HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jacob Markstrom

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-10-2014, 06:34 AM
  #451
me2
Team Ben Anti-Tank 0
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calling out the
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 28,203
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo2shink View Post
Read the quoted post.
Which was?

me2 is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 07:00 AM
  #452
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by duuude View Post
But isn't this exactly what Benning is doing by signing Miller? Didn't Miller just prove not to be good enough on a pretty good St Louis team? Has been nothing but average for years now, and now Benning hopes he somehow improved greatly over the summer. Miller will disappoint in Vancouver, no doubt!
No, that's not even remotely the same thing.

Miller, even in a year where he clearly struggled with jumping teams mid-stream at the deadline with cup aspirations dumped on him and the jarring changes that tend to afflict late season goaltender acquisitions...still posted a better SV% overall than Eddie Lack on the season. And some people won't put much weight in this...but Ryan Miller won 15 games out of 40 with Buffalo (legitimately the worst the in the entire NHL by an enormous margin) while Eddie won 14 games out of 41 with the Canucks (who were obviously terrible last year, but also clearly not Buffalo terrible.

And if you want to try to compare Miller's results to Jacob Markstrom, which is the more apt comparison given the retention of Eddie Lack in Vancouver as the elite backup...Markstrom basically is terrible, he's had terrible results, he's been jettisoned by a team who could obviously use a "goaltender of the future", and as a whole...he's "proven" less at the AHL level than Miller has at the NHL level.

So to suggest that going with a proven workhorse #1 goaltender with good results AND Eddie Lack, is somehow akin to rolling with a Lack/Markstrom tandem is basically absurd, and completely ignores any concrete historical evidence regarding these goaltenders.

biturbo19 is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 10:18 AM
  #453
CalgaryCanuck03
@calgarycanuck03
 
CalgaryCanuck03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,796
vCash: 500
@News1130Sports

Just talked with #Canucks goalie Jacob Markstrom who says, "I did not ask for a trade after the Ryan Miller signing".

Markstrom says "I could have stopped training, complained and asked for trade after Miller signing but I see this as a challenge".

Markstrom - "I can't let Miller signing effect me, NHL is tough league, you have to outplay goalies to earn your job."

Markstrom - "I'm super excited to come to camp, been working real hard this summer."

Looks like Botchford made a contraversy over nothing...

CalgaryCanuck03 is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 10:38 AM
  #454
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,840
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post

Looks like Botchford made a controversy over nothing...
And the sun rises in the east ...

LeftCoast is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 11:15 AM
  #455
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by btdvox View Post
Except that Benning has a very good point. You have to build prospects within a winning organization. Why? Because then the Oilers happen.
While true, IMO teams like EDM fail because they don't have good mentors like the sedins. They gift their young guys roles. In this case lack learned from luongo, then played well afterwards. They celebrated losing as well, we fired our front office and coach.

We still may fail, but the attitude alone is much different. To me this makes all the difference in the world, it breeds competition, helps for winning.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 05:29 PM
  #456
thepoeticgoblin
Registered User
 
thepoeticgoblin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,538
vCash: 750
Happy to hear that the trade talk was all nonsense. Am liking that Marky is prepared to battle it out. Who knows, in a year maybe he's deemed as a more valuable asset and resigns with VAN while Lack is shipped to avoid him becoming UFA? A season is long and weirder things have happened. I hope Marky gets the opportunity to work with Rollie a bit despite being destined for the minors... He was part of bringing Markstrom to VAN and wanted Torts to play him more (source: @KevinIsInGoal, NHL.com writer) so he's seen *something* he likes in Jacob.

thepoeticgoblin is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 05:38 PM
  #457
WinterEmpire
Unregistered User
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,518
vCash: 500
At this point I would rather keep Markstrom over Lack if he shows promise.

Younger
Still RFA
Less valuable trade asset

WinterEmpire is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 05:38 PM
  #458
TheWanderer
Registered User
 
TheWanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
@News1130Sports

Just talked with #Canucks goalie Jacob Markstrom who says, "I did not ask for a trade after the Ryan Miller signing".

Markstrom says "I could have stopped training, complained and asked for trade after Miller signing but I see this as a challenge".

Markstrom - "I can't let Miller signing effect me, NHL is tough league, you have to outplay goalies to earn your job."

Markstrom - "I'm super excited to come to camp, been working real hard this summer."

