Player Discussion Thatcher Demko

[iceburg]

From the club's perspective a 1 year deal would be perfect. Gets them on the other side of all but one of the bad contracts, the Luongo recapture, and sets them up for a manageable progression of contracts for the core: Hughes and Pettersson this summer, Demko and Boeser next summer, and Miller and Horvat the summer after that. And they can then sign him to a long term deal at the age of 27.

I agree that a 3 year bridge has potential to blow-up in their faces. But a one year deal just feels wrong for a guy who has performed as well as he has.

So, the options:

1. 2x$4: ideal for club. Player will push for longer term and higher money moving into his UFA years.
2. 6x$6M: risky for the club in most all scenarios. If Demko becomes a Vesina candidate, they will lose him after the contract because he'll command another long term expensive contract in his early 30s (ala Markstrom). If he is a middling starter (unlikely) then $6Mx6 is way too much. And I don't think the comparables support such a contract.

Edit: I was assuming the club had control at the end of 2 years...I may be wrong. If I am wrong then $5Mx6 is the probably best case scenario.

 

[StreetHawk]

But it’s the only one they can afford to fit on the cap.

I highly doubt Demko takes 1 year so it’s either 3 or 5/6 imo.

I don't see it being 3 years. No reason to sell a UFA year.

Doing the 1 year takes him 26 going on 27 in 2022. Then you can term it as long as you feel confident in his play moving forward.

The other test that you still need to see is him handling more rigorous travel as the starter. Road trips have 2-3 games in another team's city which isn't happening again. It goes from city to city, getting in either late in the early morning or they fly out the next day after the game, depending on how long the trip is. That's why I don't see them doing term with him.

 

[iFan]

If Holtby is making 4.3 million as a back up to Demko why would Demko sign for less than 4.3 on a short term deal? The best deal for the Canucks is to go long on Demko, sign him long term and lock him up at a reasonable cap hit.

 

[StreetHawk]

If Holtby is making 4.3 million as a back up to Demko why would Demko sign for less than 4.3 on a short term deal? The best deal for the Canucks is to go long on Demko, sign him long term and lock him up at a reasonable cap hit.

Cause I doubt an arbitrator, if it got to that stage, would factor that into the equation.

 

[Canucks LB]

Kid is making me forget about Markstrom, and that's kind of crazy

 

[m9]

Worst thing you can do is a 3-year deal. Puts us right back in the position we were in with Markstrom where we'd be looking at a 5-6 year deal for a 29 y/o goalie.

I really don't see how a 3-year deal is worse than a 2-year deal.

From the club's perspective a 1 year deal would be perfect. Gets them on the other side of all but one of the bad contracts, the Luongo recapture, and sets them up for a manageable progression of contracts for the core: Hughes and Pettersson this summer, Demko and Boeser next summer, and Miller and Horvat the summer after that. And they can then sign him to a long term deal at the age of 27.

I agree that a 3 year bridge has potential to blow-up in their faces. But a one year deal just feels wrong for a guy who has performed as well as he has.

So, the options:

1. 2x$4: ideal for club. Player will push for longer term and higher money moving into his UFA years.
2. 6x$6M: risky for the club in most all scenarios. If Demko becomes a Vesina candidate, they will lose him after the contract because he'll command another long term expensive contract in his early 30s (ala Markstrom). If he is a middling starter (unlikely) then $6Mx6 is way too much. And I don't think the comparables support such a contract.

Edit: I was assuming the club had control at the end of 2 years...I may be wrong. If I am wrong then $5Mx6 is the probably best case scenario.

He will be an UFA in two years.

1x3.5-4.5 probably makes sense.

 

[iceburg]

I really don't see how a 3-year deal is worse than a 2-year deal.



He will be an UFA in two years.

1x3.5-4.5 probably makes sense.

yeah. Then that's the right deal if they can make it work. But, as I said, a one year deal doesn't feel right for how well he's played.

 

[Raistlin]

you cannot give Demko a 1 year prove me deal when he is proving himself right now. it will look horrible on the franchise. The team developed him from the ground up and I think most fans would love to see him blossom into our long term starter. he has so far proven himself have exceled at all levels. he is as "core" as it gets.

we have to jettison some bad contracts and sign him for 4-5 years at around 5-6 if we can.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I’m not for nickel and dining him. But to commit to a goalie you need to be right or you are seriously screwed.
We’ve seen one year wonders. I think they do 1 year then if he continues to play well they do term.

