[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Impressive mental gymnastics you’re attempting to pull off.

Retaining salary is a tool to be used to extract a higher value return on the asset you’re moving. Although not widespread, this is used by GM’s for that reason.

The value of the contact itself is relative to both the assets being moved and the returned asset. It has no more nor less relevance as to whether the contract is ‘good’ or not.

At the end of the day Markstrom is a Vezina calibre goalie, or at least he has been two of the last three years. Moving him at full freight has value. It’s just likely the Flames can get more if they absorb a percentage of his contract. It also is an attractive option for the Flames because they can leverage valuable cap space, which is among the most valuable asset an organization can have, to garner a greater return. So, why wouldn’t they?

Trying to conflate player performance/value to salary retention misses the mark, by a wide margin. There’s a lot you’re not taking into account in making these basic opinions of yours known. You’re not doing a very good job of presenting a well thought out argument.

The Flames are trying to build a competitive team by 2027. That’s an ambitious target to hit but not impossible. They should absolutely be using every lever they can pull on to put them in position to hit that target. And if retaining salary on high value assets who don’t fit their window is one of them, they should do it. It has nothing to do with if the contract is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Also, Markstrom at $6M is not ‘bad’ anyway. $6M for Vezina calibre goaltending is something most/all GM’s would gladly take, I would bet.

A Vezina caliber goalie, really? He won't even be a finalist.