Rumor: Markstrom is asking for Connor Hellebuyck $$$$$

[F A N]

If jb actually built a good d core then we shouldn’t be worrying about a 30 y/o goalie leaving, but Unfortunately we have a below average d and need someone to bail the team on a nightly basis badly.
Marky is getting paid for sure

That makes no sense. So you think it doesn't matter who is in goal if there is a good team in front of the goalie?

The question is whether Demko is good enough to take over for Markstrom. It has little to nothing to do with the core. Benning has tried to put in a succession plan and on paper he has done a good job. But the goaltending position is not easily predictable. We've frequently had "goalies of the future" here and how many end up actually being the goalie of that projected future?

 

[Goose]

He’ll get 6x5.2

 

[LordBacon]

That makes no sense. So you think it doesn't matter who is in goal if there is a good team in front of the goalie?

The question is whether Demko is good enough to take over for Markstrom. It has little to nothing to do with the core. Benning has tried to put in a succession plan and on paper he has done a good job. But the goaltending position is not easily predictable. We've frequently had "goalies of the future" here and how many end up actually being the goalie of that projected future?

My point: if we have a better built d core, we wouldn’t have to rely heavily on goalies as much as we do right now.
Team plays better D means we can live without a vezina goalie, would love to keep markstrom but it’s a cap world and we need cap to sign Petey and hughes.
Also you lost me at bennings done a good job.

 

[Peter10]

That makes no sense. So you think it doesn't matter who is in goal if there is a good team in front of the goalie?

The question is whether Demko is good enough to take over for Markstrom. It has little to nothing to do with the core. Benning has tried to put in a succession plan and on paper he has done a good job. But the goaltending position is not easily predictable. We've frequently had "goalies of the future" here and how many end up actually being the goalie of that projected future?

As a wise man once said, "this isnt the try league, it is a gotta get it done league"

 

[LovemyNucks]

No risk of Markstrom becoming a statistic of the opioid crisis after watching this road trip. He's probably "leaning" right now dreaming of all the money they're going to throw at him in the summer after this tire fire.

"Hey Marky...need something for the pain?"

"...I feel like i'm getting kissed by God right now..."

"I'll take that as a no then"

 

[F A N]

As a wise man once said, "this isnt the try league, it is a gotta get it done league"

Sure. And are you of the position then that it would be a mistake to run with Demko + capable backup goalie going forward?

 

[F A N]

My point: if we have a better built d core, we wouldn’t have to rely heavily on goalies as much as we do right now.
Team plays better D means we can live without a vezina goalie, would love to keep markstrom but it’s a cap world and we need cap to sign Petey and hughes.
Also you lost me at bennings done a good job.

My point is that that on paper Demko is about as good as you can get in terms of having a succession plan in place. It's unfortunate that Demko was injured last season as he would be far more proven this season and we would get a much better sense of whether he can take over the #1 role from Markstrom. That's the major consideration - whether Demko can take over for Markstrom not whether we have a good core playing ahead of our goalies.

Also, few seems to have paid attention to the impact a coach can have. Edmonton just went from one of the worst defensive teams to one of the best.

 

[Peter10]

Sure. And are you of the position then that it would be a mistake to run with Demko + capable backup goalie going forward?

It was only half serious. Overall I like having Demko and DiPietro there what I dont really like is the handling of Demko over the last couple of years as I think he should have gotten more games which would have helped to see where he is. They are having a similar approach as they had back then with Markstrom and while it may have worked out for him I am not sure it was the best strategy then nor that it is now. Marky should have gotten more games when he was backing up Miller just as Demko should have gotten more last year at the very least. He has played so few games that is tough to make a judgement on whether or not he is ready to run with the #1 job leaving them with no choice but to extend Markstrom or just trust their luck.

 

[F A N]

It was only half serious. Overall I like having Demko and DiPietro there what I dont really like is the handling of Demko over the last couple of years as I think he should have gotten more games which would have helped to see where he is. They are having a similar approach as they had back then with Markstrom and while it may have worked out for him I am not sure it was the best strategy then nor that it is now. Marky should have gotten more games when he was backing up Miller just as Demko should have gotten more last year at the very least. He has played so few games that is tough to make a judgement on whether or not he is ready to run with the #1 job leaving them with no choice but to extend Markstrom or just trust their luck.