Looks like Botchford made a contraversy over nothing...
Botchford is a hack. He does this kind of crap constantly. He's one of several poisonous figures in this town's media. The fact that some moron says something like this and it spirals out of control to the point where the player himself must actively debunk this kind of garbage is embarrassing.

TheWanderer is offline  
Old
07-11-2014, 12:07 PM
  #459
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,770
vCash: 500
Honestly at this point Botchford should be cut off and have his credentials pulled. The guy provides nothing of value and is essentially our version of Damien Cox.

ARSix is offline  
Old
07-11-2014, 12:35 PM
  #460
Samzilla
Prust & Dorsett are
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,129
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
@News1130Sports

Just talked with #Canucks goalie Jacob Markstrom who says, "I did not ask for a trade after the Ryan Miller signing".

Markstrom says "I could have stopped training, complained and asked for trade after Miller signing but I see this as a challenge".

Markstrom - "I can't let Miller signing effect me, NHL is tough league, you have to outplay goalies to earn your job."

Markstrom - "I'm super excited to come to camp, been working real hard this summer."

Looks like Botchford made a contraversy over nothing...
and kesler said he wanted to retire a canuck, his kids are in school here, yadda yadda yadda...not saying markstrom's lying, but lots of times i expect an athlete to say one thing publicly and another privately. just goes with the territory.

Samzilla is offline  
Old
07-11-2014, 12:48 PM
  #461
VanillaCoke
Registered User
 
VanillaCoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 13,217
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Honestly at this point Botchford should be cut off and have his credentials pulled. The guy provides nothing of value and is essentially our version of Damien Cox.
Yes please. Hate the guy.

No longer going to put any stock into anything he says.

VanillaCoke is offline  
Old
07-11-2014, 07:47 PM
  #462
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,112
vCash: 500
Looks like Botchford got exposed big time on this one...

vanuck is offline  
Old
07-11-2014, 08:22 PM
  #463
denkiteki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycanuck View Post
@News1130Sports

Just talked with #Canucks goalie Jacob Markstrom who says, "I did not ask for a trade after the Ryan Miller signing".

Markstrom says "I could have stopped training, complained and asked for trade after Miller signing but I see this as a challenge".

Markstrom - "I can't let Miller signing effect me, NHL is tough league, you have to outplay goalies to earn your job."

Markstrom - "I'm super excited to come to camp, been working real hard this summer."

Looks like Botchford made a contraversy over nothing...
Players always say things like that so it doesn't mean much. At the same time reporters (more so when it comes to NHL + CND teams) always make up stories or try to make weak link much stronger than they are just to try to draw interest. Nothing new there but one thing is for sure, 'nucks have 1 too many goalies that won't clear waivers so something needs to be done before the start of the season. Doesn't mean its Markstorm being moved (personally i would rather move Lack who likely has more value at this time and we can have Markstorm develop behind Miller).

denkiteki is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 12:37 AM
  #464
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
No, that's not even remotely the same thing.

Miller, even in a year where he clearly struggled with jumping teams mid-stream at the deadline with cup aspirations dumped on him and the jarring changes that tend to afflict late season goaltender acquisitions...still posted a better SV% overall than Eddie Lack on the season. And some people won't put much weight in this...but Ryan Miller won 15 games out of 40 with Buffalo (legitimately the worst the in the entire NHL by an enormous margin) while Eddie won 14 games out of 41 with the Canucks (who were obviously terrible last year, but also clearly not Buffalo terrible.

And if you want to try to compare Miller's results to Jacob Markstrom, which is the more apt comparison given the retention of Eddie Lack in Vancouver as the elite backup...Markstrom basically is terrible, he's had terrible results, he's been jettisoned by a team who could obviously use a "goaltender of the future", and as a whole...he's "proven" less at the AHL level than Miller has at the NHL level.

So to suggest that going with a proven workhorse #1 goaltender with good results AND Eddie Lack, is somehow akin to rolling with a Lack/Markstrom tandem is basically absurd, and completely ignores any concrete historical evidence regarding these goaltenders.
We get it, you think Miller is a value signing who can rebound. You can talk about it as much as you want and dance around comparing him to Lack or Markstrom or whoever.

But I look at it as a guy who, based on historical evidence, has a 2-in-6 chance of putting up more than .920. Not to mention that in that time, they made the playoffs twice and finished 3 points out once and 1 point out another time. It's only the last two years that they truly sucked.

If you go way back, his numbers when they lost in consecutive Conference finals were .914 and .911 respectively.

