[Article] "You're too good": Jacob Markstrom tells story of confusing Canucks demotion

[RWJC]

"You're too good": Jacob Markstrom tells story of confusing Canucks demotion

 

Noah Strang 

Sep 11, 2024 | 2:47 AM

 

Former Vancouver Canucks goalie Jacob Markstrom has had an eventful NHL career thus far.

 

The New Jersey Devils goalie was recently on popular hockey podcast Spittin’ Chiclets and had a lot to say about his days in Vancouver.

One of the most interesting stories he told took place prior to the 2014-15 season. The Canucks had just signed veteran Ryan Miller and with Eddie Lack also in the mix, the goalie situation was competitive with Markstrom looking to break into the NHL full-time.

 

“I played half a game in San Jose, played unbelievable. Saw it great, great shape, had a great summer,” explained the 6-foot-5 netminder on Spittin’ Chiclets.

 

“And then Jim Benning just told me ‘we’re going to send you down, you’re too good if we keep you right now.'”

Too good?

 

“I was like, how am I too good for the NHL?” recounts the Swedish goalie with a smile.

 

The team put him on waivers instead of giving him a spot on the roster. Thankfully for the Canucks, he went unclaimed and spent the season with the Utica Comets in the AHL.

 

“You get put on waivers and think somebody is going to pick you up for free but that didn’t happen. That’s a big eye-opener,” said the goalie.

“You’re like, I’m not as good as I think I am.”

 

It wouldn’t be until the next season that Markstrom would establish himself as a full-time NHLer, taking over the backup role behind Miller.

 

Over the next few years Markstrom would continue to progress, evolving into one of the best goalies across the league. He finished his Canucks stint with a 99-93-27 record, a 2.73 goals-against-average, and a .913% save percentage.

 

He credits some of that development to well-regarded goalie coach Ian Clark, who is still with the Canucks but recently took a step back in his role. Markstrom calls him an “unbelievable goalie coach” but says their first meeting was tense.

 

“He really pushed me. First time we met, we sat down in Sweden at a restaurant and he told me for two hours what a sh*t goalie I am and then went back to Vancouver and I went home,” said the now-Devils netminder.

“I was like ‘Who does this guy think he is? I’m going to fu*king show him,’ and then everything he said felt good.”

 

Markstrom was traded to the Devils this summer and will make his debut for the team next season.

 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/markstrom-story-canucks-demotion

[Toni Zamboni]

I liked Marky
good luck in NJ

[Canuck You]

I saw this on Spittin' Chicklets last night ..was gonna post it but glad you did and spared people from seeing 'Pink thong Whitney's' face...Anyways, Had he not cleared waivers it would have been chalked up to another Benning F up...guess you get lucky once in awhile.

[RinkonRenfrew]

4 minutes ago, Canuck You said:

I saw this on Spittin' Chicklets last night ..was gonna post it but glad you did and spared people from seeing 'Pink thong Whitney's' face...Anyways, Had he not cleared waivers it would have been chalked up to another Benning F up...guess you get lucky once in awhile.

if he got claimed and sat in a backup role that year, probably on a bottom feeder, no telling if he would have developed as he did. He even states that no one claiming him was an eye-opener. I would think that would help check his ego and lead to him being more coachable and harder working.

 

Loved Marky when he was here and hope he can help turn NJ around.

 

I, like most of us have Clark on a pedestal. Really know nothing about him as a person or his process. A little surprised to read that he led with a 2 hour tear down of marky to start their relationship. i’m curious if that’s his usual opening move or if it’s tailored to what he thinks the goalie needs. never heard anything bad about him, and am not trying to throw shade, just genuinely curious if anyone remembers any stories or has insight.

[N4ZZY]

1 hour ago, RinkonRenfrew said:

Loved Marky when he was here and hope he can help turn NJ around.

Just not when we're playing them. 

 

[CaptainCanuck12]

I remember this clearly.  Markstrom had played unbelieveably well in his first preseason game.  The Canucks had the three goalies at the time, and it was pretty apparent that Markstrom was going to have to be the one to play in Utica that year.  After his great game against San Jose, they knew that their only chance to keep him was to put him through waivers right away, before he drew any more attention to himself. If they'd waited and he kept playing as well as he did, there was no way he would make it through.  And they weren't going to be sending  Lack or Miller to Utica at that point in thier careers.  This may have been the most underrated move Benning made as Canucks' GM.

