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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Honestly I'm of the mindset that you probably shouldn't overpay for a 30+ year old goalie under any circumstances.

Look at goalie signings that are 28 or older, signed for 5+ years, for $5M or more in the last decade.

Bobrovsky - Age 30 - 7 x $10M
Price - Age 29 - 8 x $10.5M
Schneider - Age 28 - 7 x $6M
Lundqvist - Age 31 - 7 x $8.5M
Crawford - Age 28 - 6 x $6M
Smith - Age 31 - 6 x $5.7
Howard - Age 29 - 6 x $5.3M
Lehtonen - Age 28 - 5 x $5.9

Which of those goalies actually provided good value for those contracts? Crawford for sure would have been worth it, and maybe Lundqvist but really none of the rest.

Also I'd say Markstrom is much closer to the Smith, Lehtonen, Howard end of the goalie scale than the others who had much longer and more consistent levels of success prior to the contracts.

Markstrom will likely be 31 by a month into this new contract. Has only been above average for 2 seasons in his career (the last two), but is on the wrong side of the aging curve.

Price - great goalie, too much money
Lundqvist - great signing
Crawford - great
Schneider - great until injuries did him in
Smith - meh
Bobrovsky - dumb
Howard - never liked him, over-rated, bad signing
Lehtonen - whatever

So a pretty mixed bag. But not at all any kind of 'proof' that signing goalies is bad.

The only reason these goalies are all roughly the same age is because that is when players become free agents. 28-30 years old is not old. Keep it to 5 years or less, and no problem.

But it isn't about their age, it's about signing a good one.

Markstrom is a good one.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So if we aren't willing to pay for a goalie like Markstrom what is he plan to get a actual proven #1?
People have criticized the team for not paying up for a proper #1. This is what that looks like.
If we aren't happy with Markstrom what exactly would we be happy with?

You need to draft and develop one, or identify one that is aged 23-25 and trade for him.

Kipper was 26 when we traded for him. He started to show some flaws by the time he was 30 with two sub .910 seasons at 30/31. Retired at 35.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Price - great goalie, too much money
Lundqvist - great signing
Crawford - great
Schneider - great until injuries did him in
Smith - meh
Bobrovsky - dumb
Howard - never liked him, over-rated, bad signing
Lehtonen - whatever

So a pretty mixed bag. But not at all any kind of 'proof' that signing goalies is bad.

The only reason these goalies are all roughly the same age is because that is when players become free agents. 28-30 years old is not old. Keep it to 5 years or less, and no problem.

But it isn't about their age, it's about signing a good one.

Markstrom is a good one.

Every single goalie on that list was considered good at the time of their signing. Even if he is good (IMO he's above average but a tier below great) you're going to get 2 good years out of him. Look at all those goalies and look when they start to decline - at 32/33 years old.

Give it 2 years and everyone clamoring for Markstrom will be talking about how his contract is an anchor.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

You need to draft and develop one, or identify one that is aged 24/25 and trade for him.

Alright. Good luck.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

You need to draft and develop one, or identify one that is aged 24/25 and trade for him.

Someone should quickly tell the Flames this bit of info.

Seriously though, how are they going to do either of those things in time to start the next season?

[djsFlames]

If you can get him for under 6 AAV I don't think there's a lot of regret that comes of it if he remains relatively healthy.

[Red]

Originally Posted by bax

Yeah, but there is always a cost in the form of draft picks or buy outs or trading a valuable player for less than they are worth.

It cost Toronto a 1st round pick to move 1 season of Marleau just last off season.

The Turris buyout is going to cost Nashville 2 million of cap space for the next 8 season.

We have heard rumors that Vegas will look at moving Schmidt, Marhessault, and Stastny if they can't find a taker for Fleury. They offered up a 2nd round pick for taking on his contract and even then no team bit.

Come to think of it. How much money is tied up league-wide on previous buyouts? So many teams that have had to do it, so is it possible that there is no major disadvantage because of it? If all teams do it, then it becomes a form of cost of doing business.

Does it help the Flames that the Oilers had to buy out Sekera when the Flames had to do the same with Brouwer? Fast forward a few years and we will have the same question with the only difference being the names of players.

Ideally you want no dead cap space. But that's hard to do in this league bacause some GMs are a lot more aggressive about winning. So if fear of overpaying is stopping you from trading for or signing players you want (need), then are you actually further ahead?

It's nice to win every trade, RFA negotiation or sign players to bargain deals. But bargain shopping doesn't translate to success on the ice. Sure, it gives us something to boast about. Tre the wizard and all.
But in the end it is about winning hockey games and that's hard to do without top end talent.

Heard yesterday that Vegas is looking to add Shattenkirk. How is that possible? Cap hell, buyouts and all? Rich get richer while we hope to sign Turris, Ryan or Duclair to bargains

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

You need to draft and develop one, or identify one that is aged 23-25 and trade for him.

Kipper was 26 when we traded for him. He started to show some flaws by the time he was 30 with two sub .910 seasons at 30/31. Retired at 35.



Even if he is good (IMO he's above average but a tier below great) you're going to get 2 good years out of him. Look at all those goalies and look when they start to decline - at 32/33 years old.

Give it 2 years and everyone clamoring for Markstrom will be talking about how his contract is an anchor.

So suggest someone.

Also, you have randomly decided that goalies fall off at 32-33. Some do, some don't. Kipper smoked a pack a day. Markstrom has played 284 games, and only 14 playoff games.

#Youngandfresh

(by comparison, Holtby has played 476 regular season, and 97 playoff games)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Red

Come to think of it. How much money is tied up league-wide on previous buyouts? So many teams that have had to do it, so is it possible that there is no major disadvantage because of it? If all teams do it, then it becomes a form of cost of doing business.

