What to do with our Goalie Situation (poll)

[Peen]

This is also a smart comment by Jim to play coy here.

 

[krutovsdonut]

The problem is that Marky will be looking for a long-term contract. Some team may commit to giving him an NMC so that he doesn't get exposed in the expansion draft. I don't see Markstrom signing here without some sort of no trade protection at the very least. He's not going to re-sign here to be a one-year mentor for Markstrom unless we're offering him the most money.

who said he would do that?

 

[Seattle Totems]

No way I'd give Markstrom term and a NTC. Do not trust his injury situation. If they could somehow manufacture trade value for him he should be gone.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

My opinion is that Burke is terrible when it comes to making decisions on goaltending. He had this rule against drafting goalies in the first round (and was shocked that Nonis drafted Schneider). He once turned down a trade for Kiprusoff (the summer before he went to Calgary) because he thought a 2nd was too high of a price to pay. He also turned down a trade for Vokoun before he blossomed into a #1. Meanwhile, he was happy to trade a 2nd and a 3rd for Auld, Aucoin and a 2nd for Cloutier and has made other goalie acquisitions that did not pan out.

I'm a firm believer in having good goaltending. For me, I do believe that Demko, while likely suffering some growing pains along the way, is capable of being a top 15 #1 goalie in this league. Basically it comes down to Demko being younger and can be extended long term on a cheaper contract. As I mentioned in the past, if our core group is ever going to lead us to the Stanley Cup, the best thing to do is to attempt multiple runs with them. If we end up taking a step back for 1-2 years Demko will still be under 28. With Markstrom we would really be wasting the last of his prime years if we do take a step back. Given the likely impossibility of keeping both, unfortunately a tough decision needs to be made.

Burke was hopeless at evaluating goalies here, he was hopeless at evaluating goalies in Toronto, he was hopeless at evaluating goalies in Calgary, and he remains so now that he's safely sequestered in broadcasting. Whatever assets and judgement he has, he just can't pick goalies. It's totally bizarre.

 

[lawrence]

not a bad move actually, as we witnessed the past 6 weeks, lots of teams in a market for a goalie, however if benning makes this option, it means we only can sign one of Tanev or Toffoli though, also it's not gauranteed Markstrom can even be traded as we saw no one was willing to give Pittsburgh anything for Marc Andre Fleury.

 

[Grumpy1]

not a bad move actually, as we witnessed the past 6 weeks, lots of teams in a market for a goalie, however if benning makes this option, it means we only can sign one of Tanev or Toffoli though, also it's not gauranteed Markstrom can even be traded as we saw no one was willing to give Pittsburgh anything for Marc Andre Fleury.

Thats the rub. They are gonna overpay him in term or AAV. Unless both goalies are playing awesome next season it would be tough to move markstrom when most teams are gonna have cap issues

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

not a bad move actually, as we witnessed the past 6 weeks, lots of teams in a market for a goalie, however if benning makes this option, it means we only can sign one of Tanev or Toffoli though, also it's not gauranteed Markstrom can even be traded as we saw no one was willing to give Pittsburgh anything for Marc Andre Fleury.

I really doubt there is any scenario where we keep both. Jim and co. just want to drum up interest, I feel. And see what Demko could land them if they were to sign Markstrom.

 

[Jyrki21]

There's not really an obvious answer here. My instinct would usually be to go with the younger, upcoming guy. I was on "Team Schneider" in 2013 in part because I was worried about a decline in Luongo's play over a long term and missing out on whatever Schneider was about to bring. But the allure of getting assets back by trading Demko versus letting a competent goalie walk and only gaining a bit of cap space means that it's not a slam dunk by any stretch. Again, the parallels to 2013 are pretty strong (UFA question aside), especially with how much Demko's career and developmental arc have resembled Schneider's. The Canucks probably wouldn't get a Horvat type player back, but we don't actually know what the market looks like.

I still think the bigger issue is them likely not wanting to be in a tandem scenario, much more so than the expansion draft.

 

[ziploc]

This should be a win-won situation for the Canucks. But I have every confidence in our management to translate it into a lose-lose.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

There's not really an obvious answer here. My instinct would usually be to go with the younger, upcoming guy. I was on "Team Schneider" in 2013 in part because I was worried about a decline in Luongo's play over a long term and missing out on whatever Schneider was about to bring. But the allure of getting assets back by trading Demko versus letting a competent goalie walk and only gaining a bit of cap space means that it's not a slam dunk by any stretch. Again, the parallels to 2013 are pretty strong (UFA question aside), especially with how much Demko's career and developmental arc have resembled Schneider's. The Canucks probably wouldn't get a Horvat type player back, but we don't actually know what the market looks like.