[Drakrami]

Well he obviously overrated himself. No one thought he was going to be an NHL goalie during or after he was traded to us and he didn't prove himself until 3 years later in the 2018 season. Even now hes not a top 10 goalie in the league. 

[Rubik]

Didn't he allow 4 goals on like 8 shots against San Jose? Or was that Eddie?

[Rubik]

oh, I was thinking of a game from the 2014-15 season, March 3. Rough game for Marky.

 

https://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/sjs-vs-van/2015/03/03/2014020951/boxscore

 

Edited September 13 by Rubik

[Alflives]

Benning, the moran, strikes again. Hey Marky! “You’re too good.”

worst GM ever. 

[Ghostsof1915]

 

[Crabcakes]

Wasn't it about getting him reps in games rather than wearing a ball cap and practicing.  He was after all, seen as starter material  

[Down By the River]

The decision to send Markstrom to Utica was the right one, but in classic Benning fashion, even correct decisions are communicated poorly. 

[Bob Long]

34 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Wasn't it about getting him reps in games rather than wearing a ball cap and practicing.  He was after all, seen as starter material  

 

It was. He also needed the time in Utica. 

[DeNiro]

37 minutes ago, Down By the River said:

The decision to send Markstrom to Utica was the right one, but in classic Benning fashion, even correct decisions are communicated poorly. 

Ownership needed to realize that though and pair him with a strong communicator.

 

It’s why Benning and Chiarelli worked together and not separately, same with Holland and Nill. Even Gillis had Gillman to make it work.

 

You need two strong GMs that bring qualities that the other doesn’t possess. Benning just had Weisbrod who was basically a yes man with no discernible qualities.
 

That being said there were way more issues than just his communication. Like spending more time scouting on the road than actually focusing on the team.

[higgyfan]

9 hours ago, CaptainCanuck12 said:

I remember this clearly.  Markstrom had played unbelieveably well in his first preseason game.  The Canucks had the three goalies at the time, and it was pretty apparent that Markstrom was going to have to be the one to play in Utica that year.  After his great game against San Jose, they knew that their only chance to keep him was to put him through waivers right away, before he drew any more attention to himself. If they'd waited and he kept playing as well as he did, there was no way he would make it through.  And they weren't going to be sending  Lack or Miller to Utica at that point in thier careers.  This may have been the most underrated move Benning made as Canucks' GM.

 

This is correct.  Marks seems to have a memory lapse of his time in Vancouver.  He was still

a developing NHL goalie with below .900 stats and the Canucks had two goalies that were

playing far better than him.  There's no way Miller or Lack would go through waivers and

they would be interrupting Marks development by limiting his time in Vancouver as the 3rd.

At the time, most people at CDC thought it was a brilliant move and were thankful that Marks

had the AHL playing experience which propelled him onto the Canucks as the permanent backup

to Miller for the following season.

[Down By the River]

2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Ownership needed to realize that though and pair him with a strong communicator.

 

It’s why Benning and Chiarelli worked together and not separately, same with Holland and Nill. Even Gillis had Gillman to make it work.

 

You need two strong GMs that bring qualities that the other doesn’t possess. Benning just had Weisbrod who was basically a yes man with no discernible qualities.
 

That being said there were way more issues than just his communication. Like spending more time scouting on the road than actually focusing on the team.

 

Oh definitely. Benning was a mess. Despite his communication issues, he somehow found a way to convince ownership to clean house (e.g., Linden), which ironically probably was Benning shooting himself in the foot because he had so few people to lean on and it showed. 

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, Down By the River said:

 

Oh definitely. Benning was a mess. Despite his communication issues, he somehow found a way to convince ownership to clean house (e.g., Linden), which ironically probably was Benning shooting himself in the foot because he had so few people to lean on and it showed. 

Bingo.

[Dr. Crossbar]

11 hours ago, CaptainCanuck12 said:

I remember this clearly.  Markstrom had played unbelieveably well in his first preseason game.  The Canucks had the three goalies at the time, and it was pretty apparent that Markstrom was going to have to be the one to play in Utica that year.  After his great game against San Jose, they knew that their only chance to keep him was to put him through waivers right away, before he drew any more attention to himself. If they'd waited and he kept playing as well as he did, there was no way he would make it through.  And they weren't going to be sending  Lack or Miller to Utica at that point in thier careers.  This may have been the most underrated move Benning made as Canucks' GM.

