Player Discussion Replacing Jacob Markstrom

[F A N]

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.

Exactly. It's just Benning haters trying to make Benning look bad.

In 2012-2013, Markstrom spent half the year in the AHL and had a 8-14 record with a .901 SV% at the NHL level.

In 2013-2014 Markstrom was 1-6 with a .0876 SV% with Florida and had a .0868 SV% in limited games as a Canuck. Which part of Markstrom's two most recent seasons at the time suggested he would have made a good NHL backup goalie?

It's like some people totally forgot what Markstrom was like as a starter until just before the 2nd half of last season. Markstrom had let in soft goals all the time and at the beginning of last season he let in the first goal off of the first shots at an alarming rate. All those years the team would have been better off with Luongo.

 

[joelCAMEL]

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 versus stale, aged back ups around the league becomes academic.

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 not concerned could have been lost on waivers? What was the breaking point, please quantify it. Thanks.

Thank you for indulging me. What you call arbitrary is the actual point in time where a decision had to be made, so it is wrong to call it a random point.

While your decision to keep 3 goalies is unconventional, it has happened in the NHL within the last 4 years. It would not have been my decision. Kevin Woodley agrees with you, but would keep the 3rd goalie in the minors.
Unmasked: Third-goalie option a must in NHL today

Before he started his career with Florida, he had that tag of the best goalie not in the NHL. After the Luongo trade, I looked again and saw nothing to indicate that he still had that 'Can't Miss' tag. I do not have the skills to quantify that in a manner that would satisfy you, anyways. The trade was a salary dump and a minor league player for a NHL roster player and a prospect, Markstrom.
The Problems Facing Vancouver Canucks Jacob Markstrom - Last Word on Hockey

You are wrong in thinking that I was unconcerned. I was concerned about losing him on waivers but I still consider that there was a high probability he would clear, and worth the risk. Post 90 gives my reasons. I cannot quantify it, the same as I cannot quantify crossing an intersection. I do know a green light gives a high prob of safety and an amber light gives a lower prob of safety. A red light will still give a possibility of safety.

I think Markstrom on waivers is like the light turning from green to amber when you are 3/4 across the street. You sound like you crossed the street on an amber light and you got lucky.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Lots of former 1st rounders with seemingly high potential hits the waiver right before the season every year. Not many players get claimed. I'm not surprised Markstrom got through. The odds was against him being picked up, it was a calculated risk with a very low probability of blowing up in Benning's face.
Going forward though, this Markstrom situation is a very important decision. Demko is still inconsistent, would anybody be comfortable going with him as a starter next season?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Thank you for indulging me. What you call arbitrary is the actual point in time where a decision had to be made, so it is wrong to call it a random point.

While your decision to keep 3 goalies is unconventional, it has happened in the NHL within the last 4 years. It would not have been my decision. Kevin Woodley agrees with you, but would keep the 3rd goalie in the minors.
Unmasked: Third-goalie option a must in NHL today

Before he started his career with Florida, he had that tag of the best goalie not in the NHL. After the Luongo trade, I looked again and saw nothing to indicate that he still had that 'Can't Miss' tag. I do not have the skills to quantify that in a manner that would satisfy you, anyways. The trade was a salary dump and a minor league player for a NHL roster player and a prospect, Markstrom.
The Problems Facing Vancouver Canucks Jacob Markstrom - Last Word on Hockey

You are wrong in thinking that I was unconcerned. I was concerned about losing him on waivers but I still consider that there was a high probability he would clear, and worth the risk. Post 90 gives my reasons. I cannot quantify it, the same as I cannot quantify crossing an intersection. I do know a green light gives a high prob of safety and an amber light gives a lower prob of safety. A red light will still give a possibility of safety.

I think Markstrom on waivers is like the light turning from green to amber when you are 3/4 across the street. You sound like you crossed the street on an amber light and you got lucky.

Markstrom being waived is the definition of adopting unnecessary risk. Even if you think the probability of him being claimed is low, it's not worth the risk given the type of asset he represented. Essentially, he was a starter at the AHL level while having great physical potential. His next step was graduation. Given that baseline and his relative age, I find the casual reaction regarding him being waived absurd. It shows a great disparity in how people evaluate players and situations.