I still think the bigger issue is them likely not wanting to be in a tandem scenario, much more so than the expansion draft.

I was on "Team Schneider" too but realize that Luongo and his contract was untradeable (later proven wrong) so I eventually accepted the fact that we had to trade Schneider.
In the current situation, strictly from an asset management point of view, trading Demko is the way to go. His value is at the highest after his heroics in the playoff. He is young, cheap and will still be a RFA after his current contract is up. He is what a rebuilding team like Detroit should aim for. If Kapanen can get a 1st and prospects back, I sure hope Demko can at least get the same. In the meantime we get to retain a #1 goalie that should still have a couple more solid years in him.
It isn't the best plan for the long term, but I feel that for the owner and the GM, they value short term success much higher than long term success.

 

[Rock]

It seems to me there is an easy solution to the goalie controversy.
85% say that Demko should be retained for a variety of reasons and I agree. Salary Cap reasons, money, age, wear and tear to a degree etc. Markstrom wants to stay and to that end perhaps something could be worked out without losing Demko. First any contract with Markstrom needs to be 1 year only. At the end of the year Demko would be protected in the expansion draft and Markstrom will be an unrestricted free agent able to once again sign with the Canucks if both sides agree after the draft and he doesn't need to be protected.
With the salary cap issues some of the burdens of Ericksson, Luongo, etc. will be lessoned. Markstrom could get a no trade clause as long as he can be exposed in the expansion draft. Money wise a contract in the 4 to 5 million area for 1 year will help deal with some of the player issues maybe? Or he can walk. 4 or 5 million is a lot. Or the Canucks could lose Demko and not be able to sign players like Tofoli etc. Good tradeoff??

 

[lawrence]

This should be a win-won situation for the Canucks. But I have every confidence in our management to translate it into a lose-lose.

it will be lose lose if he somehow pisses away both goalies. It's a tough risk too, what if Demko doesn't pan out when given the duties, and we see Markstrom become a Lundqvist with his new team, tough choices for Benning right now.

 

[Peter Griffin]

not a bad move actually, as we witnessed the past 6 weeks, lots of teams in a market for a goalie, however if benning makes this option, it means we only can sign one of Tanev or Toffoli though, also it's not gauranteed Markstrom can even be traded as we saw no one was willing to give Pittsburgh anything for Marc Andre Fleury.

I'd still rather lose Markstrom for free, or even pay a 2nd like Pens did with MAF, to ensure that the Canucks are making the correct goaltending decision long term. I think another season of a Markstrom/Demko platoon will hopefully either show that Demko is ready to be a #1 and the team either moves Markstrom or Demko for hopefully better value.

 

[VanJack]

Demko is barely making more than $1m on his current contract. So even if Markstrom gets $6m over five years, the Canucks goaltending still looks great compared to the NHL average.

The key is keeping both goalies eligible in the trade market. Canucks need to keep the option open of trading either guy ahead of the expansion draft. Even at $6m a season, Markstrom would still be attractive to a team desperate for goaltending.

Jimbo is holding all the aces here.

 

[Wildcarder]

The more I think about it, the more I think we need to keep Markstrom if we can, but the key is term. Even if the cap hit is a bit higher we need to try and keep this deal to less than 4 years (age 34). This will still give us prime Markstrom during our contending window.

I'm very high on Demko, but I think it's too risky to take the gamble on him as a 1a starter and his concussion history adds to the risk. Recent bias is in full effect here as Demko was not consistent enough last season when Markstrom went down with injury. Compare to Markstrom who has a proven track record and he's been our MVP for 1.5 seasons. He's also a leader on this team and there's something to be said about building the team together. Even if we let Markstrom walk this off-season, we'd still likely need to spend 2-3 million on a veteran backup/1b option and when Demko is due for a a raise next year, we're not going to be saving much money on goaltending overall when we have to re-sign Hughes and Pettersson. It's only a short term savings for 2020-2021.

Here's a suggested approach to keep our options open:

• Try and sign Markstrom for as short a term deal as possible without an NMC (4 years x 6.5m).
• Give Demko an extra season to develop with an increased workload. Let him show you if he can handle it.
  