To summarize, he's put up .915 on bad, average and good Buffalo teams. It's not like they were crappy all the time, in fact they put up 90+ points in 8-of-11 seasons he's been in the league.

There is a very significant chance we will be paying this guy $6M to put up .915. I do think he is a good goalie so I hope he can do better, but if we really look at his historical numbers there's not much to support that he is highly probable to put up .920 with us.

Of course we will see how things work out and I would be glad to be wrong for the sake of the team. But you're pretending like Miller is a low-risk signing, when if we look back on past performance it's more like a coin flip.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 01:33 AM
  #465
YouppiKiYay
Registered User
 
YouppiKiYay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bellingham, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
At this point I would rather keep Markstrom over Lack if he shows promise.

Younger
Still RFA
Less valuable trade asset
I echo this sentiment. Good post.

YouppiKiYay is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 02:57 AM
  #466
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
We get it, you think Miller is a value signing who can rebound. You can talk about it as much as you want and dance around comparing him to Lack or Markstrom or whoever.

But I look at it as a guy who, based on historical evidence, has a 2-in-6 chance of putting up more than .920. Not to mention that in that time, they made the playoffs twice and finished 3 points out once and 1 point out another time. It's only the last two years that they truly sucked.

If you go way back, his numbers when they lost in consecutive Conference finals were .914 and .911 respectively.

To summarize, he's put up .915 on bad, average and good Buffalo teams. It's not like they were crappy all the time, in fact they put up 90+ points in 8-of-11 seasons he's been in the league.

There is a very significant chance we will be paying this guy $6M to put up .915. I do think he is a good goalie so I hope he can do better, but if we really look at his historical numbers there's not much to support that he is highly probable to put up .920 with us.

Of course we will see how things work out and I would be glad to be wrong for the sake of the team. But you're pretending like Miller is a low-risk signing, when if we look back on past performance it's more like a coin flip.
I'm not exactly "President of the Ryan Miller fan club". It just so happens that i agree with Benning's assessment that our goaltending needed improvement. He went out and addressed that by signing the best option available. If that has negative repercussions in the pursuit of handing an NHL roster spot to Jacob Markstrom who hasn't been very good, so be it. I just don't believe in this notion of handing a role to a guy who has shown nothing but contraindications that he's good enough and ready for that role.

The point isn't that Miller has to be "elite" to be worth it. It's that even if he continues to post the same sort of .918 SV% he did last year while playing most of the year on a terrible team, and then dragging his numbers down a bit with a disruptive stint in St.Louis...that's still an enormous upgrade given that he can do that in a "workhorse role". The results he turned in last year were good for 12th best among "starters" (ie. guys with 50+ games). Improvement on that would be nice obviously, and i don't think it's totally out of the question...but even if a .918 is all he musters next year, that he can do it over the long-haul with a heavy workload is important.

And the trickle down effect that has, is in giving you the Eddie Lack we saw in the first half of the season again, for his ~30 games @ a SV% that could conceivable be in that .920 range as opposed to the sort of .912 he averaged over his whole workload, or worse based on where he was trending as a "Starter". It's not about Miller being elite, it's about the simple math where:

Miller+Lack can reasonably be expected to stop a higher percentage of pucks than Lack+Markstrom. When you average things out between the pairs of goaltenders, that can very conceivably result in the sort of win-loss difference between a bubble team making or not making the playoffs. And that's before we even start talking about the fact that you'd be expecting Lack to take on even MORE starts to get to that sort of 50-30 split...and the potential impact that might have on his results.

Ultimately though, it still comes back to Markstrom. If you think Markstrom is likely to post very good numbers, comparable to Miller next year then there's probably nothing i can say to dissuade you of that notion...it just doesn't seem like it's at all grounded in history or pragmatism. The indications do not seem to be pointing towards Markstrom suddenly jumping from a .873 SV% to a .918+ SV% even in a sheltered role next year.

It's cool that Markstrom is a shiny new prospect, and that he shops in the big and tall section, and he has lots of "potential". But none of those seem like any reason to hand him a roster spot at "the most important position on the ice".

biturbo19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 04:40 AM
  #467
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
I'm not exactly "President of the Ryan Miller fan club". It just so happens that i agree with Benning's assessment that our goaltending needed improvement. He went out and addressed that by signing the best option available. If that has negative repercussions in the pursuit of handing an NHL roster spot to Jacob Markstrom who hasn't been very good, so be it. I just don't believe in this notion of handing a role to a guy who has shown nothing but contraindications that he's good enough and ready for that role.