I am absolutely confident that had he been claimed, there would be heated debates over him in the former player thread to this day. No question about it.



Now, it's not that you lack the skill to quantify your perception of him JC, you do. I want to see what you see. To me, the data I posted was not alarming. So it all paints a picture:

We have a big, athletic goalie prospect that was highly touted for some time. He plays in the AHL and has respectable numbers on predominately bad teams. The win/loss record and GAA are indicators of this. On the other hand, the SV% is an indicator of his ability despite these conditions.

Next, FLA and VAN are both bad at around the time of trade. He fails in FLA, gets 4 games with VAN in 2013-14, and then 3 games in 2014-15. Not nearly enough to get a good read because he lacks shot volume.

So he goes down to Utica and posts his best numbers since his 2011-12 season with the Rampage. The year prior (2013-14), the Moose were 35-32-0-9. That record is better than the majority of teams Markstrom had played for to that point. Only the 2011-12 Rampage bested it. So when heading into a better context, and being older, he posts his best numbers. Again, not surprising at all to me.

The disconnect is Markstrom's failure to secure an NHL around the time of trade. He had 35 games in FLA, failed, and then 7 games with VAN, and failed again. That's the divide. Now, if you think a failure to graduate given that context at 22-23 years of age is damning, you will not think that waiving such an asset is alarming. I don't think it was damning, so I think they waived a good asset for nothing.

NOTE: It is arbitrary to start counting decision at the time of waiving Markstrom. Decisions were made pre and post that move, yes? And so, to only start counting from there means you are setting the paradigm to that start point. It's choice. To contrast, I just choose to set it a bit earlier.

 

[joelCAMEL]

Markstrom being waived is the definition of adopting unnecessary risk. Even if you think the probability of him being claimed is low, it's not worth the risk given the type of asset he represented. Essentially, he was a starter at the AHL level while having great physical potential. His next step was graduation. Given that baseline and his relative age, I find the casual reaction regarding him being waived absurd. It shows a great disparity in how people evaluate players and situations.

I am absolutely confident that had he been claimed, there would be heated debates over him in the former player thread to this day. No question about it.



Now, it's not that you lack the skill to quantify your perception of him JC, you do. I want to see what you see. To me, the data I posted was not alarming. So it all paints a picture:

We have a big, athletic goalie prospect that was highly touted for some time. He plays in the AHL and has respectable numbers on predominately bad teams. The win/loss record and GAA are indicators of this. On the other hand, the SV% is an indicator of his ability despite these conditions.

Next, FLA and VAN are both bad at around the time of trade. He fails in FLA, gets 4 games with VAN in 2013-14, and then 3 games in 2014-15. Not nearly enough to get a good read because he lacks shot volume.

So he goes down to Utica and posts his best numbers since his 2011-12 season with the Rampage. The year prior (2013-14), the Moose were 35-32-0-9. That record is better than the majority of teams Markstrom had played for to that point. Only the 2011-12 Rampage bested it. So when heading into a better context, and being older, he posts his best numbers. Again, not surprising at all to me.

The disconnect is Markstrom's failure to secure an NHL around the time of trade. He had 35 games in FLA, failed, and then 7 games with VAN, and failed again. That's the divide. Now, if you think a failure to graduate given that context at 22-23 years of age is damning, you will not think that waiving such an asset is alarming. I don't think it was damning, so I think they waived a good asset for nothing.

NOTE: It is arbitrary to start counting decision at the time of waiving Markstrom. Decisions were made pre and post that move, yes? And so, to only start counting from there means you are setting the paradigm to that start point. It's choice. To contrast, I just choose to set it a bit earlier.

I recall that there was more disbelief on HF Canucks when Frankie Corrado was waived versus Jacob Markstrom being waived. Did you have the same opinion on Markstrom in 2014 that you have in 2019, and did you post it then? Did any current posters here see and concur with what you saw in Markstrom? If Markstrom was claimed, then I agree there would be heated debates in the former player thread, starting in 2018.

