2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Yeah_Baby]

CP is actually running low on Serotonin. Anyone want a SSRI?

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by Sec214

You want dopamine?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

So, Most of the smoke around the Marky deal was around Feb 15th/16th.

Flames lost Feb 12th, Feb 15th (6-3 to the Sharks!) and Feb 17th (5-0!) to make for a 3 game losing streak right at the height of the Markstrom smoke.

Elliotte is completely out to lunch on this one.

Sounds like the Markstrom deal falling apart was a multi-step process.

1) The Devils and Flames hash out the basis of a deal.

2) Conroy gets the okay from Markstrom to waive his NMC because a deal is close, and Markstrom prepares to leave the team.

3) Conroy takes the retention pitch (50% for two years?) to Edwards, who balks.

4) Conroy goes back to the Devils and says no deal.

5) A week passes and the Devils come back with a pitch with lower retention (25%). By this time, the Flames are playing well and Flames management start to second-guess dealing Markstrom in the first place. “Sending a signal to the guys in the room”, the possibility of playoff revenue, etc. come into play.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Sec214

You want dopamine?

[PepsiFree]

Because Murray would balk at retaining on Markstrom but sign off on retaining on Tanev because… reasons.

He does seem like a penny pincher, what with the team having free reign to spend to the cap, buyout players, and pay coaches not to coach for them.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sounds like the Markstrom deal falling apart was a multi-step process.

1) The Devils and Flames hash out the basis of a deal.

2) Conroy gets the okay from Markstrom to waive his NMC because a deal is close, and Markstrom prepares to leave the team.

3) Conroy takes the retention pitch (50% for two years?) to Edwards, who balks.

4) Conroy goes back to the Devils and says no deal.

5) A week passes and the Devils come back with a pitch with lower retention (25%). By this time, the Flames are playing well and Flames management start to second-guess dealing Markstrom in the first place. “Sending a signal to the guys in the room”, the possibility of playoff revenue, etc. come into play.

It is crazy to me that Conroy wouldn't talk to Edwards before asking Markstom to waive in NMC. Crazy as in I don't think its true. If Edwards is as involved as most people suggest then he is hearing every offer the moment they happen.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sounds like the Markstrom deal falling apart was a multi-step process.

1) The Devils and Flames hash out the basis of a deal.

2) Conroy gets the okay from Markstrom to waive his NMC because a deal is close, and Markstrom prepares to leave the team.

3) Conroy takes the retention pitch (50% for two years?) to Edwards, who balks.

4) Conroy goes back to the Devils and says no deal.

5) A week passes and the Devils come back with a pitch with lower retention (25%). By this time, the Flames are playing well and Flames management start to second-guess dealing Markstrom in the first place. “Sending a signal to the guys in the room”, the possibility of playoff revenue, etc. come into play.

I don't think Edwards killed the deal.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because Murray would balk at retaining on Markstrom but sign off on retaining on Tanev because… reasons.

He does seem like a penny pincher, what with the team having free reign to spend to the cap, buyout players, and pay coaches not to coach for them.

Well retaining on Tanev only affects you the rest of this season.

Retaining on Markstrom is factored in for 2 seasons. Not only a consideration dollar-wise, but you can only retain on 3 contracts at once, so a factor at least in the grand plan for a couple years.

All that said, if it was me I'd be letting other GMs know I'm willing to retain on Markstrom anyway, to see if that would bring us offers from other teams tight to the cap. Worst case you don't get a good enough offer now and you trade him in the summer instead, which is where we're at anyway.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because Murray would balk at retaining on Markstrom but sign off on retaining on Tanev because… reasons.

He does seem like a penny pincher, what with the team having free reign to spend to the cap, buyout players, and pay coaches not to coach for them.