Does it help the Flames that the Oilers had to buy out Sekera when the Flames had to do the same with Brouwer? Fast forward a few years and we will have the same question with the only difference being the names of players.

Ideally you want no dead cap space. But that's hard to do in this league bacause some GMs are a lot more aggressive about winning. So if fear of overpaying is stopping you from trading for or signing players you want (need), then are you actually further ahead?

It's nice to win every trade, RFA negotiation or sign players to bargain deals. But bargain shopping doesn't translate to success on the ice. Sure, it gives us something to boast about. Tre the wizard and all.
But in the end it is about winning hockey games and that's hard to do without top end talent.

Heard yesterday that Vegas is looking to add Shattenkirk. How is that possible? Cap hell, buyouts and all? Rich get richer while we hope to sign Turris, Ryan or Duclair to bargains

Believe it or not, the total amount of buyouts league-wide, since they have been available, is $599M

[Red]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Believe it or not, the total amount of buyouts league-wide, since they have been available, is $599M

Any easy source to find out how much buyout money is being spent for next season (thus far), or last year? This would give us a good idea on how punishing the 2M is for a team like Nashville.

[Enoch Root]

on capfriendly, you can just look at each team individually - not sure if you can see them all at once (but maybe)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Red

Come to think of it. How much money is tied up league-wide on previous buyouts? So many teams that have had to do it, so is it possible that there is no major disadvantage because of it? If all teams do it, then it becomes a form of cost of doing business.

It would still be quite an advantage not to have dead money tied up. The more teams that do have it, the more of an advanatage that it would be.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Alright. Good luck.

It will be amusing watching Demko flop with a much larger workload and the canucks no longer be bailed out.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

It will be amusing watching Demko flop with a much larger workload and the canucks no longer be bailed out.

It'll be amusing when he doesn't flop, Markstrom ends up in Edmonton and the Flames re-sign Talbot.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So suggest someone.

Also, you have randomly decided that goalies fall off at 32-33. Some do, some don't. Kipper smoked a pack a day. Markstrom has played 284 games, and only 14 playoff games.

#Youngandfresh

(by comparison, Holtby has played 476 regular season, and 97 playoff games)

Honestly the GP metric is a bit of red herring to me - the workload a back up goalie like Markstrom was taking in practice more than makes up for not being a starter in those years.

And I didn't randomly decide anything, age curves are a real thing and they show goalies peaking from 26-30 and then declining in their 30s.

This was an aging curve for goalies that two guys Eric Tulsky (doing good things in Carolina right now) and Jack Han had worked on in the past.

Goalies tend to improve YoY from 22-29, then starting around age 30 is when the curve flips and they start to decline year after year.



Markstrom could buck the trend but personally I don't see it happening. He's a guy that has had one top end season in his career, doesn't have a long history of elite play, and is a career .911 save percentage.

That puts him right into the camp of guys like Smith, Howard, Lehtonen, etc in terms of career performance.

Honestly I'm not a scout so don't have a lot of knowledge of what young goalies look ready to breakout. Rittich's play the last three years actually looks very similar to both Kuemper and Markstrom at the same age prior to them breaking out the last two seasons so maybe they should lean into him more.

At the NHL level guys like Merzlikins, DeSmith, Blackwood, Samsonov, Jarry, Ullmark, Demko, and the two Rangers goalies seem to be the young guys poised to take the next step to full time starters but going to be tough to trade for one of them.

Connor Ingram was a guy that Tampa just traded to Nashville for a 7th rounder with some supposed attitude issues but he's put up .914, .922, and .933 seasons in the AHL the last three years and looks like he could be good. Wish the Flames had been in on that.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It'll be amusing when he doesn't flop, Markstrom ends up in Edmonton and the Flames re-sign Talbot.

Talbot was actually pretty damn good for us, I'd take him back as a plan B.

And would you REALLY want to see a timeline where Markstrom goes to edmonton to save that sorry team's ass?

That's not ideal for vancouver as much as it would be for us either.

[Enoch Root]

well yeah, there's an age curve - it's an average, and it comes with variability

lots of things - including workload - can impact it

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Talbot was actually pretty damn good for us, I'd take him back as a plan B.

And would you REALLY want to see a timeline where Markstrom goes to edmonton to save that sorry team's ass?

That's not ideal for vancouver as much as it would be for us either.

Talbot was only good enough if you plan/hope to be a 1st round exit again. That’s the reality of it.

The position needs to be upgraded on, otherwise what we’re doing is going back with the same tandem yet again hoping Rittich can establish himself as something more than he has proven himself to be.

The Fourth Period’s David Pagnotta has NJD interested in Talbot.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Alright. Good luck.

Well, the trading part (in that age group) is precisely what Vancouver has done a few times now.

Of course you are the self appointed Goalie expert nowadays.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So suggest someone.

Also, you have randomly decided that goalies fall off at 32-33. Some do, some don't. Kipper smoked a pack a day. Markstrom has played 284 games, and only 14 playoff games.

#Youngandfresh

(by comparison, Holtby has played 476 regular season, and 97 playoff games)

AHL games weren't played?

I recall Markstrom being in net for virtually ever Utica-Adirondack game I ever stumbled across.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Talbot was actually pretty damn good for us, I'd take him back as a plan B.

And would you REALLY want to see a timeline where Markstrom goes to edmonton to save that sorry team's ass?

That's not ideal for vancouver as much as it would be for us either.

So good that this board has tried to connect the flames to literally every other goalie who was available.

I'd love a timeline where Markstrom goes to Edmonton. Then I can have no issues with hating him and I'd get to see him fail because nothing can save Edmonton. Nothing.