• Depending on performance next season we can either:

1. Expose Markstrom to Seattle for the expansion draft or trade him (if we feel comfortable with Demko's body of work) OR
   
2. Trade Demko at the trade deadline or off season in 2021 (if we are not comfortable with how Demko has progressed).

There's the potential the Demko only increases his trade value after next season as well which will allow for options to trade him as part of a chess move around expansion draft exposure.

 

[PavelBure10]

I really love Marky, he saved our bacon for a few seasons now, when we have been an absolute downer of a team. He has been the "true" Canucks MVP for the past 3 years. He deserves his big pay raise.
..... With that being said", I think it's Demko's time to shine. I'd love to have Marky back to give the Canucks an excellent one-two tandem, but Markstrom deserves his big pay raise, he deserves every penny. 5.5-6.5 million or whatever, I think it's too much out of the ballpark for Benning to resign. Specially with the expired contracts of Chris Tanev, and Tyler Toffoli to be dealt with.

I look at this year as a huge stepping stone. The Canucks pleasantly surprised the NHL in 2020, defeating the defending champs and giving the favorites "Vegas" all they can chew. But lets face it, there are a lot of holes to fix on this Canuck roster. The defense has no puck movers other than Hughes, and the bottom six is full of overpaid bums.
I think this upcoming season in 20-21 will be a perfect opportunity to groom Demko into the number one goalie. Give him the year to get the feel of being a starter, and playing 50+ games. Let him feel the highs and lows, and up his endurance for a full season. Get the whole feel of playing in the NHL.

Next season will also give Benning time and a chance to trade off some of our overpaid bottom 6 players. One or more of Eriksson, Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, and Baertschi could be dealt to give a youngster a starting position such as McEwen. Some of these horrible contracts will be expiring "thank goodness", so Benning can resign his core players, Pettersson/Hughes".

Development of either Rathbone, Juolevi or Rafferty will be vital in 20-21 to save against cap.

In other words, I am fully expecting for the Canucks to take a step back next season, and start to sort the garbage out. We are against the cap with some potentially "huge" contracts to be resigned. Marky has made himself a Canuck classic, but unfortunately we won't be likely to afford the salary he will be asking for, and fully deserves. Might aswell let him earn his money, and start focusing on the future of this team.

Giving a 30 year old injury prone goaltender, a long term contract frankly scares me.
I hope he remains a Canuck, but at this point I don't count on it, but I wish him nothing but the best.

 

[lawrence]

Even at $6m a season, Markstrom would still be attractive to a team desperate for goaltending.

ummmmm we couldn't even move Luongo at 5.3 million with 8 years left, Pittsburgh couldn't find anyone wanting Marc Andre Fleury both goalies better then Markstrom at their ages, I doubt gms will be lining up to trade for Markstrom. If so, yes, maybe a 3rd rounder, nothing huge.

 

[Grub]

Demko almost got us to the western finals by himself... if Marky had played in any of those dominated games we would have been packing a lot sooner.

Demko is our goalie.

 

[lawrence]

Demko almost got us to the western finals by himself... if Marky had played in any of those dominated games we would have been packing a lot sooner.

Demko is our goalie.

imagine if we started demko in game 4......

 

[crazychimp]

If we keep Demko we need a legitimate backup.

Edit: unless they resign Domingue or sign someone like Aaron Dell.

 

[tradervik]

Not only are there a lot of goalie UFAs, there are also several who could move via trade including Andersen, Murray, Kuemper, M-A Fleury, and Korpisalo. It could be a crazy game of musical chairs.

 

[I in the Eye]

Cap space. If we can get out of of any of the guys with major term, and maybe bring back another asset, it's a win for us. Eriksson, Myers, or Beagle + Roussel. That's $6m and term that can go towards Markstrom.



As I alluded to above, you can get cap space from moving Demko. Trade Demko along with $6m of cap and you have money to sign Markstrom.

If you're able to use Demko to move out cap, it comes down to a decision of going with the potential goalie or the proven top ten goalie provided he signs for four or less years.

Shouldn't be much more than that to it. Also, I'd heavily weigh my opinion on whatever the goalie coach thinks if I were management.

