2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[RedHawk12]

Obviously, I want the Flames to get the best return possible for Markstrom. I just hope Conroy's "resolve" doesn't end up losing us Mercer/Holtz just because we wanted an extra pick or prospect for retention. It's good to negotiate hard, I just hope we don't overplay our hand here.

[dammage79]

And what's the value for a team armed with the knowledge that you can play like.poo one night and get a save.

We as Flames fans know all too well both ways what that does. And that's just having 3 seasons of Markstrom alone.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Obviously, I want the Flames to get the best return possible for Markstrom. I just hope Conroy's "resolve" doesn't end up losing us Mercer/Holtz just because we wanted an extra pick or prospect for retention. It's good to negotiate hard, I just hope we don't overplay our hand here.

On the flip side, his resolve might end up landing the Flames the original offer plus some more (as cost for retention).

Can't have the devils just walk away with paying a marginally better package or the same one for retention vs no retention and set a poor standard. Eating 3 mil (potentially) for 2 more years has to carry value.

When you're in the driver's seat you don't cave. You wait for the other party to cave, because they want what you've got.

[GullFoss]

If Markstrom is indeed the best goalie in the league right now, he is basically gold. There isn't a price too high for a good team with a bad/mediocre goalie.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

On the flip side, his resolve might end up landing the Flames the original offer plus some more (as cost for retention).

Can't have the devils just walk away with paying a marginally better package or the same one for retention vs no retention and set a poor standard. Eating 3 mil (potentially) for 2 more years has to carry value.

When you're in the driver's seat you don't cave. You wait for the other party to cave, because they want what you've got.

On the flip side, screwing someone over when they're desperate is an easy way to get blacklisted. Tables will turn one day.

It's just about finding balance.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

On the flip side, screwing someone over when they're desperate is an easy way to get blacklisted. Tables will turn one day.

It's just about finding balance.

Yeah, I don't think there's any 'screwing over' going on here.

[Captain Otto]

Sorry, where is this coming from?

Edit - uggh, wrong button. I was referring to Paulie above.

Sent from my SM-S918W using Tapatalk

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Trading Markstrom is bonus money because he's not moving for nothing. They want him, they can have him, for a price. That's been the story the entire time.

If he doesn't move, it's not a big deal.
Is it ideal if he moves as we gear down for the retool? Yes.
And his value will never be higher than it is right now. I don't know why retention would be an issue for the next two seasons. The plan is to run the youths with the sparkling of vets they have. They aren't going out and signing premium FAs for the next two years IMO.

For the same reason that you won't pay me $1,000 for each of the next two years NOT to post on CP. It's a waste of money...to some...others may feel differently...but you're not doing the paying are you?


But I'll take the grand if you want. And not post for you.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, I don't think there's any 'screwing over' going on here.

Call it whatever you want. Playing hardball, screwing over someone, being a shrewd GM, etc. My point is simply I hope we don't overplay this.

[devo22]

I'm not worried about "overplaying our hand". Salary cap is worth pure gold in today's NHL, so if a team wants us to retain 50% on Markstrom for two seasons, they are right to ask for a lot. You're not just getting Markstrom in that case, you're getting Markstrom at 3m/year for two seasons, which is god damn ridiculous. Pay up or ride with Nico Daws and his 3.32/.895%, it's that simple.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

If Markstrom is indeed the best goalie in the league right now, he is basically gold. There isn't a price too high for a good team with a bad/mediocre goalie.

Was Brodeur's list in order?

[Jiggy_12]

A hot goalie can equate to a Stanley Cup. No one position player moves the needle as much as a goaltender in a groove. Look what Kiprusoff did for us in 2004

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Call it whatever you want. Playing hardball, screwing over someone, being a shrewd GM, etc. My point is simply I hope we don't overplay this.

But there is a huge difference between asking too much (happens all the time) and screwing someone over. They aren't the same thing. If he plays hardball and it doesn't work, so be it. But that isn't going to get him blackballed, it's just going to give him a reputation as being a firm negotiator.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

A hot goalie can equate to a Stanley Cup. No one position player moves the needle as much as a goaltender in a groove. Look what Kiprusoff did for us in 2004

not to mention the two Stanley Cup finalists last year (and most years)

[Bonded]

I look at it simply. Are the Flames better off with Markstrom or with the assets they get from trading Markstrom. That should be the guide on how firm to be on the trade. Flames don’t have to sell Markstrom but it leaves them in a worse spot over the remainder of his contract. “Maximizing” the value of an asset to the point where there is no trade isn’t maximizing anything.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by devo22

I'm not worried about "overplaying our hand". Salary cap is worth pure gold in today's NHL, so if a team wants us to retain 50% on Markstrom for two seasons, they are right to ask for a lot. You're not just getting Markstrom in that case, you're getting Markstrom at 3m/year for two seasons, which is god damn ridiculous. Pay up or ride with Nico Daws and his 3.32/.895%, it's that simple.

Yup - it's why I think it's actually stupid for New Jersey to be anchoring on 50% retention. That is always going to come at a very burdensome cost.

25% retention or Markstrom for $4.5M feels like a much more reasonable ask from a retention perspective, and probably comes at a much more reasonable cost (probably around the value of a 2nd round pick).

And TBH for the Devils from a cap management perspective that shouldn't be that hard to navigate that paying the premium to save the extra $1.5M per season would make sense.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

On the flip side, screwing someone over when they're desperate is an easy way to get blacklisted. Tables will turn one day.

It's just about finding balance.

I really doubt Conroy is being unreasonable and out to screw them over.

From Marek's quote sounds like he wants fair compensation for two years of retention and I don't think it's poor form to hold out for that.

The devils will potentially get playoffs and more out of this deal with a relatively cheap high end starter moving forward so they're not getting screwed over at all if thats the return..

It's about not being doormats in the sellers position.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yup - it's why I think it's actually stupid for New Jersey to be anchoring on 50% retention. That is always going to come at a very burdensome cost.

25% retention or Markstrom for $4.5M feels like a much more reasonable ask from a retention perspective, and probably comes at a much more reasonable cost (probably around the value of a 2nd round pick).

I missed which side leaked the Devils want 50% retention?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Glad to hear that I'm not alone on that one, at least.

They are also kind of admitting they are wrong by pursuing Markstorm and Saros.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I missed which side leaked the Devils want 50% retention?

I think Friedman has said they want 50% retention in one of his hits.