I agree that ideally we see more of Demko before deciding whether he is ready to take over from Markstrom. A lot of it is circumstantial of course. Demko's injuries last season did prevent the Canucks from giving him too many games. This season I'm not sure his load is unreasonable. Most teams try to have their #1 goalie start under 60 games. I think most of us believe that Demko will get about 22-25 starts or so?

 

[Peter10]

I agree that ideally we see more of Demko before deciding whether he is ready to take over from Markstrom. A lot of it is circumstantial of course. Demko's injuries last season did prevent the Canucks from giving him too many games. This season I'm not sure his load is unreasonable. Most teams try to have their #1 goalie start under 60 games. I think most of us believe that Demko will get about 22-25 starts or so?

I think he should have gotten a few games towards the end of 17-18 and several more last year even with the injuries. This year he is a few behind as well although I can understand the reasoning with the tight playoff race and Markstroms stellar play. I think Green is riding Markstrom a little too much and we shouldnt forget that Demko would have even less games this year if it wasnt for Markstroms short leave where Demko got 2 (?) games that he would likely have spent on the bench under normal circumstances.

 

[tantalum]

I don't think Demko's struggles are unusual for a goaltender in what is essentially his first NHL year. Hell the guy he's backing up had the same struggles for years. What I find sort of concerning reading Mossey's takes every night is that it is March and we are seeing the same issue in his game that were apparent in camp. The adjustments don't seem to be there. I'm not even looking at results as the results can be all over the place but the process itself. Maybe my expectations don't match up with what a typical timeline would be though.

 

[F A N]

I think he should have gotten a few games towards the end of 17-18 and several more last year even with the injuries. This year he is a few behind as well although I can understand the reasoning with the tight playoff race and Markstroms stellar play. I think Green is riding Markstrom a little too much and we shouldnt forget that Demko would have even less games this year if it wasnt for Markstroms short leave where Demko got 2 (?) games that he would likely have spent on the bench under normal circumstances.

I don't think those few games towards 17-18 would have made a difference. Spending full 2 seasons developing in the AHL shouldn't have a negative impact on a goaltender's development. I think it was last season that was critical and Demko missed that opportunity. But yes it would have been nice to see Green have a little more trust in Demko but it is what it is.

I don't think Demko's struggles are unusual for a goaltender in what is essentially his first NHL year. Hell the guy he's backing up had the same struggles for years. What I find sort of concerning reading Mossey's takes every night is that it is March and we are seeing the same issue in his game that were apparent in camp. The adjustments don't seem to be there. I'm not even looking at results as the results can be all over the place but the process itself. Maybe my expectations don't match up with what a typical timeline would be though.

Agreed except I don't share your concerns (yet). Development often isn't linear. Demko is inexperienced both in terms of NHL games played and time spent at the NHL level. It's a big jump from being a top prospect to capable NHL backup to #1 goalie. I think for most goaltenders it's the offseason where they make the biggest jump as they have more time to review the tapes etc. and better adjust to NHL shooters.

 

[xtra]

I’m still upset we haven’t changed this thread title to “Connor HELLABUCKS money” yet

 

[DarrenX]

we need cap to sign Petey and hughes.

Foresight. What is it? They'll worry about that next year.
The chance that they keep Markstrom is going up by the day.

 

[4Twenty]

Cap going up to me makes being unwilling to go to $6.5m AAV on Markstrom ludicrous especially seeing the team without him.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Basically ensures Tanev and markstrom wont be taking that 1m discount to stay in Vancouver, if either of them do.

 

[F A N]

Cap going up to me makes being unwilling to go to $6.5m AAV on Markstrom ludicrous especially seeing the team without him.

Why is it ludicrous? If Markstrom is looking for a 2-3 year deal then I would agree. But we're most likely dealing with a longer term deal here. You're basically making the decision that Markstrom is the guy going forward and Demko is not. That should be a big consideration given the age difference. Don't get me wrong, I do think Markstrom is a safe bet to still be an effective 1A/1B type goaltender at age 34 and 35 but some decline should be expected.

