalie. So, buyer beware there.

Both guys would extend with their current clubs. But, they would do so knowing that there is not guarantee that they would be protected for the ED. Could get a NTC (even partial) to dictate where else they would like to go after another season.

Columbus is the most glaring team in need of a goalie upgrade. Ottawa as well, but they may not be interested in spending the money.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
What he's entitled to doesn't really matter, it's all about what the market will give him. And that can be quite unpredictable, as can be seen this past summer where UFA started with Jeff Skinner signing a $9Mx8 contract and ended with Jake Gardiner signing $4.05x4 - different positions but two players who were probably considered roughly close in value going into the summer.

Close in value as in AAV? Skinner is 27 years old and coming off a 40 goal 63 point season. He's also played 82 games 3 out of the past 4 seasons. Gardiner is 29 with suspect health and coming off yet another bad playoff year. Forwards, particularly goal scorers, make more money than Dmen.

For a 'reasonable' low/high range I'd anticipate from 3/$15m to 5/$30m.

So you're predicting that Markstrom gets less money per year on a shorter contract? I don't see it. If he's getting term he's getting less money per year.
 

Horse McHindu

They call me Horse.....
Jun 21, 2014
9,668
2,650
Beijing
Canucks should keep Markstrom unless Demko steps it up a notch:

A few weeks ago, I would have suggested the following idea:

To Calgary: Markstrom + one of our defenseman.
To Vancouver: Talbot + a defenseman from Calgary.

The idea being that the downgrade from Markstrom to Talbot would be the approximate equivalent of the defenseman that we'd trade to Calgary for their defenseman.

My thought process behind said deal was that Demko was good enough to be a "1A" goalie for the time being and was ready to assume 50% of the starts (and hence, another 1A goalie in Talbot being an ideal tandem partner). The Canucks would get an upgrade on defense, while Demko would get more opportunities to play which would result in his game growing. The Canucks could then extend Demko to a cap friendly bridge, while exposing Talbot in the expansion draft.

That was my thought process a few weeks ago, but now I'm not so sure. I think for this year atleast, the Canucks might be better off holding onto Markstrom *unless* Demko can really prove that he's worthy of being a "1A" goalie right now. Demko is still a great young asset, but I'm not sure if he's been as sharp lately as he was at the start of the year. Being a 1A goalie might overwhelm him at this point.

Might be better to keep Markstrom and Demko for this year, and see how things play out. The Canucks might need to re-sign Markstrom, and then move Demko either at the draft or next year's trade deadline.

Another idea that I was toying with, was the idea of trading 4 green houses for a red hotel at the draft (i.e. packaging Demko, Gaudette, Virtanen, etc.) for possibly a lottery pick. Ideally, I wouldn't like to do something like that since depth is so important in today's game, but the cap is the cap. In this hypothetical, the Canucks would take a calculated risk that Tyler Madden could replace Brandon Sutter in a few years, while Michael Dipietro could eventually be where Demko is right now.
 

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,593
9,427
Oilers, Calgary and Sharks.
All have a goalie signed. SJ can’t unload Jones to someone else.
Koskinen doing fine. Still only 35% through the season.
rittich not making huge money.

goalies, you can’t offload a bad contract. Not like dropping a skater down the depth chart.
 

CherryToke

Registered User
Oct 18, 2008
26,735
8,217
Coquitlam
Better be careful here.. Markstrom is one of the best goalies in the league but this dreadful team drags his stats into the mud. Would hate to see him dominate on a rival team.
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
I thought Gillis left nothing for Benning to work with? Markstrom might well be the starting goalie for the next few years (at that point being about a decade after Gilligan was fired).
 
  • Like
Reactions: vanuck

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
I thought Gillis left nothing for Benning to work with? Markstrom might well be the starting goalie for the next few years (at that point being about a decade after Gilligan was fired).

I don't think Markstrom is any shining example of a Gillis acquisition. It took Markstrom 4 1/2 years as a Canuck to be an above average #1 goalie.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
I thought Gillis left nothing for Benning to work with? Markstrom might well be the starting goalie for the next few years (at that point being about a decade after Gilligan was fired).


Markstrom turned out to be an excellent acquisition. Brilliant pro-scouting. They saw the potential and knew they had the infrastructure in place to get him turned around. Kudos to Gillis.

