[Rumour] UPD: Markstrom down to Edmonton or Calgary. Dreger says Oilers out

[djsFlames]

yeah - "closing in" before they're allowed to negotiate?

Okay, uh huh, sure they are. Someone's probably just high off the JP news and attempting to fuel the hype train.

[Vinny01]

This is probably the agent saying that the Canucks better pay up or he is definitely going to a competitor. I still feel the Flames are in the better position to go bigger AAV and would go just as long on the term.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

To be honest, if I'm only gonna get four productive years out of a player, I don't want to be back-paying him in the final two years. It's just dead cap space.

This is only true if your team doesn't spend to the cap every year.

If they do (Like Calgary) there is no long term benefit.

Worst case you buy out the last 2 years and spend less total cap over the life of the contract. Lifetime total cap is all that matters if you spend to the cap every year.

If you weren't going to spend to the cap frontloading a 4 year deal may make sense (But would be weird you think you would be spending to the cap in year 5 and 6 but not first 4 years)

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

This is only true if your team doesn't spend to the cap every year.

If they do (Like Calgary) there is no long term benefit.

Worst case you buy out the last 2 years and spend less total cap over the life of the contract. Lifetime total cap is all that matters if you spend to the cap every year.

Buyouts are still dead cap space, for longer periods than the time of the contract. The FLames are STILL paying Brouwer and Stone next season to not play for them. That's cap space that could have been used to re-sign Brodie.

You should never plan for a buyout, and when you sign non-superstar players to term, that's what you are effectively planning for.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Last year Lehner was 3rd in Vezina voting. Had 93%.
He then signed a 1 year deal for $5 million. His career save percentage was 92%, despite having spent most of his time on Ottawa and a rebuilding Buffalo team.

Halak was the best free agent goalie in 2018. Hardly got any money. His career save percentage is 91.6% (still much higher than Markstrom). He's even better in the playoffs too.

This year, teams are strapped for cap, and the cap is flat for 3 years.
I think Markstrom deserves some money for his last season (which was good, but not that good).
However, anyone would be crazy to give him 4 or more years of term. Not enough of a track record. Too old. Even from 2017 to 2019, in 120 games, he only had 91.2%. Not terribly bad, but nothing special for a goalie in their prime. He is 30 years old (31 in a few months) and has one above average season. One. In a contract year. And he only played 43 games in this one season.

I just can't fathom how so many people think 43 games of 91.8% deserves a $40,000,000 contract. Especially when the player is old and the cap is flat and there are better UFA goalie options next year.

No one is suggesting that. The consensus guess is 5 years x $5-6M. So $25 to 30M

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Buyouts are still dead cap space, for longer periods than the time of the contract. The FLames are STILL paying Brouwer and Stone next season to not play for them. That's cap space that could have been used to re-sign Brodie.

You should never plan for a buyout, and when you sign non-superstar players to term, that's what you are effectively planning for.

The saved cap space from the longer deal was already used for a new player though, and earlier.

So the Flames paid LESS total cap space over the life of the deal.

Since they spend to the cap every year, they actually got a better deal by buying out then frontloading the same amount of money.

If they had paid Brouwer more money up front on a shorter deal (same total $$ over life) they would have had less cap in those first 2 years which was used on other talent.

On a team spending to the cap every year, you never want a shorter, higher cap hit contact. Teams literally do the exact opposite, and it's for a reason

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

This is probably the agent saying that the Canucks better pay up or he is definitely going to a competitor. I still feel the Flames are in the better position to go bigger AAV and would go just as long on the term.

Both Irfaan and Rick Dhaliwal are agent mouth pieces. Currently, Vancouver media has no inside sources within the team it self.

[Dragomir]

Markstrom is soon to be 31 and has injury problems, this would be a bad signing long term.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The saved cap space from the longer deal was already used for a new player though, and earlier.

So the Flames paid LESS total cap space over the life of the deal.

Since they spend to the cap every year, they actually got a better deal by buying out then frontloading the same amount of money.

You're not saving cap space, you're delaying it. Peter-to-pay-paul type of deal.

Pay your players what they're worth. If they're worth it, you'll win. If they're not, they leave and you retool.

If they had paid Brouwer more money up front on a shorter deal (same total $$ over life) they would have had less cap in those first 2 years which was used on other talent.

If they had paid Brouwer more money up front on a shorter deal, they would have been rid of a bad contract, possibly without even buying it out. But in the specific case of Brouwer, you're talking about a guy who was a poor signing the day of, as his analytics were awful. I remember thinking Brouwer at ~3M x 3Y at the time was poor value for the level of player he was, and then we signed him to that albatross.

On a team spending to the cap every year, you never want a shorter, higher cap hit contact. Teams literally do the exact opposite, and it's for a reason

that reason is because UFAs decide their destination.

True, before the rules changed, teams gamed the system by signing their stars to Hossa / Ovechkin type deals, but that's a different story, you're talking about stars signed for their entire prime, and then some dead cap space during ostensible rebuild years. With a signing like Markstrom, you're talking about a few more prime years, and then a few years where you expect to still compete, but don't know if the player will still be able to deliver on his contract.

There's a reason that Tre, Burke, etc have constantly said "Term is the killer".

because Term is the killer.

[Jason14h]

You're not saving cap space, you're delaying it. Peter-to-pay-paul type of deal

Nope on a buyout you have paid less real money and less cap over the course of the deal.

Pay your players what they're worth. If they're worth it, you'll win. If they're not, they leave and you retool.

You are paying them what they are worth either way. 24 million. That's the point. It's the same $$ amount, same worth

If they had paid Brouwer more money up front on a shorter deal, they would have been rid of a bad contract, possibly without even buying it out. But in the specific case of Brouwer, you're talking about a guy who was a poor signing the day of, as his analytics were awful. I remember thinking Brouwer at ~3M x 3Y at the time was poor value for the level of player he was, and then we signed him to that albatross.

Yup, but who WOULDN'T they have had the money to sign 4 and 3 years ago? They spent to the cap. So someone wouldn't have been on the team then and the team would have been weaker.

His deal was 4 years and 18million (4.5$ million) If they had signed him to a 3 years 18 million deal (6 million a year) they would have had 1.5 million in cap room less for 3 year, and have opened up 4.5 in the last year.

This means the team is weaker for 3 years in the current term, for the potential to need the cap in the 4th (It's the same TOTAL cap over the life of the deal)

In the longer deal you get the advantages of :
1. The player can still be good
2. You can reduce the total cap hit over life of deal with buyout

There's a reason that Tre, Burke, etc have constantly said "Term is the killer".

because Term is the killer.

Because no player, EVER would sign a longer term deal for the same $$!!! Think about that. Hey do you want a 4 year 6 million deal or a 6 year 4 million deal.... Hmmmm I wonder which they take.

So term is the killer because the total value of the contact goes higher in value as you are paying for more years AND more $$ total,.

But if the total cost of the contract over the life (and that's the argument from the beginning) is the same, you would never want to pay the same over a short term unless you are under the cap for only the specific period of the contract (I guess rebuilding and knowing in 3 years you will now spend to the cap and the player you are signing isn't in your long term plans?)

In that case not sure why you are signing the player at all unless it is to hit the cap floor

[CliffFletcher]

If you’re never willing to give a UFA a contract that takes him past age 32, then forget about ever signing significant UFAs.

The tradeoff of UFAs is you can add a difference-maker without giving up any assets except money, but you’re going to overpay for the final years of the deal. Don’t like that strategy? Then you better have elite drafting and development bringing in quality NHLers every season to fill your roster.

[activeStick]

I'm a bit indifferent about the Flames getting Markstrom. Goalies are tough to predict and while he was no doubt the Canucks MVP last year, goalies are odd in that he could have a complete reversal in performance next year.