 

[Interior Cascadian]

Why is it ludicrous? If Markstrom is looking for a 2-3 year deal then I would agree. But we're most likely dealing with a longer term deal here. You're basically making the decision that Markstrom is the guy going forward and Demko is not. That should be a big consideration given the age difference. Don't get me wrong, I do think Markstrom is a safe bet to still be an effective 1A/1B type goaltender at age 34 and 35 but some decline should be expected.

By then he'd be an expensive backup, but a veteran presence to support DiPietro as the reigns get turned over to him. Seems like an ideal bridge IMO. And... you give him term now and being an expensive backup in today's context may not look as bad if the cap continues to climb in the next five years or so.

In that scenario I'm envisioning Demko getting exposed in the expansion draft, and as a future Seattle fan I think I'd still take Demko as my goalie of the future (barring any other teams getting into an exposure pinch with a 1a/1b goalie tandem between now and next spring). It sucks for Vancouver to hand over what some might consider a blue chip prospect to their rival, but at least Vancouver's subtracting from a position of depth.

 

[timw33]

Cap going up to me makes being unwilling to go to $6.5m AAV on Markstrom ludicrous especially seeing the team without him.

I just think about how we gave Ryan Miller 3 years x $6MM (that's $7.08-7.30MM based on 81.5/84MM salary caps) in 14-15 and are up in arms about giving Markstrom a similar cap hit.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I just think about how we gave Ryan Miller 3 years x $6MM (that's $7.08-7.30MM based on 81.5/84MM salary caps) in 14-15 and are up in arms about giving Markstrom a similar cap hit.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but my issue wouldn't be AAV with Markstrom, but rather term. I'd give him $7/8M AAV if the term was limited to 3 years. 4+ years when it comes to an aging goaltender terrifies me.

 

[timw33]

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but my issue wouldn't be AAV with Markstrom, but rather term. I'd give him $7/8M AAV if the term was limited to 3 years. 4+ years when it comes to an aging goaltender terrifies me.

Well unfortunately our bargaining position is continuing to erode, especially if management/ownership are dead set on any sort of near-term success. I think we're going to have to give up a 4th year to get it done.

 

[4Twenty]

I just think about how we gave Ryan Miller 3 years x $6MM (that's $7.08-7.30MM based on 81.5/84MM salary caps) in 14-15 and are up in arms about giving Markstrom a similar cap hit.

Exactly. People are slow to catch up to a market shift. That was 7 off seasons ago.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but my issue wouldn't be AAV with Markstrom, but rather term. I'd give him $7/8M AAV if the term was limited to 3 years. 4+ years when it comes to an aging goaltender terrifies me.

I agree problem is the team doesn’t have the room to offer big money short term.

It’s for this reason they may want to consider making it long, with heavy signing bonuses and front loading.

I think 5 years is fine.

 

[4Twenty]

Well unfortunately our bargaining position is continuing to erode, especially if management/ownership are dead set on any sort of near-term success. I think we're going to have to give up a 4th year to get it done.

I don’t think he’s signing for less than 5 years.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Well unfortunately our bargaining position is continuing to erode, especially if management/ownership are dead set on any sort of near-term success. I think we're going to have to give up a 4th year to get it done.

Yep, most likely. 4 years I could live with, that's actually a pretty decent timeline if DiPietro, and not Demko, is being looked at as the goaltender of the future. 4 years, $24M I think is a fair deal all around. I think it really all comes down to how badly Markstrom wants to remain in Vancouver though. He's likely get bigger deals elsewhere.

 

[RandV]

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but my issue wouldn't be AAV with Markstrom, but rather term. I'd give him $7/8M AAV if the term was limited to 3 years. 4+ years when it comes to an aging goaltender terrifies me.

Ryan Miller was 34 when he signed that contract, so the 3 year $18 was through the years you're worried about with Markstrom now.

What this is about though is if you're an agent/player negotiating with a GM why wouldn't you use past examples of players that GM signed for your contract? Markstrom was here during the Miller contract, and is a better goalie now than the older Miller was then, so if he doesn't hold similar expectations he's being very generous.