It’s definitely not about a refusal to take on dead cap, the flames have demonstrated numerous times/ways they willingly take on dead cap, the most recent being the Tanev deal. With Markstrom, I think it comes down to price associated with the retention (retaining on a contract with term should obviously come at an additional price to the normal rate) As well as a desire for Mercer over Holtz. It seems from piecing all the reporting together that the Flames may have softened on the Mercer over Holtz stance but I don’t think NJD ever came to properly paying for the additional years of retention (adding in Casey, or an additional pick)

At any rate though, the last couple weeks should bring an end to the notion that the flames management, ownership in particular, don’t have any appetite for taking on dead cap. Should being the operative word lol.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Totally, and it’s a bit surreal. Conroy said what he was going to do, he’s done what he said he’s going to do, and there are actual examples of him being able to do whatever he needs to do (trading the #1 center, retaining on Tanev) that should dispel any question over it… but all it takes is one talking head saying “I think” and people instantly ignore everything that’s actually happened and go back to the whole “mushy middle! no direction! owner meddling!” thing.

The team is re-whatevering (which is what a lot of people wanted) and they are fun to watch and still competitive (which is what the rest wanted). Literally everybody should be happy with this season so far… but it’s like people look for reasons to complain.

The main problem is Friedman's stuff isn't in gif form. Needs more ambiguity.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because Murray would balk at retaining on Markstrom but sign off on retaining on Tanev because… reasons.

He does seem like a penny pincher, what with the team having free reign to spend to the cap, buyout players, and pay coaches not to coach for them.

Big difference between retaining on the remainder of Tanev’s contract this season and retaining for two more seasons of Markstrom’s contract.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Icon

Well retaining on Tanev only affects you the rest of this season.

Retaining on Markstrom is factored in for 2 seasons. Not only a consideration dollar-wise, but you can only retain on 3 contracts at once, so a factor at least in the grand plan for a couple years.

All that said, if it was me I'd be letting other GMs know I'm willing to retain on Markstrom anyway, to see if that would bring us offers from other teams tight to the cap. Worst case you don't get a good enough offer now and you trade him in the summer instead, which is where we're at anyway.

I just don’t think Murray cares about a few million bucks if it’s going to help the team. Nothing he’s done to this point indicates that.

And if the issue was that it would hurt the team’s playoff chances, why let Conroy trade anyone when we’re this close.

At a certain point, what actually happens has to hold more weight than the baseless assumptions when trying to figure out how this team operates. The Sutter thing should’ve completely put to bed any notion that Murray is approving or denying transactions based on a few million dollars.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Big difference between retaining on the remainder of Tanev’s contract this season and retaining for two more seasons of Markstrom’s contract.

Not to Murray.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

It’s definitely not about a refusal to take on dead cap, the flames have demonstrated numerous times/ways they willingly take on dead cap, the most recent being the Tanev deal. With Markstrom, I think it comes down to price associated with the retention (retaining on a contract with term should obviously come at an additional price to the normal rate) As well as a desire for Mercer over Holtz. It seems from piecing all the reporting together that the Flames may have softened on the Mercer over Holtz stance but I don’t think NJD ever came to properly paying for the additional years of retention (adding in Casey, or an additional pick)

At any rate though, the last couple weeks should bring an end to the notion that the flames management, ownership in particular, don’t have any appetite for taking on dead cap. Should being the operative word lol.

They just aren't interested in taking on dead cap recklessly or without just compensation for doing so.

This is the right way to do business.

[Sec214]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

[HockeyKhan]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Not the Mama = NTM = Now Trading Markstrom!

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by D as in David

But is this re-tooling or re-building?!?! WE MUST KNOW!!!

It’s clearly re-conditioning.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by HockeyKhan

Not the Mama = NTM = Now Trading Markstrom!

or....

Not Trading Markstrom

[Sutter4Mayor]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Cue Zimmer & Gerrard’s “Now We Are Free”. Everyone gets traded today!

[GioforPM]

People are just making up the Edwards angle out of whole cloth. Because they just have a narrative of "mushy middle" Flames, because the don't want to beleive Conroy could botch a deal, because they hate Edwards or something else. But there's just no evidence of it,.