Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Because Murray would balk at retaining on Markstrom but sign off on retaining on Tanev because… reasons.
He does seem like a penny pincher, what with the team having free reign to spend to the cap, buyout players, and pay coaches not to coach for them.
|
It’s definitely not about a refusal to take on dead cap, the flames have demonstrated numerous times/ways they willingly take on dead cap, the most recent being the Tanev deal. With Markstrom, I think it comes down to price associated with the retention (retaining on a contract with term should obviously come at an additional price to the normal rate) As well as a desire for Mercer over Holtz. It seems from piecing all the reporting together that the Flames may have softened on the Mercer over Holtz stance but I don’t think NJD ever came to properly paying for the additional years of retention (adding in Casey, or an additional pick)
At any rate though, the last couple weeks should bring an end to the notion that the flames management, ownership in particular, don’t have any appetite for taking on dead cap. Should being the operative word lol.