2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Well, you should. It's needlessly annoying.



A 1st round pick? Do you think there's a single team in this league that would sign Markstrom at 3x$3M right now for free, let alone giving up a 1st round pick?

Edmonton, New Jersey, Carolina, Toronto, Colorado, Ottawa, Buffalo, Detroit would all easily sign Markstrom to a 3 x $3M if he was available right now.

Don't think that's even in question.

If you're shopping him around the league for $3M then I think you would easily be able to get more than a 2nd, there would be a market there.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Coleman reminds me a bit of Matt Stajan’s role in the locker room. Good guy to have around for the transition.

This. Rebuilding/retooling teams should keep some quality vets around to usher in the next crop, instead of handing the keys to the team over to a bunch of younglings- like the Oilers did for years. I wonder if Conny is considering keeping Tanev around for this reason.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Sandman

This. Rebuilding/retooling teams should keep some quality vets around to usher in the next crop, instead of handing the keys to the team over to a bunch of younglings- like the Oilers did for years. I wonder if Conny is considering keeping Tanev around for this reason.

Should still trade him and then see if he wants to come back in the summer.

The old Keith Tkachuk move.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

No, I won’t cut out the “dudebro stuff”.

Yeah, if that situation actually played out, I believe I’d be safe in saying there’s zero percent chance that Markstrom gets bought.

I think there’s pretty much a zero percent chance Markstrom gets bought out at $6M.

Being worried about an acquiring team buying out a player who they just acquired with retained 50%? Yeah, that’s nowhere on my list of things to worry about. Hell, even if that happened - do you know what the penalty would be for the next 4 years? About $1.83M, $1.83M, $0.58M, $0.58M. The return for Marky at 50%? Yeah, probably a first. Pretty much every team in this league would pay that cap penalty for a 1st round pick.

I think he's mainly just talking about optimizing the retention slots(therefore returns) over many deals, which this year you would do 3 expiring contacts, then have all 3 again next year. Can still use it next year on Markstrom, and hopefully he can up his value a bit. The low return for him is unlikely going to be worth taking up that spot for 2 years. Unless somebody is willing to pay(probably not).

[Naitix]

Would not be surprised if Conroy didn't retain on Zadorov because he knew there is a change he might trade Markstrom along with other remaining UFAs, and that's a way higher return. Markstrom at 3 mil is worth a 1st, he has been really good this year

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Should still trade him and then see if he wants to come back in the summer.

The old Keith Tkachuk move.

We might end up with a vet (salary) coming back in a trade as well.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Naitix

Would not be surprised if Conroy didn't retain on Zadorov because he knew there is a change he might trade Markstrom along with other remaining UFAs, and that's a way higher return. Markstrom at 3 mil is worth a 1st, he has been really good this year

Yeah. Retaining on the most valuable UFAs always made more sense than retaining on the least valuable one

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Edmonton, New Jersey, Carolina, Toronto, Colorado, Ottawa, Buffalo, Detroit would all easily sign Markstrom to a 3 x $3M if he was available right now.

Don't think that's even in question.

If you're shopping him around the league for $3M then I think you would easily be able to get more than a 2nd, there would be a market there.

My initial reaction was to disagree with you, but I think you're actually right. It's the market inefficiency of the day: spending money on goaltending. I don't know how many examples we need to show that this doesn't yield wins.

Note: None of those teams except Buffalo could even afford to this.

[Sandman]

There are so many teams looking for a good goalie. I don’t doubt that we could get a nice package for Marky.

[Lanny_McDonald]

I wouldn't get too excited about the Flames "weaponizing" cap space until they make a deal where they retain significant salary on player. That was the sticking point in a deal with Toronto and could continue to be a problem. One thing we have learned over the years, the Flames ownership does not like paying players who are not on the team and contributing to the Calgary Flames. I hope this changes but it is the way of Flames ownership.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Sandman

There are so many teams looking for a good goalie. I don’t doubt that we could get a nice package for Marky.

Marky is not a good goalie, so I hope we do.

[saillias]

According to Lebrun's article at the Athletic the price for Tanev is a 1st. And he suspects that the Flames want to trade him then bring him back again as UFA.

apparently the Athletic is more lenient now about the paywall. They used to never let you read any article without a paid account but I was able to read this while logged out.

https://theathletic.com/5134071/2023...isions-lebrun/

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by butterfly

My initial reaction was to disagree with you, but I think you're actually right. It's the market inefficiency of the day: spending money on goaltending. I don't know how many examples we need to show that this doesn't yield wins.

