[News] LeBrun/Dreger - Flames open for Business

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Markstrom may be tradable as there is a lack of quality goalie at the moment

But seriously, you have to be pretty desperate to trade for Markstrom if you want to win the Cup

He has never been a clutch goalie, often performed miserably when the game becomes important

The Devils might be interested

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

* Well below average NHL goaltender in his last 40 games played.



* Poor playoff history.



* 33 years old.



* Two more seasons after this at $6 mil per.



* Has a no trade clause.



Yeah, I’d be shocked if Markstom gets moved.

An established NHL goalie at $3 million for 2 more seasons might be tempting for someone

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Eating half of 6m for 2.5 seasons should warrant a lot more than that. I would hope a top prospect would be included with a 1st.

I think the better course of action is taking on a contract with similar cap hit that is a defender or forward. For example, Palat would be a good grab. I still think he is a top 6 forward in New Jersey but he is getting his minutes taken away from younger players.

Teams want to send back equal amount of money and Markstrom has two years left. So if they can then that helps his value too. Not sure what it is exactly, just throwing that first round idea out there. He's also been up and down the last couple of years and the market is very cold right now.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah none of those games in that Dallas series mattered.

He was the second best goalie in that series

But of course you don’t remember that and what happened after

They basically lost because of him lol

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

An established NHL goalie at $3 million for 2 more seasons might be tempting for someone

At $3 mil, yes. Though there’s no sign that management (and Edwards) have an appetite for retaining significant salary for multiple seasons.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Teams want to send back equal amount of money and Markstrom has two years left. So if they can then that helps his value too. Not sure what it is exactly, just throwing that first round idea out there. He's also been up and down the last couple of years and the market is very cold right now.

I would prefer trying to stay competitive in the future and not having to eat away at 3m for 2 more seasons after this one. What I would like the Flames to do is trade Markstrom to a contender, take on a meh contract that can turn out to be a good player for us, and flip the goalie they give back to us for an upgrade elsewhere.

For example, an NJ/CGY/LAK trade:

To NJ: Markstrom, Zadorov
To CGY: 2024/2025 1st (whichever San Jose doesn't get), Vanecek, Palat, 2026 2nd (for extra year of Palat)

To LA: Vanecek (50% retained by Calgary) --> 1.7m retained for 2024 and 2025
To CGY: Copley, *2024/2025 2nd, *2026 3rd (LA trades a 1st in 2024/2025 if they make it to conf. finals in either year, if they don't, Calgary gets 2026 3rd)

Both parties CGY deals with get upgrades on goalies, we get futures. I may be overvaluing what we can get with LAK, but Vanecek at 1.7m for 1.5 seasons is a steal. And i'd rather retain 1.7m on 1.5 seasons than 3m with 2.5. At least with retention for only one additional year form this one aligns with whatever we're doing with Mangiapane, Zary, and Wolf. And lastly, something Murray would likely agree to more than eating Markstrom's salary. I also think Palat in a top 6 wing spot here would allow us to either flip or keep him later. Could also make Mangiapane expendable for more assets.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

I would prefer trying to stay competitive in the future and not having to eat away at 3m for 2 more seasons after this one. What I would like the Flames to do is trade Markstrom to a contender, take on a meh contract that can turn out to be a good player for us, and flip the goalie they give back to us for an upgrade elsewhere.

For example, an NJ/CGY/LAK trade:

To NJ: Markstrom, Zadorov
To CGY: 2024/2025 1st (whichever San Jose doesn't get), Vanecek, Palat, 2026 2nd (for extra year of Palat)

To LA: Vanecek (50% retained by Calgary) --> 1.7m retained for 2024 and 2025
To CGY: Copley, *2024/2025 2nd, *2026 3rd (LA trades a 1st in 2024/2025 if they make it to conf. finals in either year, if they don't, Calgary gets 2026 3rd)

Both parties CGY deals with get upgrades on goalies, we get futures. I may be overvaluing what we can get with LAK, but Vanecek at 1.7m for 1.5 seasons is a steal. And i'd rather retain 1.7m on 1.5 seasons than 3m with 2.5. At least with retention for only one additional year form this one aligns with whatever we're doing with Mangiapane, Zary, and Wolf. And lastly, something Murray would likely agree to more than eating Markstrom's salary. I also think Palat in a top 6 wing spot here would allow us to either flip or keep him later. Could also make Mangiapane expendable for more assets.

The return seems plausible from NJ and maybe LA although I'm not very high on Vanicek (I don't think he's established himself enough, very inconsistent). Flipping Palat later on probably doesn't net you much even if you retain (which is questionable) due to his age. And looks like he has a full NMC for this year and the next and he probably wouldn't waive since he chose NJ as a free agent destination.