ROE, I have told you what I saw in Markstrom, and it was confirmed with the links I provided...an unproven prospect that had not lived up to his overseas reputation. Further, I decline to get into a quantitative debate over a simple waiver transaction. I have seen you before, doing the data dump and spin analysis, and I choose not to be on the receiving end.

In conclusion, you would not have waived Markstrom, but would have kept 3 goalies on the 23 man roster. Can I also assume that if the Luongo trade was not made and Florida had waived Markstrom themselves, then you would have recommended claiming Markstrom and have Luongo, Lack and Markstrom on the roster?

I had no issues with Markstrom being waived that year and playing in Utica. Your analysis was accurate because he was 2nd team all-star that year. Here is another article on Marky
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/jacob_markstrom/

I was hopeful about him turning from prospect to NHL player but had no reason to think he would get claimed. You disagree and have provided ample information. I apologize for questioning your hockey analytic abilities, but I do think that sometimes, you make mountains out of mole hills.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I recall that there was more disbelief on HF Canucks when Frankie Corrado was waived versus Jacob Markstrom being waived. Did you have the same opinion on Markstrom in 2014 that you have in 2019, and did you post it then? Did any current posters here see and concur with what you saw in Markstrom? If Markstrom was claimed, then I agree there would be heated debates in the former player thread, starting in 2018.

ROE, I have told you what I saw in Markstrom, and it was confirmed with the links I provided...an unproven prospect that had not lived up to his overseas reputation. Further, I decline to get into a quantitative debate over a simple waiver transaction. I have seen you before, doing the data dump and spin analysis, and I choose not to be on the receiving end.

In conclusion, you would not have waived Markstrom, but would have kept 3 goalies on the 23 man roster. Can I also assume that if the Luongo trade was not made and Florida had waived Markstrom themselves, then you would have recommended claiming Markstrom and have Luongo, Lack and Markstrom on the roster?

I had no issues with Markstrom being waived that year and playing in Utica. Your analysis was accurate because he was 2nd team all-star that year. Here is another article on Marky
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/jacob_markstrom/

I was hopeful about him turning from prospect to NHL player but had no reason to think he would get claimed. You disagree and have provided ample information. I apologize for questioning your hockey analytic abilities, but I do think that sometimes, you make mountains out of mole hills.

That this isn’t a ‘mountain’ is the true travesty here JC. The casual nature in which this misstep is talked about is eye-opening to me. It’s as if an unnecessary risk is deemed acceptable because of the associated probability, but not it’s negligence based existence.

Markstrom was unproven as an NHL back up, yes, but he had established himself as an AHL starter. That alone suggested a floor that was to be bettered.

But I get it, there were a lot of VAN fans that could not or would not establish that AHL starter baseline until they saw him do it in Utica. They had to see it first. Here’s the kicker though: Imagine radically changing your opinion on this prospect after 32 AHL games? Does that suggest to you that these fans had the right read on Markstrom in the first place? Not to me it doesn’t.

Finally, I’m not sure what you mean by “data dump and spin analysis”? If it’s one thing I will do, it’s my homework.

In the end, I think this gets forgotten because the NHL has always been an inefficient market. Good players can get waived. Players like Briere, Pomminville, Recchi and more have hit the waiver wire-Only to make the waiving team look foolish. Often times because the offending team has misread the player or the market. I feel that this was one of those times and the Canucks just didn’t get burned for it. Lucky for Jim and lucky for VAN fans.

 

[StreetHawk]

Always have to remember what the player was at the time of the move vs what they became afterwards.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Always have to remember what the player was at the time of the move vs what they became afterwards.

Who has forgotten?

If anything, a lot of people recognized his waiving as poor asset management at the time.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Markstrom’s new contract:

What do you guys think Markstrom will get on his new contract?

If I had to guess, my guess is that is he’d get $7,000,000 AAV over 5 years; The Marc Andre Fleury deal.