The point isn't that Miller has to be "elite" to be worth it. It's that even if he continues to post the same sort of .918 SV% he did last year while playing most of the year on a terrible team, and then dragging his numbers down a bit with a disruptive stint in St.Louis...that's still an enormous upgrade given that he can do that in a "workhorse role". The results he turned in last year were good for 12th best among "starters" (ie. guys with 50+ games). Improvement on that would be nice obviously, and i don't think it's totally out of the question...but even if a .918 is all he musters next year, that he can do it over the long-haul with a heavy workload is important.

And the trickle down effect that has, is in giving you the Eddie Lack we saw in the first half of the season again, for his ~30 games @ a SV% that could conceivable be in that .920 range as opposed to the sort of .912 he averaged over his whole workload, or worse based on where he was trending as a "Starter". It's not about Miller being elite, it's about the simple math where:

Miller+Lack can reasonably be expected to stop a higher percentage of pucks than Lack+Markstrom. When you average things out between the pairs of goaltenders, that can very conceivably result in the sort of win-loss difference between a bubble team making or not making the playoffs. And that's before we even start talking about the fact that you'd be expecting Lack to take on even MORE starts to get to that sort of 50-30 split...and the potential impact that might have on his results.

Ultimately though, it still comes back to Markstrom. If you think Markstrom is likely to post very good numbers, comparable to Miller next year then there's probably nothing i can say to dissuade you of that notion...it just doesn't seem like it's at all grounded in history or pragmatism. The indications do not seem to be pointing towards Markstrom suddenly jumping from a .873 SV% to a .918+ SV% even in a sheltered role next year.

It's cool that Markstrom is a shiny new prospect, and that he shops in the big and tall section, and he has lots of "potential". But none of those seem like any reason to hand him a roster spot at "the most important position on the ice".
Look, all I'm saying is that you're making a lot of assumptions but then you're trying to call me out on my assumptions without admitting you are making more than your share.

First of all, you are assuming Lack will get 30 games. Presumably this is because it is convenient to your 'having Miller helps Lack develop by taking pressure off of him' argument. Again, considering past history and Miller's desire to win something before he retires, there is almost no way he will acccept such a split, and his salary will also factor in. You don't pay a guy $6M to play 50 games, unless you are Philadelphia and have a goaltending curse. Not only that, but part of the reason Miller is not in Buffalo is because Enroth was at least keeping pace with his numbers at 1/10th the cap hit.

The current form of your argument is that it is worth it to pay Miller $6M because a Lack-Markstrom tandem would be horrible.

What we are really looking at is a game split of Lack 40 / Markstrom 20 / Veteran 22. If Markstrom were truly to fall on his face, it would be more like Lack 40 / Veteran 32 / Markstrom 10. Were Markstrom to be at only .900 for the season, that is worth only 9 goals over 20 games.

Again, what you are doing is just dancing around some combination where you can look Miller look like the 'stable option' by combining him against weird combinations of our two rookies. Yes, I know they're rookies. Yes, I know that's a risk. But if I could take $6M plus our current cap space to get a veteran backup who can handle 30-40 games and address our most pressing team issue which is goal scoring - which was a pressing issue back when we had cheaper guys who ACTUALLY PUT UP >.920 EVERY YEAR, that is what I would choose to do.

Over 82 games x 30 shots a game, a TOTAL FAILURE OF GOALTENDING with a combined save percentage of .902 WOULD STILL BE NEGATED BY THE ADDITION OF A SINGLE 30 GOAL SCORER, compared to a .915 tandem. In short, if we brought in Bryzgalov for $2.5M and he put up the .905 he has stunk it up with lately, his stinky play would still be made up for by the $6M being spent on scoring.

Combine this with the fact that we have at least three core players who scored historical lows for points and advanced stats points to at least one of them bouncing back, AND we added Vrbatam the more prudent CALCULATED RISK is to go with the points. And I haven't even factored in assists.

Finally, and I had hoped to avoid being this painfully exacting, Markstrom at .873 over 22 games plus ANY OTHER GOALIE at .910 playing the 60 remaining games @ 30 shots per game is a .900 save percentage. So even if Markstrom continued to suck and we inexplicably kept giving him games until he reached 22 games, we would still be better off with another 30 goals of offence.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 06:29 AM
  #468
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Look, all I'm saying is that you're making a lot of assumptions but then you're trying to call me out on my assumptions without admitting you are making more than your share.
The difference is, the assumptions i'm making are in projecting goaltenders results and trajectory out to next season based on what they have done historically and where things were headed last year, as opposed to "assuming" some sort of dramatic swings in performance based on...i really don't know what you're basing it on.

