Damn right it is. No way it is happening.

There is at least 20 free agent goalies.
- VANTEL

So he’s gone from your untouchable MVP to not worth a late 1st in (what you consider to be) a weak draft? Ok, whatever. Still the right move. You can maximize return and solve the expansion draft protection problem while setting the team up for great draft position in the best draft in years while still mid-rebuild. Or get swept in the playoffs and lose one of the goalies for nothing.

So how about we keep our goalie and trade our 10th OA for PK Subban . Alpha GM


Why would any team give up a first round pick for Markstrom when McElhinney is sitting there as UFA?

- VANTEL

Who suggested that?

So he’s gone from your untouchable MVP to not worth a late 1st in (what you consider to be) a weak draft? Ok, whatever. Still the right move. You can maximize return and solve the expansion draft protection problem while setting the team up for great draft position in the best draft in years while still mid-rebuild. Or get swept in the playoffs and lose one of the goalies for nothing.
- DrChristianTroy

Cmon now . If you are trading someone you have someone to replace that player.

I can't begin to tell you how bad I think this idea is . Why would any of the 5 teams that need a goalie chose to give up assets when there is 20 plus goalies that are free agents.

We can discuss if it is a good deal or not when it happens . Until then it is a wish.

So he’s gone from your untouchable MVP to not worth a late 1st in (what you consider to be) a weak draft? Ok, whatever. Still the right move. You can maximize return and solve the expansion draft protection problem while setting the team up for great draft position in the best draft in years while still mid-rebuild. Or get swept in the playoffs and lose one of the goalies for nothing.
- DrChristianTroy

Cmon now . If you are trading someone you have someone to replace that player.

I can't begin to tell you how bad I think this idea is . Why would any of the 5 teams that need a goalie chose to give up assets when there is 20 plus goalies that are free agents.

We can discuss if it is a good deal or not when it happens . Until then it is a wish.
- VANTEL

You're right, they'll need him as much as a healthy Sutter to make some noise in the playoffs next season.

You're right, they'll need him as much as a healthy Sutter to make some noise in the playoffs next season.
- Marwood

Are you willing to trade our first for Subban . Big balls move.

Are you willing to trade our first for Subban . Big balls move.

- VANTEL

No. Apples and hand grenades but nice try.

Markstrom should be traded at the draft, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
- DrChristianTroy

I've been on that train for awhile, someone has to overvalue him.

So he’s gone from your untouchable MVP to not worth a late 1st in (what you consider to be) a weak draft? Ok, whatever. Still the right move. You can maximize return and solve the expansion draft protection problem while setting the team up for great draft position in the best draft in years while still mid-rebuild. Or get swept in the playoffs and lose one of the goalies for nothing.
- DrChristianTroy

I would have no problem with the trading of Markstrom, but, your argument of expansion draft is questionable, as that is 2 seasons away.
Also, I would be surprised if he could get a 3rd, whether it be now or at TDL, especially, as Vantel points out, the amount of available goalies through free-agency.

No. Apples and hand grenades but nice try.
- Marwood

Not really because you are expecting some other team to pull a stupid move and trade for Markstrom.


Maybe if you help me out with what team is that dumb and who they are sending back I might get a better picture.

Obviously everyone watching the game can see the same thing. How often it happens. We know Hughes is good at zone exits, would anybody have known in his 5 games that he was double, triple every other defencemen. Probably not.

Stats are sort of clarification of what you see out there and a more exact number.
- manvanfan

" Statistics are like lamposts. They should be used for support and not illumination. "

Markstrom should be traded at the draft, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
- DrChristianTroy

He's probably our best asset to trade outside of the top 4 (Bo, EP, BB & QH)

Who said to go with an unproven rookie goalie? Obviously we sell high & buy low on a stop gap vet to share the load. This is about maximizing leverage, a looming expansion draft, & the likelihood of a repeat performance from Markstrom... This isn’t fantasyland BS - it’s legit strategic management.
- DrChristianTroy

I don't think it's a sell at all costs situation. I'd hold out for a pick in the top 45ish. If not, I roll the dice that he has another good season and/or a team becomes goalie hungry.

So he’s gone from your untouchable MVP to not worth a late 1st in (what you consider to be) a weak draft? Ok, whatever. Still the right move. You can maximize return and solve the expansion draft protection problem while setting the team up for great draft position in the best draft in years while still mid-rebuild. Or get swept in the playoffs and lose one of the goalies for nothing.
- DrChristianTroy

That sounds so Canuck.

Cmon now . If you are trading someone you have someone to replace that player.

I can't begin to tell you how bad I think this idea is . Why would any of the 5 teams that need a goalie chose to give up assets when there is 20 plus goalies that are free agents.

We can discuss if it is a good deal or not when it happens . Until then it is a wish.
- VANTEL

That player is being phased out in Vancouver pretty much regardless, unless he somehow unleashes a Vezina power we haven't seen. We wouldn't be looking for a starting goalie out of a signee, just a guy that can play maybe 50 games.

I don't think it's a sell at all costs situation. I'd hold out for a pick in the top 45ish. If not, I roll the dice that he has another good season and/or a team becomes goalie hungry.
- golfingsince

I was thinking 40 but the reality is it would be between 15-31 and I don't think anyone would give their first.

I've been on that train for awhile, someone has to overvalue him.
- golfingsince

Vantel does.

Not really because you are expecting some other team to pull a stupid move and trade for Markstrom.


Maybe if you help me out with what team is that dumb and who they are sending back I might get a better picture.
- VANTEL

I can't tell you what other teams are thinking or what they might be willing to offer. But someone might see him as an improvement like Benning did when he signed Eriksson.

I was thinking 40 but the reality is it would be between 15-31 and I don't think anyone would give their first.
- VANTEL

It's not likely that anyone gives up a first, but i'd take a high 2nd round pick.

Just a year ago Markstrom was part of the problem, if by nothing else than not being part of the solution. IF he plays great again, and a contender has a problem (injury) at the goaltending position than you may have undersold.

I don't know the draft eligible players both this year and next to make a decision on the draft difference of maybe 15 picks between this year and next. Then again, my full time job is not running the Canucks. I'm just saying, sell high and i've been saying it for awhile.

Vantel does.
- A_SteamingLombardi

I can't tell you what other teams are thinking or what they might be willing to offer. But someone might see him as an improvement like Benning did when he signed Eriksson.
- Marwood

Vantel does.
- A_SteamingLombardi

I get what Vantel is saying though, it's just a gamble either way to a certain extent. I hate to bring up the Leafs but look at how they play once Andersen becomes injured/tired.

What if goaltending is the issue with the Oilers? There are possibilities, but if a player is there that I like I make the deal.

Look at that ask compared to the rest of those offers, he must think Benning is retarded or really hate the rest of the roster outside of Bo/EP/Hughes/Boeser
- Nucker101

...or maybe its just bullpoop.

- Marwood

Vantels response: Markstrom provides reliability .

Marwoods response: The only reason Canucks didn't finish dead last is because of Markstrom and Petey


Actual quotes BTW

It's not likely that anyone gives up a first, but i'd take a high 2nd round pick.

Just a year ago Markstrom was part of the problem, if by nothing else than not being part of the solution. IF he plays great again, and a contender has a problem (injury) at the goaltending position than you may have undersold.

I don't know the draft eligible players both this year and next to make a decision on the draft difference of maybe 15 picks between this year and next. Then again, my full time job is not running the Canucks. I'm just saying, sell high and i've been saying it for awhile.
- golfingsince

A high second would most likely be a rebuild team . Unless they have someones pick