Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Thatcher Demko

Status
Not open for further replies.
jd22 said:
It's true, cap hit doesn't matter. Need veterans to prevent a losing culture.
Click to expand...
Is this post 'tongue in cheek'? What happens if you sign a flock of veterans for too much money and term and still have ' losing culture'?
 
I'll say it: I think he's outplaying Markstrom this season. They both have 10 wins, and most of their stats are pretty much identical, but I see one trending up, and the other sorta muddling through.

Jacob goals allowed in last 10 games: 28
Thatcher goals allowed in last 10 games: 19
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Breakers and LordBacon
Bougieman said:
I'll say it: I think he's outplaying Markstrom this season.
Click to expand...

It's not some crazy revelation, Demko always had potential to be an elite goaltender. The playoffs last year and his play now just proves out what scouts saw in him. I don't remember the last time Canucks had an elite goaltender at the age of 25. I bet he signs 4-5 years with a cap hit of 4.5 million.
 
GetFocht said:
It's not some crazy revelation, Demko always had potential to be an elite goaltender. The playoffs last year and his play now just proves out what scouts saw in him. I don't remember the last time Canucks had an elite goaltender at the age of 25. I bet he signs 4-5 years with a cap hit of 4.5 million.
Click to expand...
then why'd they sign holtby to an inflated contract to insulate him if they knew he was going to be elite this season?

re elite goalie at age of 25

e8cdd0db7f65342dd6172bef07524d87.png


Mr Schneider
 
Peen said:
then why'd they sign holtby to an inflated contract to insulate him if they knew he was going to be elite this season?

re elite goalie at age of 25

e8cdd0db7f65342dd6172bef07524d87.png


Mr Schneider
Click to expand...
They didn’t know, as no one could have with any certainty, and hedged by signing a veteran goaltender to a relatively short contract. You can argue they should have signed a different veteran and/or for less money, but it’s pretty obvious what they were doing.

I find it funny that posters say they advocated either signing Markstrom long term or signing a cheaper vet backup and don’t seem to realize that in hindsight signing Holtby for two years has so far turned out to be better than one of those options.
 
bandwagonesque said:
They didn’t know, as no one could have with any certainty, and hedged by signing a veteran goaltender to a relatively short contract. You can argue they should have signed a different veteran and/or for less money, but it’s pretty obvious what they were doing.

I find it funny that posters say they advocated either signing Markstrom long term or signing a cheaper vet backup and don’t seem to realize that in hindsight signing Holtby for two years has so far turned out to be better than one of those options.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you thought about what you said here before you said it. Can you explain why spending $4.7MM for bottom five goaltending would have been better than a cheaper vet option?

edit: wtf you said in hindsight too jesus
 
Peen said:
I'm not sure if you thought about what you said here before you said it. Can you explain why spending $4.7MM for bottom five goaltending would have been better than a cheaper vet option?

edit: wtf you said in hindsight too jesus
Click to expand...
That isn't what I said. I'm saying those people seem to believe they suggested two better options than the one the Canucks chose when at this point, albeit with limited data, it appears in practice they suggested one better one (signing a cheaper vet) and one worse one (re-signing Markstrom long-term).
 
bandwagonesque said:
That isn't what I said. I'm saying those people seem to believe they suggested two better options than the one the Canucks chose when at this point, albeit with limited data, it appears in practice they suggested one better one (signing a cheaper vet) and one worse one (re-signing Markstrom long-term).
Click to expand...
Okay, gotcha.

Personally speaking - and I know there was a strong contingent of posters who felt this way - I thought there were two equally good options at the time.

1. Keep Markstrom (provided the contract is under 6Yx4MM) and use Demko to move bad deals and get a future asset. Who knows how much they could have moved out?
2. Keep Demko and use the Markstrom money to upgrade in areas of importance.

In hindsight, I'd obviously do #2 now but I don't think from a foresight perspective that #1 was a bad option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bojack Horvatman and timw33
Peen said:
Okay, gotcha.

Personally speaking - and I know there was a strong contingent of posters who felt this way - I thought there were two equally good options at the time.

1. Keep Markstrom (provided the contract is under 6Yx4MM) and use Demko to move bad deals and get a future asset. Who knows how much they could have moved out?
2. Keep Demko and use the Markstrom money to upgrade in areas of importance.

In hindsight, I'd obviously do #2 now but I don't think from a foresight perspective that #1 was a bad option.
Click to expand...
I don't think a top-5 goalie in the NHL was ever signing for $4M. And yeah, resigning him may have seemed like a viable option, although I didn't like it. My point was that what the team did actually seems to have turned out better than one of the two options people said for weeks were the only viable or intelligent ones.

I always thought letting Markstrom walk was the right choice. It was a gamble, but significant gambles have to happen once in a while and this was an obvious one to take considering Markstrom's age.
 
Last edited:
I feel like too many on here are so used to bad UFA deals they freak out too much over RFA deals. Blackwood is a pretty good comparable and signed in the off-season for 3 years at 2.8. Demko isn't going to cost too much.
 
RussianRacket said:
I find this happening often, but Demko is yet another case of where you just have to sit back and marvel at the fact we got this absolute f***ing stud of a hockey player when we did. And he's so young!

Definitely feeling thankful to management today.

GO CANUCKS!!!
Click to expand...
I have witnessed you being a really good poster in multiple non Canucks forums on this website.
 
bandwagonesque said:
I don't think a top-5 goalie in the NHL was ever signing for $4M. And yeah, resigning him may have seemed like a viable option, although I didn't like it. My point was that what the team did actually seems to have turned out better than the two options people said for weeks were the only viable or intelligent ones.

I always thought letting Markstrom walk was the right choice. It was a gamble, but significant gambles have to happen once in a while and this was an obvious one to take considering Markstrom's age.
Click to expand...
I meant 4yx6MM lmao
 
If we buy out Eriksson it would free up $2m extra, that should allow us to fit Demko to something.

3,3,5,5,6.
$22 over 5.
$4.4 cap hit.

I wonder if that'll work. First two years is flat cap and RFA years.
 
This guy is single handedly dragging us back into the playoff race.........or at least conversation. Not quite sure if that's a good thing or not but really hard to complain about a guy that gives you a chance to win each and every night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F A N
VancouverJagger said:
This guy is single handedly dragging us back into the playoff race.........or at least conversation. Not quite sure if that's a good thing or not but really hard to complain about a guy that gives you a chance to win each and every night.
Click to expand...

its not a bad thing, or at least shouldnt be. all of us on team tank are because we think if we play bad enough and miss the playoffs then finially aqua will get new management. he thinks with results of the final score board instead of what actually goes on play for 60 mins a night. having a goalie carry your team isnt a recipe for success
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom