2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[GioforPM]

Coleman has a full NTC this year (goes to a 10 team list next year). No doubt he'd go to Dallas. But someone would have to pay through the nose.

Now, he is 32, and he is signed for a big chunk for a long time (though that will become a smaller % of the cap soon). So there shouldn't be absolutes.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by dino7c

1st or keep for Coleman

he is worth it too

Yeah what would be the point of any less? He is a player you trade if you need to make cap room, and we clearly aren't going to be that pressed with the UFA's headed out.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's pretty relevant when you claim he's "very valuable" at $3M. Try to answer it?

What's irrelevant is whether or not I like Markstrom. I like him because he's a Flame. I think he has negative value.

If you think he has negative value, then no, you don't like him (as a goalie).

You want an answer to your irrelevant question? $10M. Bob has no value because of his $10M contract - no one is taking a goalie at that price.

$6M is a different level all together.

And $3M is a completely different level again.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

And above the pay level of Nedeljkovic, Lindgren, Lyon, Talbot, Varlamov, Quick, Ingram, Prosvetov, Woll, Thompson, Stolarz, DeSmith, Reimer, Montembault, who all have played 6+ games and have 15 points of SV% on Markstrom.

Your marker is 6+ games? I'm looking at starters, and especially guys signed to be starters, not thrust into that role. And again, save % is a bad stat anyway.

If Markstrom was a UFA at $3M he'd be signed quickly.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you think he has negative value, then no, you don't like him (as a goalie).

You want an answer to your irrelevant question? $10M. Bob has no value because of his $10M contract - no one is taking a goalie at that price.

$6M is a different level all together.

And $3M is a completely different level again.

Bobrovsky has negative value, not zero value. I don't think anyone would argue with me on that one.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Your marker is 6+ games? I'm looking at starters, and especially guys signed to be starters, not thrust into that role. And again, save % is a bad stat anyway.

If Markstrom was a UFA at $3M he'd be signed quickly.

Here's the list of goaltenders who have played as much as Markstrom and have a lower SV%:

Johansson
Skinner
Vanecek
Grubauer

This is valuable in your opinion?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's pretty relevant when you claim he's "very valuable" at $3M. Try to answer it?

What's irrelevant is whether or not I like Markstrom. I like him because he's a Flame. I think he has negative value.

at full salary maybe. For 3M a year, half the teams in the league would be interested.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Here's the list of goaltenders who have played as much as Markstrom and have a lower SV%:

Johansson
Skinner
Vanecek
Grubauer

This is valuable in your opinion?

Why do you keep repeating save % like it's a winning argument?

Do you think Jake Oettinger is a bad goalie? His save % is 36th in the NHL. Shesterkin is 39th.

Are you down on vasilevsky or (gasp) Dustin Wolf because their save % is worse?

EDIT: I guarantee a lot of GMs would say "his save % will be better on our team".

[dirk diggler]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

He was called the Wizard when he was here. That was way over the top at the time when folks called him a wizard for landing Monahan to the same contract every other RFA signed that offseason but for a bit more money. His wizard rep was way overblown when he was here. It may be over the top to bring it up after he has left but I suspect it is just a continuation of the years of calling the guy the wizard, that was more or less his name in some quarters on this site for years.

he is the wizard but i remain the Maestro

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

at full salary maybe. For 3M a year, half the teams in the league would be interested.

Would they?

Las Vegas - no
Los Angeles - no
Vancouver - no
Colorado - no
Dallas - no
Winnipeg - no
New York R - no
New York I - no
Philadelphia - no
Toronto - no
Boston - no
Florida - no
Detroit - no
Nashville - no
Arizona - no
Tampa Bay - no

So that leaves a few wild card teams and some teams trying to get back in. He's about as good as Luukkonen in Buffalo for $5.1M more.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Why do you keep repeating save % like it's a winning argument?

Do you think Jake Oettinger is a bad goalie? His save % is 36th in the NHL. Shesterkin is 39th.

Are you down on vasilevsky or (gasp) Dustin Wolf because their save % is worse?

You're well within your rights to attack my argument for using SV%. I'm not in love with it either. Do you have a different metric we can use?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Would they?

Las Vegas - no
Los Angeles - no
Vancouver - no
Colorado - no
Dallas - no
Winnipeg - no
New York R - no
New York I - no
Philadelphia - no
Toronto - no
Boston - no
Florida - no
Detroit - no
Nashville - no
Arizona - no
Tampa Bay - no

So that leaves a few wild card teams and some teams trying to get back in. He's about as good as Luukkonen in Buffalo for $5.1M more.

you said he had negative value for 3 million a year, so that's the number we're talking about.
as a 1B or back up if not a starter for only 3M? yeah at least half the teams in the league would be interested.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You're well within your rights to attack my argument for using SV%. I'm not in love with it either. Do you have a different metric we can use?

Goals saved above expected per 60 minutes played, all situations, is my favorite. Very all encompassing.

And all your points are still true using that metric.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

you said he had negative value for 3 million a year, so that's the number we're talking about.
as a 1B or back up if not a starter for only 3M? yeah at least half the teams in the league would be interested.

I said he has negative value at $6M as you acknowledged here:

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

at full salary maybe. For 3M a year, half the teams in the league would be interested.

I also think he has negative value at $3M but I can see people disagreeing on that. Do any of those teams I listed have an interest in trading prospects or picks for him at 3x$3M for any reason?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Goals saved above expected per 60 minutes played, all situations, is my favorite. Very all encompassing.

And all your points are still true using that metric.

It's just as bad, for all the same reasons

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's just as bad, for all the same reasons

Then how do you evaluate goaltending?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I also think he has negative value at $3M but I can see people disagreeing on that. Do any of those teams I listed have an interest in trading prospects or picks for him at 3x$3M for any reason?

Going by Sec's post, there IS interest. And that is the best indicator we have. It is weird to argue that there won't be interest in a player, when there already is interest in the player.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You're well within your rights to attack my argument for using SV%. I'm not in love with it either. Do you have a different metric we can use?

A lot of people use GSAX (pretty average for Markstrom, worse for Wolf). Lots use "GAA better than expected" (good for Markstrom, bad for Wolf).

But GMs don't just look at a players' stats today, in his present circumstances. They look at what he's done in the past, why he where he is today, and how he'd play on their team.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A lot of people use GSAX (pretty average for Markstrom, worse for Wolf). Lots use "GAA better than expected" (good for Markstrom, bad for Wolf).

But GMs don't just look at a players' stats today, in his present circumstances. They look at what he's done in the past, why he where he is today, and how he'd play on their team.

And have their goalie coaches and scout actually evaluate the player, instead of looking at numbers that tell us very little about goalies.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Going by Sec's post, there IS interest. And that is the best indicator we have. It is weird to argue that there won't be interest in a player, when there already is interest in the player.

And when Sec214 posted that, I said:

Originally Posted by butterfly

I'd rather trade him straight up for future considerations if both the Devils and Markstrom are interested.

So that would be a win-win trade. If the Devils actually perceive Markstrom to have value and he wants to go there, they'd have to give up nothing, and we get out of it.

We have players that do have positive value (Lindholm, Hanifin, Tanev) who are all on expiring contracts and we can retain on. I don't want them wasting a slot for 3 years on Markstrom.