Note: None of those teams except Buffalo could even afford to this.

Right now they couldn't, but it's probably a trade that would happen at the deadline at the earliest and more likely in the offseason.

Also those stats about top goaltenders by save percentage making an average of $2.5M or whatever is a bit irrelevant. Because if you don't have one of those goalies then it's not like you can just go grab one for $2M and get top goaltending.

Sure it worked with Vegas and Adin Hill...but even if they thought Adin Hill would be as good as he was he wouldn't have been their third goalie going into the playoffs and only starting because of injury.

Goalies have always been random but when you don't have one it just means you're even more desperate to find one

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I would move Coleman without hesitation if a team offered a first-round pick. Otherwise, I'd keep him.

I 100% agree. When I said that everyone should be available, I didn't mean trade every single player. The team does need vets but if the stars offered Stankoven for Coleman, you keep a couple other vets and make that deal.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Goalies have always been random but when you don't have one it just means you're even more desperate to find one

Then wouldn't you go fishing in the ECHL or AHL instead of spending cap on it?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Sandman

This. Rebuilding/retooling teams should keep some quality vets around to usher in the next crop, instead of handing the keys to the team over to a bunch of younglings- like the Oilers did for years. I wonder if Conny is considering keeping Tanev around for this reason.

I definitely agree with that. I just wanted to add that older stars would be my preferred route for veteran leaders.

Jagr's influence was evident right away. I think he had a large part in how players on our team started using their asses in order to protect the puck. I think Tkachuk benefited from it the most.

I always thought that guys like Spezza, Pavelski, or Iginla gave the rookies they played with great advice and helped them work on their skills. That's why I wouldn't mind seeing a guy like Gio, Wheeler, or Pacioretty (assuming he's healthy), on a cheap contract for a year.

[getbak]

According the buyout calculator on CapFriendly, because of the signing bonuses on his contract, if Markstrom were bought out in 2025, his cap hit in 2025-26 would be $3,666,667 and $1,166,667 in 2026-27.

If the Flames retained salary in a trade, their share would be a percentage of that cap hit (up to a maximum of 50%), which would be less than the cost of a league-minimum contract in 2026-27.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I wouldn't get too excited about the Flames "weaponizing" cap space until they make a deal where they retain significant salary on player. That was the sticking point in a deal with Toronto and could continue to be a problem. One thing we have learned over the years, the Flames ownership does not like paying players who are not on the team and contributing to the Calgary Flames. I hope this changes but it is the way of Flames ownership.

Except for when they bought out Dawes, O’Brien, Raymond, Bouma, Brouwer, Stone and Murphy.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Right now they couldn't, but it's probably a trade that would happen at the deadline at the earliest and more likely in the offseason.

Also those stats about top goaltenders by save percentage making an average of $2.5M or whatever is a bit irrelevant. Because if you don't have one of those goalies then it's not like you can just go grab one for $2M and get top goaltending.

Sure it worked with Vegas and Adin Hill...but even if they thought Adin Hill would be as good as he was he wouldn't have been their third goalie going into the playoffs and only starting because of injury.

It isn't just Adin Hill. Pick a random year and do a scatterplot of goaltender salary vs. however you choose to define goaltender skill. There's a negligible relationship.

It's much better to put the money toward 20-32 year old defense and forwards.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It isn't just Adin Hill. Pick a random year and do a scatterplot of goaltender salary vs. however you choose to define goaltender skill. There's a negligible relationship.

It's much better to put the money toward 20-32 year old defense and forwards.

I don't disagree.

But when you're trying to contend and you're getting poor goaltending you generally can't just keep taking random shots at goalies from the AHL and hope it works.

A team would overpay for the idea Markstrom might be able to fix their problem, especially at only $3M. Look at how Minnesota gave up a conditional first for Fleury who was at $7M and they only retained the $3.5M for one season.

If at the deadline a team could get Markstrom for very little cap hit in year (salary pro-ration + retention) and then for 2 more years at only $3M there would be a team that would overpay. No doubt in my mind.