That said, Benning almost screwed it up by waiving Markstrom early on. Luckily, he wasn't burned for it.
 
Last edited:

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
Sending Markstrom down for extra AHL seasoning + Calder Cup run helped turn Markstrom's career around. He was not ready for the NHL. Brilliant foresight by Benning.
 

Peter Griffin

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
34,783
7,030
Visit site
The Canucks should be doing everything they can to get Markstrom re-signed at a reasonable rate and term(4 years, $20M ala Semyon Varlamov?). If they manage that, I'd be shopping Demko this off-season to avoid being squeezed closer to the expansion draft and if they can get a nice future piece(young RH'ed d-man or 1st round pick), I'd move him. Markstrom should have another 3 seasons at least of solid play and if DiPietro continues to play well he'll probably be ready for NHL action in another 2 seasons.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
The Canucks should be doing everything they can to get Markstrom re-signed at a reasonable rate and term(4 years, $20M ala Semyon Varlamov?). If they manage that, I'd be shopping Demko this off-season to avoid being squeezed closer to the expansion draft and if they can get a nice future piece(young RH'ed d-man or 1st round pick), I'd move him. Markstrom should have another 3 seasons at least of solid play and if DiPietro continues to play well he'll probably be ready for NHL action in another 2 seasons.


The issue is Demko's limited value and high upside. They now have to make a difficult decision. Either they re-sign Markstrom and risk losing Demko to Seattle. Or, they let Markstrom walk for nothing. Poor planning that now has to be salvaged.

It's not all bad though, they lucked out by not losing him on waivers. Now, they have a positive value situation to deal with instead of looking back at what could have been a colossal mistake. Luck matters.
 

joelCAMEL

Registered User
Apr 17, 2018
386
204
Vancouver
...That said, Benning almost screwed it up by waiving Markstrom early on. Luckily, he wasn't burned for it.

I do not understand why posters bring up Markstrom on waivers, from time to time.

Markstrom was waived just before the 2014-2015 season, at the same time that all NHL teams waiver their extra players. Only 4 players were claimed before that season started. The previous year, he was 1-6 with Florida, 12-11 with their AHL team and 1-2 with Vancouver. Do you really think there was a probability of losing him at that time, being a 24 year old goalie with a 12-27 NHL record?

If you do, then I was wrong about your hockey analytic abilities.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: geebster and F A N

hellstick

Registered User
Nov 2, 2006
4,523
1,956
Abbotsford
I do not understand why posters bring up Markstrom on waivers, from time to time.

Markstrom was waived just before the 2014-2015 season, at the same time that all NHL teams waiver their extra players. Only 4 players were claimed before that season started. The previous year, he was 1-6 with Florida, 12-11 with their AHL team and 1-2 with Vancouver. Do you really think there was a probability of losing him at that time, being a 24 year old goalie with a 12-27 NHL record?

If you do, then I was wrong about your hockey analytic abilities.
Honestly, I thought it was a shrewd bit of GM work, which isn't something I can say often about Benning. They started Markstrom in a non-televised game out of Utah (if I recall), and placed him on waivers immediately afterwards. It was early in pre-season so teams were still looking at their guys to see what was there. We had Benning's big signing, Ryan Miller, and Eddie Lack in net. It was a decisive move and it paid off, though I guess I understand the concern that the main piece in the Luongo trade was almost lost for nothing.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
I do not understand why posters bring up Markstrom on waivers, from time to time.

Markstrom was waived just before the 2014-2015 season, at the same time that all NHL teams waiver their extra players. Only 4 players were claimed before that season started. The previous year, he was 1-6 with Florida, 12-11 with their AHL team and 1-2 with Vancouver. Do you really think there was a probability of losing him at that time, being a 24 year old goalie with a 12-27 record?

If you do, then I was wrong about your hockey analytic abilities.


Probability is hard to gauge now given the limitations of memory and exact details of context. We would have to quantify for each team: roster depth, motivations, cap, tradeable contracts etc...

Generally though, I do believe that a player of Markstrom's ability would be an enticing free addition to any team. Especially when you use Benning as a litmus test. He chose to pay assets for Baertschi and Granlund when Waiver status loomed large. Arguably lesser assets in terms of upper end ability.Why then risk losing Markstrom for nothing? Illogical.





Now about analytical abilities: Let's take a look at what you have said:

1. 24 year old goalie.
2. 12-27 record.