 

Nicely put! Good post! Context matters!

 

I appreciate this over alarmism and sensationalism. 

[Wilbur]

13 hours ago, CaptainCanuck12 said:

I remember this clearly.  Markstrom had played unbelieveably well in his first preseason game.  The Canucks had the three goalies at the time, and it was pretty apparent that Markstrom was going to have to be the one to play in Utica that year.  After his great game against San Jose, they knew that their only chance to keep him was to put him through waivers right away, before he drew any more attention to himself. If they'd waited and he kept playing as well as he did, there was no way he would make it through.  And they weren't going to be sending  Lack or Miller to Utica at that point in thier careers.  This may have been the most underrated move Benning made as Canucks' GM.

Well put.

 

I'll add, that Marky hadn't necessarily earned anything at the NHL level at that point.  His play in the previous year showed he needed more time to play in the AHL.  Fortunately he was able to do that with the Canucks, and I guess the rest is history.

[PureQuickness]

Honestly, I've been back and forth with Benning.

 

Benning DEFINITELY wasn't GM material. He had personality defects and it didn't help that he had a terrible assistant manager helping to guide the ship. That said, this is a guy who would be better suited in a behind-the-scene role (i.e. scouting).

 

The fact that he was DEMOTING Markstrom for being too good is silly. Could he not have traded Markstrom for something? Now, to be fair, Tampa Bay let Stamkos walk for NOTHING, so letting a decent goalie go on waivers is nothing to condemn a GM for. It's the thinking process of Benning, or lack thereof.

 

Benning's done good things. Benning's done bad things. We can't talk about the good without the bad, and vice versa. Out of all the bad trades, Benning's best trade was Miller. Maybe one of the single best player trades in Canucks history. There's no question about it. The Miller trade was a fleece in hindsight. Mazanec never amounted to anything and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakir_Mukhamadullin was the pick that NJ ended up with. Needless to say, not a great pick in hindsight.

 

The OEL trade was not even that bad, or even one of the worst ones. Arguably the worst trade was the Forsling one, even though Forsling had to be traded AGAIN to flourish like he did, akin to Michael Grabner. That trade really blew up in Benning's face. The OEL trade managed to get Garland who really flourishes under Tocchet systems.

 

The takeaway from this is: some jobs are just not suitable because of personality. Remember Allvin's disastrous hire with Rachel Doerrie? Doerrie is one such example of someone who is dire need of a personality overhaul. When everyone is at fault except you, you're the problem. Same thing with Benning.

[RWJC]

42 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

Honestly, I've been back and forth with Benning.

 

Benning DEFINITELY wasn't GM material. He had personality defects and it didn't help that he had a terrible assistant manager helping to guide the ship. That said, this is a guy who would be better suited in a behind-the-scene role (i.e. scouting).

 

The fact that he was DEMOTING Markstrom for being too good is silly. Could he not have traded Markstrom for something? Now, to be fair, Tampa Bay let Stamkos walk for NOTHING, so letting a decent goalie go on waivers is nothing to condemn a GM for. It's the thinking process of Benning, or lack thereof.

 

Benning's done good things. Benning's done bad things. We can't talk about the good without the bad, and vice versa. Out of all the bad trades, Benning's best trade was Miller. Maybe one of the single best player trades in Canucks history. There's no question about it. The Miller trade was a fleece in hindsight. Mazanec never amounted to anything and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakir_Mukhamadullin was the pick that NJ ended up with. Needless to say, not a great pick in hindsight.

 

The OEL trade was not even that bad, or even one of the worst ones. Arguably the worst trade was the Forsling one, even though Forsling had to be traded AGAIN to flourish like he did, akin to Michael Grabner. That trade really blew up in Benning's face. The OEL trade managed to get Garland who really flourishes under Tocchet systems.

 

The takeaway from this is: some jobs are just not suitable because of personality. Remember Allvin's disastrous hire with Rachel Doerrie? Doerrie is one such example of someone who is dire need of a personality overhaul. When everyone is at fault except you, you're the problem. Same thing with Benning.

Agreed, but it’s not always the GMs fault for a player not playing up to their potential. As well, he was drafted in the 5th round, meaning every team passed on him multiple times.