Quote:
First of all, you are assuming Lack will get 30 games. Presumably this is because it is convenient to your 'having Miller helps Lack develop by taking pressure off of him' argument. Again, considering past history and Miller's desire to win something before he retires, there is almost no way he will acccept such a split, and his salary will also factor in. You don't pay a guy $6M to play 50 games, unless you are Philadelphia and have a goaltending curse. Not only that, but part of the reason Miller is not in Buffalo is because Enroth was at least keeping pace with his numbers at 1/10th the cap hit.
So maybe Lack only gets 20-some games in next year. If that's the case, presumably it would be due to the fact that Miller is posting excellent results. Is that really something to be upset about? ~60 games has been pretty well established as "the norm" for starting goaltenders these days, if Lack ate into Miller's 60 games a bit more than typical, it would hardly be surprising. If Lack is posting great results, he's going to get some games. But in any event, we're talking about a hockey team in the business of winning games, not the business of "getting Eddie Lack starts".

Quote:
The current form of your argument is that it is worth it to pay Miller $6M because a Lack-Markstrom tandem would be horrible.
That's exactly what it boils down to. Lack-Markstrom is bottom of the league calibre goaltending. Signing Miller takes our netminding overall from one of the very worst tandems in the entire NHL, to "average" at worst...with the possibility of top-10 or better. That's pretty good bang for the buck imo.

Quote:
What we are really looking at is a game split of Lack 40 / Markstrom 20 / Veteran 22. If Markstrom were truly to fall on his face, it would be more like Lack 40 / Veteran 32 / Markstrom 10. Were Markstrom to be at only .900 for the season, that is worth only 9 goals over 20 games.
We're not running a ****ing 3 goalie rotation on the roster, with none of them waiver exempt. That does not work, it's dysfunction incarnate. So no, we're not looking at that as an alternative.

Quote:
Again, what you are doing is just dancing around some combination where you can look Miller look like the 'stable option' by combining him against weird combinations of our two rookies. Yes, I know they're rookies. Yes, I know that's a risk. But if I could take $6M plus our current cap space to get a veteran backup who can handle 30-40 games and address our most pressing team issue which is goal scoring - which was a pressing issue back when we had cheaper guys who ACTUALLY PUT UP >.920 EVERY YEAR, that is what I would choose to do.
I'm not dancing around anything. I'm comparing the two options directly in play here.

Miller+Lack vs Lack+Markstrom. That's not dancing around anything. Throwing in some hypothetical "veteran guy" to the mix, is dancing around the issue. Any goaltender you add to the mix, pushes Markstrom out of the lineup and down to the AHL, or traded away. You can't dance your way around that short of suggesting that we trade Lack instead, which is a whole different can of worms, trading the better player just to protect Markstrom.

Quote:
Over 82 games x 30 shots a game, a TOTAL FAILURE OF GOALTENDING with a combined save percentage of .902 WOULD STILL BE NEGATED BY THE ADDITION OF A SINGLE 30 GOAL SCORER, compared to a .915 tandem. In short, if we brought in Bryzgalov for $2.5M and he put up the .905 he has stunk it up with lately, his stinky play would still be made up for by the $6M being spent on scoring.

Combine this with the fact that we have at least three core players who scored historical lows for points and advanced stats points to at least one of them bouncing back, AND we added Vrbatam the more prudent CALCULATED RISK is to go with the points. And I haven't even factored in assists.

Finally, and I had hoped to avoid being this painfully exacting, Markstrom at .873 over 22 games plus ANY OTHER GOALIE at .910 playing the 60 remaining games @ 30 shots per game is a .900 save percentage. So even if Markstrom continued to suck and we inexplicably kept giving him games until he reached 22 games, we would still be better off with another 30 goals of offence.
Yeah, i'd be down for adding a 30g scorer too. They're pretty nice to have. But who is this mythical 30g star player we were going to add here again? We added one potential 30g scorer in Vrbata (really optimistically speaking)...who is this other mystery addition we were going to otherwise add to the team if only we hadn't signed this darned Ryan Miller character? And for how many years would we have had to sign this international man of mystery and goal producing phenom to lure them here? There were literally only 21 players who scored 30g last season. And none of them aside from Iggy were available on the UFA market (who they tried to sign, but opted to go elsewhere). Perspective.

biturbo19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 09:45 AM
  #469
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,046
vCash: 500
Well Ryan Kesler denied he had asked for a trade as well. Means nothing. It's possible that Markstrom's agent had let Benning know that Markstrom wants to play in the NHL and if he can't do that explore trade options. In the mean time, it does Markstrom no good to demand a trade and sulk over not being traded. He needs to show what he can do to expand his options.