Ok, if you did your diligence, you would have noticed that the FLA's only winning season during Markstrom's tenure there was in 2011-12. Where, Markstrom got to play 7 games. So of those 39 NHL games, he was in a favourable context for 7 of them. Did you think he was going to amass a winning record?

Next, why is 24 years old your cut off point? If I'm doing my math correctly, Cory Schneider had 10 NHL games to his resume by the time he was 23. In his 24th year, he got 25 games. 35 games vs. 39 games by 24 years old... The Canucks even delayed Demko to 24 years of age before giving him more than 10 NHL starts?

Last, let's look at Markstrom's Rampage+Americans record. He finished with a winning record of 61-58, all while only getting to play with a winning squad in 1 of the 4 years. Despite this, his GAA never crested 3.00. As well, he maintained a 0.918 SV% while facing over 3500~ shots. To compare, Schneider faced 3500~ shots while playing for a winning Moose squad and his SV% was 0.921. CS's GAA was obviously much better, but again, context. To compare again, Demko faced 3500~ shots and produced a 0.913 SV%. So even anecdotally, was Markstrom was appreciably worse by comparison?
 

joelCAMEL

Registered User
Apr 17, 2018
386
204
Vancouver
Probability is hard to gauge now given the limitations of memory and exact details of context. We would have to quantify for each team: roster depth, motivations, cap, tradeable contracts etc...

Generally though, I do believe that a player of Markstrom's ability would be an enticing free addition to any team. Especially when you use Benning as a litmus test. He chose to pay assets for Baertschi and Granlund when Waiver status loomed large. Arguably lesser assets in terms of upper end ability.Why then risk losing Markstrom for nothing? Illogical.





Now about analytical abilities: Let's take a look at what you have said:

1. 24 year old goalie.
2. 12-27 record.

Ok, if you did your diligence, you would have noticed that the FLA's only winning season during Markstrom's tenure there was in 2011-12. Where, Markstrom got to play 7 games. So of those 39 NHL games, he was in a favourable context for 7 of them. Did you think he was going to amass a winning record?

Next, why is 24 years old your cut off point? If I'm doing my math correctly, Cory Schneider had 10 NHL games to his resume by the time he was 23. In his 24th year, he got 25 games. 35 games vs. 39 games by 24 years old... The Canucks even delayed Demko to 24 years of age before giving him more than 10 NHL starts?

Last, let's look at Markstrom's Rampage+Americans record. He finished with a winning record of 61-58, all while only getting to play with a winning squad in 1 of the 4 years. Despite this, his GAA never crested 3.00. As well, he maintained a 0.918 SV% while facing over 3500~ shots. To compare, Schneider faced 3500~ shots while playing for a winning Moose squad and his SV% was 0.921. CS's GAA was obviously much better, but again, context. To compare again, Demko faced 3500~ shots and produced a 0.913 SV%. So even anecdotally, was Markstrom was appreciably worse by comparison?

Markstrom was 24 years when he was placed on waivers. He played in the NHL at 20 years old. It was not a cutoff point.

You are throwing red herrings by comparing Markstrom with Schneider and Demko, shot totals, save %, GAA, etc. They were not placed on waivers when they got sent down. He did not win any awards for his efforts.

It is a simple waiver transaction. While you may think Markstrom would be an enticing free addition to a NHL roster, after amassing a losing record in the NHL and a 61-58 record in the minors, it is not very impressive. Who had a need for Markstrom as their NHL backup goalie in 2014? If he was claimed and then waived again, Vancouver would probably claim him back and sent him to Utica.

If Florida did not make the Luongo trade and placed Markstrom on waivers in 2014, then would you have claimed him and then waived Eddie Lack?

I am sure I could find a quote from Rollie Melanson saying that Markstrom was not ready to be a NHL backup in 2014.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F A N

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
Markstrom was 24 years when he was placed on waivers. He played in the NHL at 20 years old. It was not a cutoff point.

You are throwing red herrings by comparing Markstrom with Schneider and Demko, shot totals, save %, GAA, etc. They were not placed on waivers when they got sent down. He did not win any awards for his efforts.

It is a simple waiver transaction. While you may think Markstrom would be an enticing free addition to a NHL roster, after amassing a losing record in the NHL and a 61-58 record in the minors, it is not very impressive. Who had a need for Markstrom as their NHL backup goalie in 2014? If he was claimed and then waived again, Vancouver would probably claim him back and sent him to Utica.

