Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
No I think a little more is justified. My thought is that the Flames want 2nd + asset for Tanev and the Markstrom deal was Mercer + 1st without factoring in retention and the hitch was the valuation on the retention. So you add tanev to the deal get the 2nd and the + asset is the difference between the Flames and devils valuation of the retention. I don't think we need to retain on Tanev.
Makes sense to me.
|
I agree that mine was probably optimistic but also agree I don't think it's wildly optimistic. Suppose it depends what NJ values Mercer as mainly, and what we value retention as.
Let's suppose "universally" Markstrom is worth a 1st + something. We feel that something is Mercer and NJ feels that's too much. Then looking at retention, let's say 50% for 2.5 years(!) is worth a 1st + 3rd. We think that's Casey + 3rd. Drop the 3rd, add that value into Mercer and I don't think that's unreasonable. The best player currently in the deal would be Markstrom.
Then Tanev, is it just a conditional 1st? Maybe, but it seems the prevailing thought is a 2nd + prospect/player, and Connie is holding out for a conditional 1st. In the case I proposed, that condition is pretty unlikely (NJ winning the cup), and thus it's realistically just a 2nd. Perhaps Holtz is a bit rich for the extra in the deal, but Tanev isn't Markstrom, he's a pending UFA and the market is much higher for him I'd wager. The retention on Tanev was to balance the Holtz equation a bit (also, I'm not sure what NJ's capspace is looking like).
Ultimately, I think it'd be an amazing return and likely across the league it may seem like a steal for us, until it solidifies a decent NJ team and sets them up for a run. Outside of the picks and Casey, NJ is losing a current 2nd/3rd line center, a 4th line winger. We give up a #1 goalie + a number 3/4 steady defenseman, both of whom would be the best player in the deal currently, plus over 10million in real money, + 3m in cap for 2 years.
Honestly, I don't think it's ridiculous?