F A N is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 02:58 PM
  #470
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,758
vCash: 500
Biturbo, this is the last time I'm going to respond to you in this thread. As I've said before I respect your opinion, I just happen to completely disagree with it. You've done nothing quantitative to back up your arguments, and I don't think the dialogue is productive any more.

Anyways, you don't need to add a single 30 goal scorer. All you have to do is make up 30 goals. If Vrbata and Bonino score 35 goals total (which would be a total disaster for us), you've made up for Kesler's 25 goals, which is all he's really averaged for us.

Now you have 10 extra goals, so your $6M only has to buy another 20 goals in any way shape or form. Since you have to figure one of Burrows/Hank/Dank are going to rebound, you are getting even more goals. All those goals will very adequately cover even .900 goaltending, which you can get for the cheap almost anywhere.

And Lack is waiver exempt.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 03:11 PM
  #471
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,495
vCash: 833
Are you guys serious with this "Botchford made it up" nonsense? Come on. If that was true, why did Benning give quotes about trying to move Markstrom over the rest of this summer? This is just damage control.

Proto is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 09:31 PM
  #472
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Biturbo, this is the last time I'm going to respond to you in this thread. As I've said before I respect your opinion, I just happen to completely disagree with it. You've done nothing quantitative to back up your arguments, and I don't think the dialogue is productive any more.

Anyways, you don't need to add a single 30 goal scorer. All you have to do is make up 30 goals. If Vrbata and Bonino score 35 goals total (which would be a total disaster for us), you've made up for Kesler's 25 goals, which is all he's really averaged for us.

Now you have 10 extra goals, so your $6M only has to buy another 20 goals in any way shape or form. Since you have to figure one of Burrows/Hank/Dank are going to rebound, you are getting even more goals. All those goals will very adequately cover even .900 goaltending, which you can get for the cheap almost anywhere.

And Lack is waiver exempt.
It doesn't really work that way though, in terms of "making up the 30g" by committee. There are a finite number of roster spots and good offensive minutes minutes to dole out, which is why one 30g scorer @$6M is worth substantially more than six 5g scorers @ $1M each for the same $6M and 30g totals. It's hyperbole, but the point is that it really does matter how you make up those total number of goals, and the way the cap dollars are allocated within that. And as much as i'd completely agree with you that goal scoring is probably one of the very best things to spend your cap dollars on in an ideal world, i'm not convinced that option was really out there for us, and don't see many specific names mentioned as viable options in that vein, or at least not ones that wouldn't leave us with contracts a lot more crippled than a 3 year deal on a good goaltender.

But you're right. There's obviously a fundamental difference in the way we view Markstrom right now, and it's probably not a chasm that can be bridged with discussion at this point.

biturbo19 is offline  
Old
07-12-2014, 09:34 PM
  #473
luongo321
Registered User
 
luongo321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,171
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Are you guys serious with this "Botchford made it up" nonsense? Come on. If that was true, why did Benning give quotes about trying to move Markstrom over the rest of this summer? This is just damage control.
Haha, yeah. I remember that article too. If Botch was making up quotes that Benning said then he'd be in big trouble.

luongo321 is offline  
Old
07-26-2014, 06:02 PM
  #474
TheWanderer
Registered User
 
TheWanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,701
vCash: 500
So do people actually think this guy is going to get claimed on waivers? So little has been said about this guy lately that I'm almost convinced most teams won't even notice his name on the waiver wire.

Seriously, though. What teams might consider Markstrom as a worthwhile gamble?

TheWanderer is offline  
Old
07-26-2014, 06:06 PM
  #475
kanucks25
Registered User
 
kanucks25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWanderer View Post
So do people actually think this guy is going to get claimed on waivers? So little has been said about this guy lately that I'm almost convinced most teams won't even notice his name on the waiver wire.

Seriously, though. What teams might consider Markstrom as a worthwhile gamble?
I'm sure there are at least a few teams out there that don't have a goalie prospect at all or their AHL goalies are older career minor leaguers.

No reason one of these teams wouldn't pick him up for free on waivers.

kanucks25 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.