If Florida did not make the Luongo trade and placed Markstrom on waivers in 2014, then would you have claimed him and then waived Eddie Lack?

I am sure I could find a quote from Rollie Melanson saying that Markstrom was not ready to be a NHL backup in 2014.


Out of everything you have typed, "who had a need in 2014?" is perhaps the only relevant bit of information. It's the only question/comment worth exploring. The rest doesn't matter.

On red herrings: What in the world are you talking about? I post relevant statistics for all three goalies in an effort to quantify Markstrom's performance, relative to his context and relative to other valued goalie prospects, and this is a red herring? This is the most relevant information to the critique. For you to say it was "not very impressive", you would have had to have done your own homework on it, yes? Please let's see this breakdown. I'm not even saying your read is inaccurate, I just want to see your diligence here.

Let's put this another way: You think that going 61 and 58 is pedestrian for a goalie when playing on a winning club for only 24% of that time? Think about your answer here.

Waiving him was pure stupidity. It was a failure in reading Markstrom's upside and in understanding what he was prior to Benning coming aboard. I would not risk losing an asset for nothing. It's especially perplexing that Benning chose to do so considering what type of assets he's chosen to pay for instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vanuck

joelCAMEL

Registered User
Apr 17, 2018
386
204
Vancouver
Out of everything you have typed, "who had a need in 2014?" is perhaps the only relevant bit of information. It's the only question/comment worth exploring. The rest doesn't matter.

On red herrings: What in the world are you talking about? I post relevant statistics for all three goalies in an effort to quantify Markstrom's performance, relative to his context and relative to other valued goalie prospects, and this is a red herring? This is the most relevant information to the critique. For you to say it was "not very impressive", you would have had to have done your own homework on it, yes? Please let's see this breakdown. I'm not even saying your read is inaccurate, I just want to see your diligence here.

Let's put this another way: You think that going 61 and 58 is pedestrian for a goalie when playing on a winning club for only 24% of that time? Think about your answer here.

Waiving him was pure stupidity. It was a failure in reading Markstrom's upside and in understanding what he was prior to Benning coming aboard. I would not risk losing an asset for nothing. It's especially perplexing that Benning chose to do so considering what type of assets he's chosen to pay for instead.

I am looking at the point of view of the other NHL teams in Oct, 2014. They have their team set with 2 goalies. If Markstrom's stats were more impressive than their own backup goalie, then yes, he would have been, like you say, an enticing free addition, but his were not and he did not get claimed.

That is my diligence and because you choose to over analyze this waiver transaction, then don't blame me if I see no need to do likewise. Since you were not in favour of waiving Marky, then you would have had no problem in waiving Lack.
 
Last edited:

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
I am looking at the point of view of the other NHL teams in Oct, 2014. They have their team set with 2 goalies. If Markstrom's stats were more impressive than their own backup goalie, then yes, he would have been, like you say, an enticing free addition, but his were not and he did not get claimed.

That is my diligence and because you choose to over analyze this waiver transaction, then don't blame me if I see no need to do likewise. Since you were not in favour of waiving Marky, then you would have had no problem in waiving Lack.


The difference is that I chose to analyze Markstrom’s performance, while you refused to do so. This isn’t over-analyzing, it’s just doing the required work.

You cited his NHL record. Then I asked if he was supposed to have a winning record while playing only 7 games on a winner? Fair question.

Then, you cited his AHL record as not being impressive. I asked you what you would consider impressive given that 24% of his games were played on a winning team? Again, fair.

I then pointed out his SV% relative to high values prospects on better teams. This was to show how fine a line you were cutting in the big picture.

So you see, it’s not really fair to say his record was worse and that’s why he didn’t get claimed. Obviously, he had to have been evaluated as a growing prospect-Which is still far more valuable than an aged back up with a better NHL record. Right?