I do love Markstrom, but if the Canucks are 5 or more points out of the last wildcard spot at the deadline, they might have to move Markstrom here. Get a 1A goalie + 1st rounder, and split him 50-50 with Demko until the expansion draft (Demko could be ready to assume the number one spot bat that time). I’m not really a huge fan of this idea, but Markstrom at 7 million over 5 years would be difficult to absorb would it not? I don’t know.

 

[Diversification]

Markstrom’s new contract:

What do you guys think Markstrom will get on his new contract?

If I had to guess, my guess is that is he’d get $7,000,000 AAV over 5 years; The Marc Andre Fleury deal.

I do love Markstrom, but if the Canucks are 5 or more points out of the last wildcard spot at the deadline, they might have to move Markstrom here. Get a 1A goalie + 1st rounder, and split him 50-50 with Demko until the expansion draft (Demko could be ready to assume the number one spot bat that time). I’m not really a huge fan of this idea, but Markstrom at 7 million over 5 years would be difficult to absorb would it not? I don’t know.

Marky won't return a 1st rounder. Some years it can happen when you've got a contender with iffy goaltending and a rapidly closing window. But, barring injury, none of the top teams are that deficient in net.

Regardless, I agree with your sentiment that Markstrom is likely in a new uniform next year and that we sign a stopgap 1a to split duties with Demko. That's unfortunate and on Benning's cap mismanagement.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Marky won't return a 1st rounder. Some years it can happen when you've got a contender with iffy goaltending and a rapidly closing window. But, barring injury, none of the top teams are that deficient in net.

Regardless, I agree with your sentiment that Markstrom is likely in a new uniform next year and that we sign a stopgap 1a to split duties with Demko. That's unfortunate and on Benning's cap mismanagement.

If Calgary is playoff bound, I would imagine that they’d be interested in upgrading on Talbot right? (Talbot = 1A goalie). Markstrom = Talbot + 1st? (We add something to Markstrom, like a lower pick, to get that 1st from Calgary).

 

[Diversification]

If Calgary is playoff bound, I would imagine that they’d be interested in upgrading on Talbot right? (Talbot = 1A goalie). Markstrom = Talbot + 1st? (We add something to Markstrom, like a lower pick, to get that 1st from Calgary).

I'd say Edmonton would be a more likely partner in that case, but I just don't see a division rival forking over a 1st.

 

[Star Ocean]

Markstrom’s new contract:

What do you guys think Markstrom will get on his new contract?

If I had to guess, my guess is that is he’d get $7,000,000 AAV over 5 years; The Marc Andre Fleury deal.

I do love Markstrom, but if the Canucks are 5 or more points out of the last wildcard spot at the deadline, they might have to move Markstrom here. Get a 1A goalie + 1st rounder, and split him 50-50 with Demko until the expansion draft (Demko could be ready to assume the number one spot bat that time). I’m not really a huge fan of this idea, but Markstrom at 7 million over 5 years would be difficult to absorb would it not? I don’t know.

4 million for 3 years is more realistic.

He is not going to get 7m and I doubt he demands it either.

 

[StreetHawk]

4 million for 3 years is more realistic.

He is not going to get 7m and I doubt he demands it either.

I don't think your $4 mill is realistic either.

Varly landed $5 mill per over 4 years and his numbers were not as good over the past couple of years. But, has a longer track record than Marky.
Bishop with a finals appearance but TB as a whole struggled in 2017 got $5 mill per over 6 years.

Would expect him to land in around the Varly contract. No playoff experience so far will be a factor as well.

Plus, Holtby, Lehner and Greiss hit the market too. Lehner has good numbers in Chicago, so not just a product of Trotz NYI system. Same can't be said for Greiss. If your team isn't as defensively sound, how much can you bank on Greiss? Halak has very good numbers in Boston, but I doubt he'd end up in anything better than a 1a/1b situation with a young goalie such as NJ.

With other goalie options out there, that will ease the cost in the goalie market IMO. Only around 4/5 teams that are looking and can afford to dip into the UFA goalie market.

 

[vanuck]

Who has forgotten?

