F A N
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2005
- 18,626
- 5,890
Oilers, Calgary and Sharks.
Oilers have Koskinen making $4.5M and Sharks are locked in with Jones. Calgary? Right now they like Rittich, but a lot can change.
Oilers, Calgary and Sharks.
Hey, I was posting in the Comets forum during the game webcast...wrong threadThis is about the oddest post since Heinz said Ferland was an elite 1st line forward.
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.
He's 29 now, but will be 30 when the new contract begins.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.
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.
For a 'reasonable' low/high range I'd anticipate from 3/$15m to 5/$30m.
All have a goalie signed. SJ can’t unload Jones to someone else.Oilers, Calgary and Sharks.
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 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).
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.
...That said, Benning almost screwed it up by waiving Markstrom early on. Luckily, he wasn't burned for it.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
This right here.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 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