The problem with giving him a 1 year deal is that he could be considerably more expensive to resign. He will have all the leverage too, as he will be a UFA in a year. If we can Demko to somewhere around Schneider's first contract extension, we absolutely should. Yeah there is some risk. There is risk in every contract. But this risk has a lot of upside, and a good chance of paying off.

 

[Fatass]

The problem with giving him a 1 year deal is that he could be considerably more expensive to resign. He will have all the leverage too, as he will be a UFA in a year. If we can Demko to somewhere around Schneider's first contract extension, we absolutely should. Yeah there is some risk. There is risk in every contract. But this risk has a lot of upside, and a good chance of paying off.

Benning chose Demko after the bubble, when he let Marky walk. He needs to sign Demko to term, but is there the cap room there, considering Holtby’s second year?

 

[Luck 6]

Ideally a 5 year contract at hopefully just under 5mil makes a lot of sense (and represents a bit of a hometown discount). The problem is we don’t have the funds next year to sign him to that unless we can get rid of either Holtby or some other salary cap.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Benning chose Demko after the bubble, when he let Marky walk. He needs to sign Demko to term, but is there the cap room there, considering Holtby’s second year?

Probably not, but we absolutely have to move some salary if there isn't.

 

[StreetHawk]

The problem with giving him a 1 year deal is that he could be considerably more expensive to resign. He will have all the leverage too, as he will be a UFA in a year. If we can Demko to somewhere around Schneider's first contract extension, we absolutely should. Yeah there is some risk. There is risk in every contract. But this risk has a lot of upside, and a good chance of paying off.

I think for goalies it's better to be sure than be Wrong. SJ had the same thinking when they locked in Jones before he began the final season of his last contract. When he finsihed that final year of that prior contract, the Sharks immediately wanted a do-over on his new deal.

I'd rather play the Market Rate on a goalie and be sure on him than try to get a deal and be wrong.

Prisoner's dilemna:
Sign Early and He is great - Best Outcome
Sign Early and he's not - Worst Outcome
Don't Sign early and he is great - Pay market price (2nd best outcome IMO)
Don't Sign early and he's not - save money, but bad for the team. (3rd best outcome)

 

[iceburg]

Simplified cap dynamics re Demko:

Assumptions
Ferland stays on LTIR
Sutter, Pearson, Baertschi, and Spooner salaries not on the books.
All other players to be added (not on list below or under contract next year) are ELC or low cost FAs.

If no other salary is moved out they have $21M to sign:
Pettersson
Hughes
Demko
Gaudette
Edler

If Hughes and Pettersson sign long term deals there will be less than $5M to sign Demko, Edler and Gaudette.

The only alternative is if Pettersson and Hughes sign bridge deals totaling $14M or less, leaving $7M for Gaudette, Edler, and Demko.


I appreciate the math isn't exact but it's not far off.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

The Canucks are screwed cap wise, it’s just a fact.

 

[4Twenty]

I think for goalies it's better to be sure than be Wrong. SJ had the same thinking when they locked in Jones before he began the final season of his last contract. When he finsihed that final year of that prior contract, the Sharks immediately wanted a do-over on his new deal.

I'd rather play the Market Rate on a goalie and be sure on him than try to get a deal and be wrong.

Prisoner's dilemna:
Sign Early and He is great - Best Outcome
Sign Early and he's not - Worst Outcome
Don't Sign early and he is great - Pay market price (2nd best outcome IMO)
Don't Sign early and he's not - save money, but bad for the team. (3rd best outcome)

Martin Jones signed a 3 year bridge then locked on a 5-6 year term deal. The exact opposite to what you’re saying occurred with him. They waited to be sure. Thought they were right and locked into a bad deal did a 28-34 year old.

You don’t get to tilt the entire deck. You might have to take a risk or risk forcing yourself into a higher contract like Jones’ for an older goalie.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I think for goalies it's better to be sure than be Wrong. SJ had the same thinking when they locked in Jones before he began the final season of his last contract. When he finsihed that final year of that prior contract, the Sharks immediately wanted a do-over on his new deal.

I'd rather play the Market Rate on a goalie and be sure on him than try to get a deal and be wrong.

Prisoner's dilemna:
Sign Early and He is great - Best Outcome
Sign Early and he's not - Worst Outcome
Don't Sign early and he is great - Pay market price (2nd best outcome IMO)
Don't Sign early and he's not - save money, but bad for the team. (3rd best outcome)

I'm not saying we should sign him to the Jones contract, but 4 or 5 years between 4-5m is worth the risk.