I wasn’t in favour of the Miller signing, so my logic flows from there. Without him, there’s no need to risk waiving Markstrom. Even with him signed, they could have waived a replacement level player with little upside instead of waiving a high upside prospect. Does that sound reasonable? Or do you think Markstrom had to be waived?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vanuck

Green Blank Stare

Drance approved coach
May 16, 2019
1,311
1,608
The Canucks should be doing everything they can to get Markstrom re-signed at a reasonable rate and term(4 years, $20M ala Semyon Varlamov?). If they manage that, I'd be shopping Demko this off-season to avoid being squeezed closer to the expansion draft and if they can get a nice future piece(young RH'ed d-man or 1st round pick), I'd move him. Markstrom should have another 3 seasons at least of solid play and if DiPietro continues to play well he'll probably be ready for NHL action in another 2 seasons.
This right here.
 

iFan

Registered User
May 5, 2013
8,758
2,777
Calgary
We can’t expose Demko to the expansion draft so Markstrom needs a one year deal but I doubt he’d go for that. Next year Demko could very well surpass Markstrom. It sucks but Canucks might be best off to let Marky go, we can’t pay him 6 million 5-6 years that I’m sure he’s wanting. For Markstrom this is his retirement deal and we have too many bad contracts and Luongo’s cap hit. If Marky was say 26 this is a different situation but at 30 and likely only a few more great years for him, it’s not worth losing Demko.
 

joelCAMEL

Registered User
Apr 17, 2018
386
204
Vancouver
The difference is that I choose to analyze Markstrom’s performance, while you really refuse to do so. This isn’t over-analyzing, it’s just doing the required work.

You cited his NHL record. Then I asked if he was supposed to have a winning record while playing only 7 games on a winner? Fair question.

Then, you cited his AHL record as not being impressive. I asked you what you would consider impressive given that 24% of his games were played on a winning team? Again, fair.

I then pointed out his SV% relative to high values prospects on better teams. This was to show how fine a line you were cutting in the big picture.

So you see, it’s not really fair to say his record was worse and that’s why he didn’t get claimed. Obviously, he had to have been evaluated as a growing prospect-Which is still far more valuable than an aged back up with a better NHL record. Right?

I wasn’t in favour of the Miller signing, so my logic flows from there. Without him, there’s no need to risk waiving Markstrom. Even with him signed, they could have waived a replacement level player with little upside instead of waiving a high upside prospect. Does that sound reasonable? Or do you think Markstrom had to be waived?

I responded to your post, and not the previous posters about Markstrom on waivers because I knew you would give me your honest answer.

My position looks at the actual situation: there were 3 goalies under contract and 1 of them needed to go down to Utica. Assume I gave you the assignment of recommending which goalie to send down:

You say We never should have signed Miller
I say Too bad, he is signed

You say Miller goes to Utica
I say No, Miller is our starter

You say Trade one of them
I say No, we need them all for now

You comment that I never respond to your questions. Would you have kept Markstrom over Lack? What was your reaction to Markstrom on waivers at the time, in 2014? I was lurking here then, and my only thought was that I hoped Markstrom could regain whatever made him the no. 1 goalie not playing in the NHL
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,571
I responded to your post, and not the previous posters about Markstrom on waivers because I knew you would give me your honest answer.

My position looks at the actual situation: there were 3 goalies under contract and 1 of them needed to go down to Utica. Assume I gave you the assignment of recommending which goalie to send down:

You say We never should have signed Miller
I say Too bad, he is signed

You say Miller goes to Utica
I say No, Miller is our starter

You say Trade one of them
I say No, we need them all for now

You comment that I never respond to your questions. Would you have kept Markstrom over Lack? What was your reaction to Markstrom on waivers at the time, in 2014? I was lurking here then, and my only thought was that I hoped Markstrom could regain whatever made him the no. 1 goalie not playing in the NHL


I think your position looks at the situation, but not the player. It fails to properly evaluate the quality of the player at the time. Once it does evaluate the player, then weighing the benefits of said player versus keeping stale, aged back up alternatives becomes a rather straight forward discussion.

I normally do not indulge hypothetical arguments that begin from an arbitrary point in time and move forward. In this case, it would be the following paradigm you have put forward:

1. Miller is signed.
2. No trades.

But in this case, I will answer: I would have waived Sbisa, Stanton, Kenins, Biega or another depth player to run with a shortened roster. Then I would have kept the 3 goalies. Obviously not ideal, but the best of a self-inflicted bad situation. Fair or unfair?

Now that I have answered your question. Please answer the following: When did Markstrom go from being the number 1 goalie not in the NHL to someone you were indifferent to losing on waivers? What was the breaking point? Please quantify it. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->