Imho, it's too abstract. The concept is sound and beneficial, and not very abstract... but still too abstract. Imagine trying to teach checkers to a fish. Easier than trying to teach chess to a fish... but still very difficult. The best methodology for the decision makers here in a potentially explosive situation (one that ended up sinking our last GM) is KISS, imo - Keep It Simple Stupid. Multi-layered strategy is too complicated here... We won't win at chess. Not with our Chess master. Imo, we're better off playing Connect 4. The League constraints of salary cap, player rights, and roster limits can get us a four in a row, with some luck. We just need to follow the path that Bettman layed out to dumb down GMing so that GM's can be fish and yet their markets can still be competitive. We result in a young, stud goalie with pedigree (and best rookie playoff goalie performance in years?), millions in cap space, and perhaps a later round pick. Sure, there is more benefit that can be harvested... where more can be had, quicker... and it would be very smart to get everything we can, out of everything we have... but I don't trust our farmer to not f*** it all up through thinking. Just grab your shovel and dig where Bettman points to.

I do think, however, that Demko is going to be the one traded... Markstrom kept because of dressing room leadership (or something like that)... I can't see us following Bettman's cleared path (the simple thing spelled out to do), nor the cap relief route you suggest (the get more, quicker approach). Demko for a draft pick, is what I think happens. I think the opportunity for cap relief will be difficult to see by the ones who blindly put us in the cap crunch to begin with. I look forward to seeing what magic our fish playing chess on a ouija board come up with.

 

[I am toxic]

Burke was hopeless at evaluating goalies here, he was hopeless at evaluating goalies in Toronto, he was hopeless at evaluating goalies in Calgary, and he remains so now that he's safely sequestered in broadcasting. Whatever assets and judgement he has, he just can't pick goalies. It's totally bizarre.

Burke with goalies is like PoM with GM's - go with the opposite of what they say and you'll be fine.

 

[Diversification]

I was on "Team Schneider" too but realize that Luongo and his contract was untradeable (later proven wrong) so I eventually accepted the fact that we had to trade Schneider.
In the current situation, strictly from an asset management point of view, trading Demko is the way to go. His value is at the highest after his heroics in the playoff. He is young, cheap and will still be a RFA after his current contract is up. He is what a rebuilding team like Detroit should aim for. If Kapanen can get a 1st and prospects back, I sure hope Demko can at least get the same. In the meantime we get to retain a #1 goalie that should still have a couple more solid years in him.
It isn't the best plan for the long term, but I feel that for the owner and the GM, they value short term success much higher than long term success.

The return on a Demko trade would have to be very good to merit trading him and retaining Marky. It would have to offset our future in net and also the higher caphit and risk signing an aging keeper to a long term contract. For me, that return would have to be similar to Schneider's in order to draft a dman that can play meaningful minutes soon. That or a young top 4 dman puckmover signed to a good contract for 2+ seasons.

Just can't see that being close to the actual return we would get for Demko.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The more I think about it, the more I think we need to keep Markstrom if we can, but the key is term. Even if the cap hit is a bit higher we need to try and keep this deal to less than 4 years (age 34). This will still give us prime Markstrom during our contending window.

I'm very high on Demko, but I think it's too risky to take the gamble on him as a 1a starter and his concussion history adds to the risk. Recent bias is in full effect here as Demko was not consistent enough last season when Markstrom went down with injury. Compare to Markstrom who has a proven track record and he's been our MVP for 1.5 seasons. He's also a leader on this team and there's something to be said about building the team together. Even if we let Markstrom walk this off-season, we'd still likely need to spend 2-3 million on a veteran backup/1b option and when Demko is due for a a raise next year, we're not going to be saving much money on goaltending overall when we have to re-sign Hughes and Pettersson. It's only a short term savings for 2020-2021.

Here's a suggested approach to keep our options open:

• Try and sign Markstrom for as short a term deal as possible without an NMC (4 years x 6.5m).
• Give Demko an extra season to develop with an increased workload. Let him show you if he can handle it.
  
• Depending on performance next season we can either:

1. Expose Markstrom to Seattle for the expansion draft or trade him (if we feel comfortable with Demko's body of work) OR
   
2. Trade Demko at the trade deadline or off season in 2021 (if we are not comfortable with how Demko has progressed).

There's the potential the Demko only increases his trade value after next season as well which will allow for options to trade him as part of a chess move around expansion draft exposure.

I wonder what the Markstrom camp thinks about not having a NMC..?...Its not like Markstrom hasn't earned it, but with the Expansion Draft, and his age,..there is zero chance he can be given one.