The odds of the Flames regretting a goalie they sign in year 4 or 5 of that new deal is likely regardless of the goalie, in my opinion, so there's no point stressing about that.

The Flames are a much, much better constructed team than the Canucks top to bottom and the evidence is that with much worse goaltending, the Flames were essentially equal with the Canucks in the standings, while the Canucks needed a herculean performance from their number 1 to even be in the same conversation.

Throw in the fact that the Canucks got above expectation years from most of their top guys, while the Flames got the opposite from theirs, it becomes even more clear.

I suspect next year is going to be tough for a lot of Canuck fans with all the hope in the city created by a good playoff run. The bad contracts handed out by Benning also prevents him from really doing much to improve his team.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Throw in the fact that the Canucks got above expectation years from most of their top guys, while the Flames got the opposite from theirs, it becomes even more clear.

.

You suspect that under a point per game is an "above expectation" year for Elias Pettersson? You're making the case that Quinn Hughes will actually be worse going forward as opposed to better?

JT Miller got "above expectation" but quite frankly he was expected to do very well with Vancouver, which is why that trade was made.

I think more likely that the "below average" Flames years is likely to be the norm than what we saw from the young Canucks players.

Benning's expectation is that the young players he has drafted and added like Rafferty, Rathbone, Juolevi, Podkolzin, Hoglander, Lind will be making the steps to fill in the holes left by players like Stecher, Beagle, Roussell and Eriksson leaving in the next few years. Considering drafting vs UFA signings is his strong point I am okay with relying on that.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you’re never willing to give a UFA a contract that takes him past age 32, then forget about ever signing significant UFAs.

The tradeoff of UFAs is you can add a difference-maker without giving up any assets except money, but you’re going to overpay for the final years of the deal. Don’t like that strategy? Then you better have elite drafting and development bringing in quality NHLers every season to fill your roster.

It's probably a smart idea to completely avoid any free agent signing for a player over 30 if the contract is 5 years or longer and the age of the player while in the the middle contract is over 33.

It seems like 95% of these end up being anchors.
Hossa is the only exception I can think of. But it was 12 years and had a low AAV.

[sureLoss]

Steinberg reiterates that he believes Markstrom is among the top target if not the top target in UFA based on everything he has heard and that Markstrom will consider Calgary.

[Dragomir]

Just re-sign Brodie and Talbot and call it a day on Friday, Hall and Markstrom are going to set us back long term and won’t make us contenders.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Dragomir

Just re-sign Brodie and Talbot and call it a day on Friday, Hall and Markstrom are going to set us back long term and won’t make us contenders.

Maybe not, but passing on then gives them zero chance to contend.

Sometimes you need to plug your nose and roll the dice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Maybe not, but passing on then gives them zero chance to contend.

Sometimes you need to plug your nose and roll the dice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Should I try that when playing craps? Will it increase my luck?

[djsFlames]

You might have a run or two in the next five years if you snag hall and markstrom and "load up".

If they stand pat and play it safe by just re-signing guys I dont see how we traject upward much if at all in that same time window without a massive home run on gaudreau return or Zary/Dube turning into gold. Probably still first or maybe second round fodder.

Dallas was collecting vets for a while and people looked past them, eventually they grabbed the right ones that still had some juice and it paid off.

Hall and Markstrom could be our Pavelski and Khudobin.

They will suck near the end of the contracts if they're lengthy but probably full value for 3-5 years.

Neal was never the caliber of UFA that you gamble a big contract on, but Hall and Markstron are each significabtly better pick ups for the short term and actually will entertain joining this team.

You don't just piss that away if your goal is to compete.

[SuperMatt18]

Hall I agree with...Markstrom is questionable.

He’s had two good seasons in his career, the last two at 29 and 30, before that he was replacement level at best and Vancouver wanted to trade him at one point.

I’d be cautious of a big money long term deal for him.