Besides, Jones had 2 years of being a legitamite starter before signing that extension, and 3 years before it started. Then he immediately fell off a cliff. There is always going to be a risk of goalies regressing in their late 20s/early 30s. It doesn't matter if we sign Demko this year or next year, that risk will be there. In that sense there would be less risk in signing Demko this summer, as he will command less money and term than if we wait a year.

 

[MS]

You prefer long term now as well?

Obviously I’m assuming he finishes in the .910 to .920 range in 35-40 games this season.

One year sets him up to use Arb to get to UFA after 2 years.

Two years walks him to ufa in seasons they expect not to contend.

3 years walks to 29 and only gets one UFA year (similar to Schneider and Markstrom).

4 and 5 are uncharted but probably the way to go. I’d be fine with 3. He’ll be 29. If he’s Markstrom or better at 39 give him the extension.

I'm always a proponent with key players to try and get their main contract covering the prime of their career to run out somewhere in the age 31-33 range, basically just before most players start to crater.

When you let a player run out at age 28-30 you're left with a no-win situation where you either lose a key cog with a couple years of high value remaining or end up overpaying them into their mid-30s and get stuck with a negative-value asset. This is where we were absolutely pooched with Markstrom.

 

[StreetHawk]

Martin Jones signed a 3 year bridge then locked on a 5-6 year term deal. The exact opposite to what you’re saying occurred with him. They waited to be sure. Thought they were right and locked into a bad deal did a 28-34 year old.

You don’t get to tilt the entire deck. You might have to take a risk or risk forcing yourself into a higher contract like Jones’ for an older goalie.

Basically Demko is on year 1 of the Jones bridge. It was after year 2 of the Jones bridge that SJ extended him. I have no issue paying him what he's worth. I'd rather pay the key players what they are worth and figure out the rest of the roster than what Benning has done paying non key guys and now scrambling to find cap space for the key ones.

But, to be a #1 you also need to be able to play well following travel, which isn't something we get to see this season given that road trips are mostly 2-3 games in the same city before moving onto the next one. Not the standard 4-6 game road trips in different cities. Starter would get typically 3/5 on a road trip or 4/6 on a road trip.

 

[Fatass]

I'm always a proponent with key players to try and get their main contract covering the prime of their career to run out somewhere in the age 31-33 range, basically just before most players start to crater.

When you let a player run out at age 28-30 you're left with a no-win situation where you either lose a key cog with a couple years of high value remaining or end up overpaying them into their mid-30s and get stuck with a negative-value asset. This is where we were absolutely pooched with Markstrom.

Aren’t we following the same path with Demko now? Didn’t we trade for a guy in that situation in Miller? Isn’t Bo in that group too?

 

[F A N]

I'm always a proponent with key players to try and get their main contract covering the prime of their career to run out somewhere in the age 31-33 range, basically just before most players start to crater.

When you let a player run out at age 28-30 you're left with a no-win situation where you either lose a key cog with a couple years of high value remaining or end up overpaying them into their mid-30s and get stuck with a negative-value asset. This is where we were absolutely pooched with Markstrom.

I think that's a fine theory but there's always a risk/reward balance though. Aging curves are useful but not always telling. But if you were to rely on aging curves though, 31-33 is a huge danger zone. As we saw with Eriksson, a player could really drop off. With a 28-30 year old who is still good, you often have the option (maybe not this GM) to trade him for picks or younger assets in return. A 28-30 year old coming off a longish contract would likely have an somewhat attractive contract by the end of it. For example, Pearson's contract relative to his offensive production is palatable to desirable when there's only a year or two left (before the flat cap at least).

We signed Holtby for his 31-32 aged seasons and it's already not looking good. Had we signed him two offseasons ago to a 3 year contract we may be even more disappointed.

 

[LordBacon]

Lock this kid up for good

 

[iceburg]

Lock this kid up for good

Sure but Holby's contract pretty much makes that impossible this summer. Have to wait until next.

 

[ASAP Surg]

I'm always a proponent with key players to try and get their main contract covering the prime of their career to run out somewhere in the age 31-33 range, basically just before most players start to crater.

When you let a player run out at age 28-30 you're left with a no-win situation where you either lose a key cog with a couple years of high value remaining or end up overpaying them into their mid-30s and get stuck with a negative-value asset. This is where we were absolutely pooched with Markstrom.

I don’t want to get too off topic but would you be in favour of bridging EP and then having his 8 year deal run through 26-34 in that case then?

What I struggle thinking about is whether it’d be more beneficial to sign him to 5 - 6 years now with potentially a bit of AAV savings with the hope the team is contending towards the last 3ish years of the deal.

 

[HockeyWooot]

Demko is a stud. It looks like we chose the right goalie.