The Goaltending Thread

[F A N]

So there's a lot of things that can happen this summer that affects the Canucks' long term situation in goal.

Next season, the Canucks look to have Markstrom and Demko in net. That looks to be a solid dual. Contractually, Demko is an RFA and Markstrom has one more year left on his contract. I fully expect Demko to sign a 2 year bridge contract. Whether to extend Markstrom over the summer vs later is a big debate.

According to Kevin Woodley, goalie coach Ian Clarke has another year left on his contract. He expressed concerns that a lack of urgency in re-signing Clarke could cause him to leave. I think Clarke deserves an extension, especially if you intend to extend Markstrom.

Down on the farm, the Canucks have Dipietro, Bachman, and Kielly. One of Dipietro or Kielly can start in the ECHL, that's not a problem. Given the nightmare situation the Canucks faced this year, do you want the Canucks to go into the season having 3 goalies under contract, two of which are starting their pro careers? I guess one of the keys is whether Bachman can be relied upon. If he has fully recovered and can stay healthy, he's capable of playing some games in the NHL. Personally, I don't know. I don't see carrying 3 goaltenders (2 vets you trust to play NHL games and one of Dipietro/Kielly) in Utica as desirable. Having another vet under contract but loaned out to another AHL club is a possibility, but that would mean the Canucks have 6 goaltenders under contract.

The other issue facing the Canucks is the fate of Luongo. Obviously Luongo retiring and the Canucks being hit with a recapture penalty would be the worst result.

Click to read more...

 

[Tables of Stats]

I said this in another thread, but if the Canucks sign Demko to a two-year deal I'd like to see Markstrom given a two-year extension. It means that if Demko surpasses Markstrom over the course of his two-year deal you only have one year of two goalies making starter money. If Demko falters it means you've kept Markstrom locked up.

Plus a two or three year deal at a reasonable price $4 to $5 million AAV Markstrom should be tradable. There's perennially at least one team that needs goaltending so he shouldn't be hard to move if we keep his term and salary reasonable.

 

[StreetHawk]

I said this in another thread, but if the Canucks sign Demko to a two-year deal I'd like to see Markstrom given a two-year extension. It means that if Demko surpasses Markstrom over the course of his two-year deal you only have one year of two goalies making starter money. If Demko falters it means you've kept Markstrom locked up.

Plus a two or three year deal at a reasonable price $4 to $5 million AAV Markstrom should be tradable. There's perennially at least one team that needs goaltending so he shouldn't be hard to move if we keep his term and salary reasonable.

That’s from the Canucks POV. Is that what Markstrom would want?

I’d say you need to see what happens up until Xmas to see how he fares.

No issue with extending Markstrom so long as the deal is reflective of his play and that’s what we need to see next season and not rush it this off season. It also needs to be movable. Even if it means letting Seattle claim him in the ED.

Goalies with bad contracts are unmovable. See Allen and Darling. Worst case is a signed Markstrom who is not playing well. Best is signed and playing well. Then 2nd is unsigned but playing well which just means you pay fair price for him. Third best is unsigned and not playing well. Sucks that he would have regressed but at least you’re not locked into a bad deal.

Canucks need a second vet in the A or even the ECHL. Do not want to see Dipietro in Vancouver next season. Have to be insured to cover 2 injuries next season as they will have a rookie at both the NHL and AHL.

 

[Tables of Stats]

That’s from the Canucks POV. Is that what Markstrom would want?

I have no idea, I could also see a three-year extension to make a deal happens but I'd ask for no NTC if we were on that kind of term.

Canucks need a second vet in the A or even the ECHL. Do not want to see Dipietro in Vancouver next season. Have to be insured to cover 2 injuries next season as they will have a rookie at both the NHL and AHL.

Yeah, I have zero faith in Bachman having enough left to fill the role next season. Not sure what the options will be this offseason though.

 

[StreetHawk]

I have no idea, I could also see a three-year extension to make a deal happens but I'd ask for no NTC if we were on that kind of term.



Yeah, I have zero faith in Bachman having enough left to fill the role next season. Not sure what the options will be this offseason though.

They have to pay $250K or more for a second vet to play in the minors. Just have to absorb that cost.

Need the insurance.

 

[timw33]

Don't forget we need to think about the ramifications of the expansion draft too. Next year we have to decide which goalie we're keeping long term.