02-13-2024, 10:45 AM
|
#481
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Even if you have wingers in the organization, you can always use them in other trades to upgrade a position of weakness.
Teams are always looking for scoring.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Paulie Walnuts For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:47 AM
|
#482
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonded
That just doesn’t make sense to me if Conroy asked Markstorm to waive. Conroy clearly thought the package was good enough.
|
Maybe NJ changed things after he asked Marky to waive. Maybe they thought they could pull a fast one and Conroy would just accept. So many unknowns and just speculation at this point.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Robbob For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:48 AM
|
#483
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the studio
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
I don't think it has anything to do with approval or retention, everything I have heard since Conroy was hired is he has power to do any of that stuff, he doesn't have to get Edwards permission. If I were to guess it fell apart with the Devils wanting to make Holtz part of the deal instead of Mercer and if that's the case Conroy did the right thing by walking away. I like Holtz, he is going to be a top 6 RW that scores goals but if you think Kuzmenko is a guy you are keeping and with Coronato close, Holtz makes no sense for us. So if the Flames covet Mercer in a deal for Markstrom and the Devils won't put him in a deal the deal is dead.
|
The only thing I’d counter to this is why not take Holtz and work on a deal for a young center with him as a main piece? Wolf is over ripe at this point, which isn’t the biggest deal right now, but that situation will need to be decided on sooner than later and outside of Holtz, adding an additional 3 futures including an unprotected 1st could have been huge. Sounds like Conroy is being creative though so I’m sure something will happen here.
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:48 AM
|
#484
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamesfan05
Yeah, I don’t think he has negative value any more, he has been pretty much one of the top goalies this year
I am sure teams are interested, just not sure if they would pay too much. Maybe that’s why he is not traded yet.
Goalies don’t get trade too often anyway
|
And for sure I'm not claiming some huge ransom is on the way.
Just find it crazy that two or more posters are still claiming he has negative value given the information out there, and the way the guy is playing.
Seems like being stubborn trumps being logical.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:49 AM
|
#485
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonded
That just doesn’t make sense to me if Conroy asked Markstorm to waive. Conroy clearly thought the package was good enough.
|
Sure it does, if NJ comes to Conroy and wants to start trade dialogue about Markstrom before you even start the back and forth you are going to ask Markstrom if he will waive to go there. It would be foolish to negotiate the deal first without knowing if the player will waive to go there.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:49 AM
|
#486
|
First Line Centre
|
To me that comes off as nothing but pure speculation on Seravalli's part.. which isn't anything new.. "I think they were close", "I think they approached him", "I don't know how or why it fell apart".
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HighLifeMan For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:50 AM
|
#487
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Jack
This is such a good point, can’t imagine the flames would want to upset Markstrom which this situation could potentially do; you’d think management would have cleared that aspect with ownership before approaching the player to waive. Approaching a player to waive basically means there was a deal in place in which the players/prospects involved were acceptable for both teams so it just seems odd to me that retention was the wrinkle.
|
Outside the NTC that would be the most significant hurdle to a trade that you would want to clear.
It's like making an offer to a free agent having them accept and going back to them and saying sorry my owner said I can't spend that money.
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:51 AM
|
#488
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the studio
|
lol watch Markstrom be a New Jersey Devil by the end of the day
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:53 AM
|
#489
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
|
Given the prior information that the Flames would be careful with Markstrom and his NTC, it makes sense to me that any request for a waiver would occur only after a significant offer was made. I don't think the Flames would make the request based on NJD asking. May not have been super close, but I don't see the scenario where they start with the waiver, and then negotiate.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:53 AM
|
#490
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Not sure we can all be happy that Conroy extracted a huge package out of Vancouver for being patient and then be pissed at him for not doing the Jersey trade.
It's the same patience and guy instinct, right?
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:53 AM
|
#491
|
Participant 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbob
Maybe NJ changed things after he asked Marky to waive. Maybe they thought they could pull a fast one and Conroy would just accept. So many unknowns and just speculation at this point.
|
I could see this just given the fact that it seems to be common knowledge how reluctant the Flames are to even ask Markstrom about it. So, they work out the bones of a deal, Conroy asks, and then the Devils pull a piece back thinking Conroy has gone a step too far to say no, but he says no anyway and just pulls the deal altogether.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the deal with Jersey gets back on the rails, or if another team (now knowing what they have to beat to get him) steps up.