[Saqe]

This is actually a fairly big problem if the ownership isn't willing to retain on contracts, the trading partner has to have dead money contracts to send back the equal amount of money. But if they don't? Then they simply won't give you a good return or at worst the deal won't happen. Teams are severely hamstrung by the lack of cap space.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Saqe

This is actually a fairly big problem if the ownership isn't willing to retain on contracts, the trading partner has to have dead money contracts to send back the equal amount of money. But if they don't? Then they simply won't give you a good return or at worst the deal won't happen. Teams are severely hamstrung by the lack of cap space.

I doubt they have an issue retaining on expiring contracts. They did it with Rittich for example. Longer term ones like Markstrom I could see why.

[Ashasx]

They only retained ~$100K on Rittich's contract.

Until I see the team use this to a greater extent to facilitate a trade, I view salary retention as something ownership is very much uninterested in, and we've seen this discussed on the Barn Burner podcast as well.

The Flames have only retained salary once since it was initiated and I believe have used by far the least in terms of dollar value in the league.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Which is also why Vanecek with an extra year was already having me squirm because I know Edwards likely isn’t for it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If you pick a criteria that almost every team meets, yes, winning teams will include that criteria.

All the teams that did it another way? St. Louis. Vegas obviously.

And there are other teams with multiple top 2s that haven’t won. Buffalo. Florida. NJ. NYR. Carolina (won a year after drafting a 2OA but got more later and didn’t).

Missing is Detroit, who won in 2008. And while Boston won in 2011, their selection of Tyler Seguin the previous summer was arguably irrelevant to this discussion, having played only 13 playoff games. The same holds for the Anaheim Ducks. So, that is actually five out of the last twelve Cup winners who either did not draft in the top-two, or whose top-two selections had nothing to do with their championships.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

He was the second best goalie in that series

But of course you don’t remember that and what happened after

They basically lost because of him lol

You're really laughing out loud? Get out more!

Markstrom has value. He looks to have bounced back this year, and the league isn't dimwitted enough to forget the Vezina finalist season or him dragging the Canucks into the next round in the bubble.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Saqe

This is actually a fairly big problem if the ownership isn't willing to retain on contracts, the trading partner has to have dead money contracts to send back the equal amount of money. But if they don't? Then they simply won't give you a good return or at worst the deal won't happen. Teams are severely hamstrung by the lack of cap space.

Steinberg mentioned a week ago that he heard retention is on the table if it improves trade value.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You're really laughing out loud? Get out more!

Markstrom has value. He looks to have bounced back this year, and the league isn't dimwitted enough to forget the Vezina finalist season or him dragging the Canucks into the next round in the bubble.

You don’t have to be dim witted to correlate goalie success and team play.

GMs vote on the Vezina and the guys with good stats that year are a safe bet.

Not only that, the same guys see the play and the stats over multiple seasons and probably aren’t dim witted when they observe wild inconsistency year to year


I think Markstrom is not as bad as his last year stats indicate, and not as good as his Vezina season implies, and I would guess most GMs see it similarly

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You don’t have to be dim witted to correlate goalie success and team play.

GMs vote on the Vezina and the guys with good stats that year are a safe bet.

Not only that, the same guys see the play and the stats over multiple seasons and probably aren’t dim witted when they observe wild inconsistency year to year

I think Markstrom is not as bad as his last year stats indicate, and not as good as his Vezina season implies, and I would guess most GMs see it similarly

Look who I'm replying to!

Just moving the needle back to the logic section and away from rain cloud's wheel house.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Steinberg mentioned a week ago that he heard retention is on the table if it improves trade value.

There’s a difference between retaining $2 mil on a pending UFA at the deadline, and retaining $2 mil+ on a contract with 2+ years remaining on it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There’s a difference between retaining $2 mil on a pending UFA at the deadline, and retaining $2 mil+ on a contract with 2+ years remaining on it.

Perhaps.

I think it more likely to use the three slots for expiring contracts and look at Markstrom in the off season.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Build a non tanking team and go on a run: 7% of teams (St.L)

Even there St.Louis had a 3rd, 4th and a 5th overall plus a bunch of other players that were first rounders.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

They only retained ~$100K on Rittich's contract.

Until I see the team use this to a greater extent to facilitate a trade, I view salary retention as something ownership is very much uninterested in, and we've seen this discussed on the Barn Burner podcast as well.

The Flames have only retained salary once since it was initiated and I believe have used by far the least in terms of dollar value in the league.

They've bought out players in the past which is the same thing as retaining on a trade.