If anything, a lot of people recognized his waiving as poor asset management at the time.

It looks even worse when you consider that doing a rebuild was the correct strategy in 2014, so there was no need to even waive him in the first place if they hadn't signed Miller to try and compete.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Waiving Markstrom was poor asset management 'at the time'....?

One doesn't have to read too many posts to see the apathetic view on Marky going on waivers....Some selective memories around here.

Hope he's claimed. Would be nice to get that $1.4 million off the books. Expect he'll clear, though.

There is nothing at this point to indicate he's a quality NHL goalie.

This.

It just further accentuates how awful that Luongo trade was. We really got nothing in return and paid for Florida to take him. Oh well.

 

[joelCAMEL]

...It’s as if an unnecessary risk is deemed acceptable because of the associated probability, but not it’s negligence based existence...If it’s one thing I will do, it’s my homework... I feel that this was one of those times and the Canucks just didn’t get burned for it. Lucky for Jim and lucky for VAN fans.

Unless decisions are risk-free, decisions normally have probabilities of success applied to them. While we disagree on the odds, you have made a good argument for your case, and I agree with you that the team was lucky that Marky did not get claimed.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Waiving Markstrom was poor asset management 'at the time'....?

One doesn't have to read too many posts to see the apathetic view on Marky going on waivers....Some selective memories around here.

Still waiting for you to provide that example of a team that “rebuilt” like the Canucks have and went on to be successful. Just one team. Any team. Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Waiving Markstrom was poor asset management 'at the time'....?

One doesn't have to read too many posts to see the apathetic view on Marky going on waivers....Some selective memories around here.

Calls out selection bias, makes and argument using selection bias. Uh huh.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Markstrom’s new contract:

What do you guys think Markstrom will get on his new contract?

If I had to guess, my guess is that is he’d get $7,000,000 AAV over 5 years; The Marc Andre Fleury deal.

Jacob's not getting $7M per on a long term deal, that's ridiculous. $5M per for 4 years is a lot more realistic.

 

[VC]

Markstrom being a pending a UFA reminds me of the offseason where we were looking and a Lack/Marky tandem. Like then, now, I do not feel the need to spend big on a number one goaltender like Miller of old and current Markstrom. I'd rather find a 1b to share the net with Demko and let them figure it out. I don't see the team as a full playoff contender and wouldn't want to spend the cap on the position.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Unless decisions are risk-free, decisions normally have probabilities of success applied to them. While we disagree on the odds, you have made a good argument for your case, and I agree with you that the team was lucky that Marky did not get claimed.

We don’t get to the degree of the odds involved unless we have a situation where those are to be applied. Without that situation, the odds do not apply. Therefore, though we disagree on the odds of a claim, the existence of the potential claim itself is the crux of the issue.

For Markstrom, waivers was not a necessary action. He was a good enough asset and there was a lot of junk on the roster that could have gone before him.

In the end, I’m glad that we agree. Even if it’s not in detail, I think, but in spirit. It’s enough. Onto other discussions...

 

[F A N]

Markstrom being a pending a UFA reminds me of the offseason where we were looking and a Lack/Marky tandem. Like then, now, I do not feel the need to spend big on a number one goaltender like Miller of old and current Markstrom. I'd rather find a 1b to share the net with Demko and let them figure it out. I don't see the team as a full playoff contender and wouldn't want to spend the cap on the position.

You can't be serious. Lack/Markstrom tandem at the time clearly would have been a disaster.

 

[VC]

You can't be serious. Lack/Markstrom tandem at the time clearly would have been a disaster.

Where I though the team was at the time, I expected a disaster. Throw a noodle at the wall and see what would stick kind of situation. Wanted a traditional rebuild then and would settle for a (major) tweaking now. Also, in all honesty, they have been a worth team since then, where does that rank on the disaster scale?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Still waiting for you to provide that example of a team that “rebuilt” like the Canucks have and went on to be successful. Just one team. Any team. Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

I'm sure there are lots of fanbases that would love to have our 'rebuilt ' young core....Your quotes are aging poorly..as usual.