 

The fact that we drafted Forsling tells anyone that mgmt understood his potential. Could be argued we didn’t have the correct development structure in place, nor the coaching or teammates, to help realize that potential, but there is MAJOR accountability on Forsling himself to have been unable to succeed given what was supplied. As fans we greatly tend to forget that it takes two to tango, and just because he was a failed asset for us doesn’t mean the blame lies solely on the org at that time. Even McCann has stated he needed to mature to evolve into what he has, meaning trajectories are rarely straight lines. NHL players, until they reach the pinnacle, have played in a variety of systems with numerous coaches and teammates. By the time they reach the professional circuit, they have an obligation to their own career to navigate, excel and supplant in order to maintain tenure anywhere and at that level. Some players just need time and the correct environment for that, others excel faster. Just the way it is. 
 

Not being a Benning apologist by any means, but in most situations the pathway to success is reliant on BOTH mgmt and the player to fulfill their developmental obligations. 

 

 

Edited September 14 by RWJC

[Alflives]

13 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Agreed, but it’s not always the GMs fault for a player not playing up to their potential. As well, he was drafted in the 5th round, meaning every team passed on him multiple times.

 

The fact that we drafted Forsling tells anyone that mgmt understood his potential. Could be argued we didn’t have the correct development structure in place, nor the coaching or teammates, to help realize that potential, but there is MAJOR accountability on Forsling himself to have been unable to succeed given what was supplied. As fans we greatly tend to forget that it takes two to tango, and just because he was a failed asset for us doesn’t mean the blame lies solely on the org at that time. Even McCann has stated he needed to mature to evolve into what he has, meaning trajectories are rarely straight lines. NHL players, until they reach the pinnacle, have played in a variety of systems with numerous coaches and teammates. By the time they reach the professional circuit, they have an obligation to their own career to navigate, excel and supplant in order to maintain tenure anywhere and at that level. Some players just need time and the correct environment for that, others excel faster. Just the way it is. 
 

Not being a Benning apologist by any means, but in most situations the pathway to success is reliant on BOTH mgmt and the player to fulfill their developmental obligations. 

 

 

And it’s important for the GM to encourage the scouting department instead of over rule them. Benning always tried to go with his guy which too often was a bustaroo. New management encourages their scouting department to make the choice. This is why we are drafting better under the new regime. 

[Ghostsof1915]

18 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Agreed, but it’s not always the GMs fault for a player not playing up to their potential. As well, he was drafted in the 5th round, meaning every team passed on him multiple times.

 

The fact that we drafted Forsling tells anyone that mgmt understood his potential. Could be argued we didn’t have the correct development structure in place, nor the coaching or teammates, to help realize that potential, but there is MAJOR accountability on Forsling himself to have been unable to succeed given what was supplied. As fans we greatly tend to forget that it takes two to tango, and just because he was a failed asset for us doesn’t mean the blame lies solely on the org at that time. Even McCann has stated he needed to mature to evolve into what he has, meaning trajectories are rarely straight lines. NHL players, until they reach the pinnacle, have played in a variety of systems with numerous coaches and teammates. By the time they reach the professional circuit, they have an obligation to their own career to navigate, excel and supplant in order to maintain tenure anywhere and at that level. Some players just need time and the correct environment for that, others excel faster. Just the way it is. 
 

Not being a Benning apologist by any means, but in most situations the pathway to success is reliant on BOTH mgmt and the player to fulfill their developmental obligations. 

 

 

He was painted in a corner on the cap, if he had a proper capologist, and maybe some assistant GM's who could get the ball rolling on negotiating deals. The Canucks probably would have lost Toffoli regardless, but losing Markstrom and Tanev for nothing. Damn that stings. 

[RWJC]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

And it’s important for the GM to encourage the scouting department instead of over rule them. Benning always tried to go with his guy which too often was a bustaroo. New management encourages their scouting department to make the choice. This is why we are drafting better under the new regime. 

 

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

He was painted in a corner on the cap, if he had a proper capologist, and maybe some assistant GM's who could get the ball rolling on negotiating deals. The Canucks probably would have lost Toffoli regardless, but losing Markstrom and Tanev for nothing. Damn that stings. 

Totally agree. My points were solely regarding Forsling though - his respective development curve and the sentiment that we dropped the ball with him. Or for that matter McCann too. If we look around the league, there are far, far worse examples of these kinds of “blunders”. 

Eg. Chara, Filip Forsberg, Burakovsky, Bret Hull and (of course) NAZZY! Etc etc 

Edited September 14 by RWJC