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:54 AM
|
#492
|
Lifetime In Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Sure it does, if NJ comes to Conroy and wants to start trade dialogue about Markstrom before you even start the back and forth you are going to ask Markstrom if he will waive to go there. It would be foolish to negotiate the deal first without knowing if the player will waive to go there.
|
Wait I thought you said before the rumour was they wouldn’t even approach Markstrom without a great deal already offered. So which one is it, they ask him before conversations start or they ask him after a knock your socks off offer comes through?
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:55 AM
|
#493
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Jack
The only thing I’d counter to this is why not take Holtz and work on a deal for a young center with him as a main piece? Wolf is over ripe at this point, which isn’t the biggest deal right now, but that situation will need to be decided on sooner than later and outside of Holtz, adding an additional 3 futures including an unprotected 1st could have been huge. Sounds like Conroy is being creative though so I’m sure something will happen here.
|
I mean you could do that but I have been saying the Flames have wanted Mercer well before this dialogue ever started. The problem with taking Holtz instead with other assets is where do you find another young C with the pedigree of Mercer that a team will make available? Where are you playing Holtz right now? He needs to play in a top 6 to really develop his skills which means taking Pospisil off the Kadri line. I think Conroy is playing it right, they can either include the piece you want or they can go pound sand. Make them sweat it out, there is time.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:55 AM
|
#494
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I could see this just given the fact that it seems to be common knowledge how reluctant the Flames are to even ask Markstrom about it. So, they work out the bones of a deal, Conroy asks, and then the Devils pull a piece back thinking Conroy has gone a step too far to say no, but he says no anyway and just pulls the deal altogether.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the deal with Jersey gets back on the rails, or if another team (now knowing what they have to beat to get him) steps up.
|
Would be really big knock on Fitzgerald if did business like that.
I would think most GM's understand the others job and how a NTC works.
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:58 AM
|
#495
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Nov 2016
Exp:  
|
Exactly. I mean if I knew he was asked about waiving to NJ I would say I KNOW he was asked to waive... I won't tell you how I know (sources etc.) but I sure wouldn't publish 'I think' if I actually knew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLifeMan
To me that comes off as nothing but pure speculation on Seravalli's part.. which isn't anything new.. "I think they were close", "I think they approached him", "I don't know how or why it fell apart".
|
__________________
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 10:59 AM
|
#496
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Wait I thought you said before the rumour was they wouldn’t even approach Markstrom without a great deal already offered. So which one is it, they ask him before conversations start or they ask him after a knock your socks off offer comes through?
|
I said they wouldn't approach him unless they thought they could get a great return. Clearly they believe they could get that return from NJ. I am not saying they would have asked Markstrom as soon as NJ asked about him, I am guessing there was some conversation initially where Conroy thought it was worth pursuing enough to ask him to waive. What I was saying is you don't negotiate the final details of the deal without approaching the player first to see if he will even waive.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-13-2024, 11:02 AM
|
#497
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
Would be really big knock on Fitzgerald if did business like that.
I would think most GM's understand the others job and how a NTC works.
|
Would it though? Didn't Conroy do the same thing with Vancouver and had them at the 4th with conditions at the end?
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 11:03 AM
|
#498
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Calgary
|
I really hope it was not the case, but I have a feeling that retention was the issue.
Ownership approval is usually the final step to getting a deal done. It makes no sense to go to the big boss to approve something before all of the meticulous details are worked out, including any potential issues with NMCs.
I can't really imagine a scenario where you'd go to your owner just to say "I've had some conversations about a trade and we're moving it along but it's not done yet. The other side is asking about retention so I'm just wondering if we can retain maybe 2M...?"
More likely the sequence of events is: get the best offer possible that you're willing to agree to, and if the final offer includes a 2M retention, you go to the owner and ask if it's ok. In this case, Murray probably said no and the deal fell apart.
That's the most logical way I see it, which would be too bad.
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 11:05 AM
|
#499
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
|
My guess is there was a package agreed to that the Devils assumed would include full retention and then when it got time to make the deal the value of retention became a hang up.
IMO the value of retention is clear in this case.
25% retention, $1.5M per year, $3.0M total = 2nd round pick
50% retention, $3.0M per year, $6.0M total = 1st round pick
|
|
|
02-13-2024, 11:08 AM
|
#500
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Yeah it could be the Flames saying no to retention, but it could also be not agreeing to what the retention is worth.
No point in assuming either is true.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:19 PM.
|
|