Carol Schram: Vancouver Canucks Game Day: November 1 at Edmonton Oilers, Burrows Gets 3 The Vancouver Canucks will look to extend their winning streak to four games without the suspended Alex Burrows when they take on the Oilers Saturday night at Rexall Place.

1st

Horvat has no points in 5 games with Utica. Definitely needs another year in junior to build his confidence.

If Markstrom pans out the way some have suggested, it would be a nice asset to improve the team in other areas of weakness such as defense and special teams. You would have to think Benning has some players circled from other teams on his trade board.

1st
- pker2theend

Good to see you posting regularly again.

Horvat has no points in 5 games with Utica. Definitely needs another year in junior to build his confidence.
- Grumpy13

Team Canada will help.

If Markstrom pans out the way some have suggested, it would be a nice asset to improve the team in other areas of weakness such as defense and special teams. You would have to think Benning has some players circled from other teams on his trade board.
- VanHockeyGuy

Just hope it's not Berglund or a Berglund type player as Friedman suggests (Lefty posted comments in last blog).

Good to see you posting regularly again.
- bloatedmosquito

Good to be back.

Horvat has no points in 5 games with Utica. Definitely needs another year in junior to build his confidence.
- Grumpy13

Spoken like someone who has not watched a single one of those 5 games

Spoken like someone who has not watched a single one of those 5 games
- eternalcashflow

Easy, don't troll your own fan base...

If Markstrom pans out the way some have suggested, it would be a nice asset to improve the team in other areas of weakness such as defense and special teams. You would have to think Benning has some players circled from other teams on his trade board.
- VanHockeyGuy

Would be a waste of an asset to trade him. Teams aren't exactly taking out a second mortgage for goaltenders these days

Just hope it's not Berglund or a Berglund type player as Friedman suggests (Lefty posted comments in last blog).
- bloatedmosquito

I like big Centers, but not another Swede. How about a good Canadian boy with some slight anger management issues?

Would be a waste of an asset to trade him. Teams aren't exactly taking out a second mortgage for goaltenders these days
- bezz44

Not suggesting right now, things can change real fast. The Canucks need more depth on D that can play now. Markstrom may be good card to play when injuries start to pile up.

Spoken like someone who has not watched a single one of those 5 games
- eternalcashflow

It's a somewhat valid concern. Let's see how he does in a Canucks uniform against NHL players before we label him a bust or award him the Calder Trophy.

Not suggesting right now, things can change real fast. The Canucks need more depth on D that can play now. Markstrom may be good card to play when injuries start to pile up.
- VanHockeyGuy

If the goalie market changes and we see people throwing big assets at goaltenders I don't think it will be for AHL level goalies. A guy who passed waivers is not going to fetch much more just because he posted some shutouts in the AHL. If I'm a GM trying to buy Markstrom, I leverage the fact that he lacks NHL success into a better deal, in addition to the fact that he passed waivers. I just don't see it being a good idea. Markstrom will be a buy low candidate until he is playing (very well) in the NHL, and if that is occurring then we should keep the younger, cheaper asset.

If the goalie market changes and we see people throwing big assets at goaltenders I don't think it will be for AHL level goalies. A guy who passed waivers is not going to fetch much more just because he posted some shutouts in the AHL. If I'm a GM trying to buy Markstrom, I leverage the fact that he lacks NHL success into a better deal, in addition to the fact that he passed waivers. I just don't see it being a good idea. Markstrom will be a buy low candidate until he is playing (very well) in the NHL, and if that is occurring then we should keep the younger, cheaper asset.
- bezz44

The way the waivers work Markstrom would have had to stay on an NHL team and that's why I think he didn't get picked up. He's still a blue-chip prospect with some value.

The way the waivers work Markstrom would have had to stay on an NHL team and that's why I think he didn't get picked up. He's still a blue-chip prospect with some value.
- Dangles13

I understand that but I still think GM's will use it as leverage. He had already had AHL success when we got him from FLA and the return of Markstrom+Matthias has been ridiculed incessantly (though most of us here were happy with the trade). I just don't see him as having added to his trade value in any significant way since then. For instance, would you trade Klefbom for Markstrom?

If the goalie market changes and we see people throwing big assets at goaltenders I don't think it will be for AHL level goalies. A guy who passed waivers is not going to fetch much more just because he posted some shutouts in the AHL. If I'm a GM trying to buy Markstrom, I leverage the fact that he lacks NHL success into a better deal, in addition to the fact that he passed waivers. I just don't see it being a good idea. Markstrom will be a buy low candidate until he is playing (very well) in the NHL, and if that is occurring then we should keep the younger, cheaper asset.
- bezz44

Perhaps, however if he continues to dominate in the AHL he will draw attention if he hasn't already. Timing and sheltering his preseason play got him through waivers. I'm not suggesting he is a high value trade target right now by no means but I could see him in a package at some point in time this season. No?

I understand that but I still think GM's will use it as leverage. He had already had AHL success when we got him from FLA and the return of Markstrom+Matthias has been ridiculed incessantly (though most of us here were happy with the trade). I just don't see him as having added to his trade value in any significant way since then. For instance, would you trade Klefbom for Markstrom?
- bezz44

It only makes sense to trade him if you can take advantage of another team, goalies don't really hit their stride until their late 20s so patience is key. He's absolutely tearing up the AHL right now.

Perhaps, however if he continues to dominate in the AHL he will draw attention if he hasn't already. Timing and sheltering his preseason play got him through waivers. I'm not suggesting he is a high value trade target right now by no means but I could see him in a package at some point in time this season. No?
- VanHockeyGuy

If the deal is right, then I agree. I'm just skeptical about what we'd get

It only makes sense to trade him if you can take advantage of another team, goalies don't really hit their stride until their late 20s so patience is key. He's absolutely tearing up the AHL right now.
- Dangles13

Absolutely. I would personally rather keep him unless the other team is getting bent over

The way the waivers work Markstrom would have had to stay on an NHL team and that's why I think he didn't get picked up. He's still a blue-chip prospect with some value.
- Dangles13

From what I have heard he is close, if not ready to play in some capacity in the NHL. What we do know is there is a lot of Goalie depth in Utica, that's not going unnoticed by other team. It's all about timing if they move one, for both sides. The level of urgency.

Absolutely. I would personally rather keep him unless the other team is getting bent over
- bezz44

Not bent over but slightly violated

Spoken like someone who has not watched a single one of those 5 games
- eternalcashflow

I have and he isn't ready and he has only been given 3rd and 4th line minutes, sheltered minutes in the AHL. He has done well on the faceoff dot and has been a solid 2 way guy. Nothing really stands out for me in those few games that makes me feel he would excel bringing him into the line up right now. Is he better than others in the line up right meow? NO, face offs maybe but thats about it.

Absolutely. I would personally rather keep him unless the other team is getting bent over
- bezz44

It might make more sense to trade Lack and have Markstrom backup Miller. The return for Lack should be decent enough.