2024 Off-season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He didn't say Bean nixed Holtz - he suggested it was Bean who didn't want the retetnion (or the return on the retention). So what about the no-retention deal. That seems to have caved overwhat was being offered.

Edit - about this: "I would argue you have the problem here. You have unreasonable expectations that if Conroy holds his breath long enough that teams are just going to fold and give in, making players magically available. That has not happened once in any trade Conroy has made. Sometimes you have to take the best asset available. Holtz is a very good asset, in the same way that Connor Zary is a very good asset. You build by collecting the best assets available to you. Mercer just isn't available. No top center prospect is available for a 35 year old goaltender with two more years on a $6M deal. The Flames would likely have to kick in something substantial which would probably be counter to their rebuild/retool."

I don't have any problem with what the team did. And you are projecting a lot here. What has happened in every trade is that Conroy has identified a player he wanted to come back and fill a position of need.Sharangovich, Miromanov, the two D prospects from Vancouver. He hasn't held his breath with other teams. Yet the team didn't want Holtz - without retention.

But it sounds like they did agree to a deal with Holtz involved that got killed.

Also sounds like they may have changed their demands to Mercer after, who knows.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

But it sounds like they did agree to a deal with Holtz involved that got killed.

Also sounds like they may have changed their demands to Mercer after, who knows.

It doesn't sound like there was a deal agreed to at all, because if there was, a trade would have happened. I think the price kept fluctuating because of retention/no retention.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It doesn't sound like there was a deal agreed to at all, because if there was, a trade would have happened. I think the price kept fluctuating because of retention/no retention.

It completely sounds like a deal was there. If there was no deal why was Markstrom approached and why did he admit he thought he was not going to leave New Jersey with the team? If there was no deal why would Bean have to take the deal to Edwards and then nix it? There was a deal there and everything points to the deal needing approval on retention. The approval didn't happen and the deal had to be reworked without retention, and that appeared to be where the reduction in draft pick came in. I don't understand the denial here? Why is it hard to believe that the deal was agreed to on terms but couldn't get done because of ownership not wanting to retain?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

If Holtz is all you are being offered for Markstrom, I am glad the Flames walked away. They are not in a position where they HAVE to move him right now anyways.

Holtz has two goals and zero assists in his last 20 games and has been limited to less than 6 minutes of ice time in some of those games. The coach in Jersey clearly isn’t liking what he is seeing, I’m not surprised the Flames came to the same conclusion.

Then we should acquire him and put him on wing with Sharangovich and they'll both score 40.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It completely sounds like a deal was there. If there was no deal why was Markstrom approached and why did he admit he thought he was not going to leave New Jersey with the team? If there was no deal why would Bean have to take the deal to Edwards and then nix it? There was a deal there and everything points to the deal needing approval on retention. The approval didn't happen and the deal had to be reworked without retention, and that appeared to be where the reduction in draft pick came in. I don't understand the denial here? Why is it hard to believe that the deal was agreed to on terms but couldn't get done because of ownership not wanting to retain?

Apparently you don't know how deals work. If you don't have authority you can't make a deal.

Again, it sounds like Holtz was an OK price for retention in Conroy's mind. But not as a compensation for Markstrom.

[Wastedyouth]

I feel like the Markstrom non-trade could have its own thread for posters to talk themselves into circles over.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

I feel like the Markstrom non-trade could have its own thread for posters to talk themselves into circles over.

Fair. I'm done. It's neither a trade runour nor a trade speculation at this point.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It completely sounds like a deal was there. If there was no deal why was Markstrom approached and why did he admit he thought he was not going to leave New Jersey with the team? If there was no deal why would Bean have to take the deal to Edwards and then nix it? There was a deal there and everything points to the deal needing approval on retention. The approval didn't happen and the deal had to be reworked without retention, and that appeared to be where the reduction in draft pick came in. I don't understand the denial here? Why is it hard to believe that the deal was agreed to on terms but couldn't get done because of ownership not wanting to retain?

There is absolutely no evidence that the original deal included retention (it may have, it may not have, anything beyond that is mere speculation) or that ownership had anything to do with it being scrapped. There is evidence that Fitz came back to the Flames and requested retention (which would block a retention spot for the remainder of the deal). At this point, it appears that the Flames' ask for retention was higher than Fitz thought was market value, so the deal was scuttled. When he came back with a lesser offer without retention, it didn't meet Conroy's ask. In the middle of the process, Fitz said some rather unflattering things about Holtz, which make me question how much either the Devils or the Flames value him as an asset.

I'm pretty sure that the Flames wanted Mercer and a 1st if retention was involved, and Fitz wanted to move out Holtz instead. There may have been an understanding about a deal of Markstrom for Holtz and a 1st, with the price of retention TBD, but when Conroy said that Mercer instead of Holtz was the price of retention, Fitz said that was too big an ask. When he subsequently offered Holtz and a 2nd for no retention, Conroy felt that he would rather keep Markstrom as an experienced starting goaltender to mentor Wolf, as both assets coming back would be B to C grade assets.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Apparently you don't know how deals work. If you don't have authority you can't make a deal.

Again, it sounds like Holtz was an OK price for retention in Conroy's mind. But not as a compensation for Markstrom.

So you're suggesting Conroy has authority to make any deal he wants regardless of organizational or fiscal impact? You don't think that the Flames have approval levels in place, like every other large company, especially ones run by Murray Edwards? Conroy will have authority to make deals up to certain levels. Once you exceed those levels the deal must be signed off above Conroy (probably Maloney) or by the ultimate authority, who in this case is the ownership team. Everyone has limits and everyone has a boss to answer to, even the CEO or COTB. The GM will have guiderails in place to limit the potential damage they can do, especially a first year GM. It's why Maloney and Nonis have jobs with the Flames. It's why Bean is involved at all. I'll give you credit, I never thought we would actually see an honest to goodness appeal to "authority" defense invoked in an argument.

[Toonage]

Seems he can do whatever he likes retention wise so long as it was an expiring deal. If the player has a few years of term (Markstrom) he needed permission because thats a different conversation. Makes sense.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

So you're suggesting Conroy has authority to make any deal he wants regardless of organizational or fiscal impact? You don't think that the Flames have approval levels in place, like every other large company, especially ones run by Murray Edwards? Conroy will have authority to make deals up to certain levels. Once you exceed those levels the deal must be signed off above Conroy (probably Maloney) or by the ultimate authority, who in this case is the ownership team. Everyone has limits and everyone has a boss to answer to, even the CEO or COTB. The GM will have guiderails in place to limit the potential damage they can do, especially a first year GM. It's why Maloney and Nonis have jobs with the Flames. It's why Bean is involved at all. I'll give you credit, I never thought we would actually see an honest to goodness appeal to "authority" defense invoked in an argument.

You don't even understand what I'm saying so, we are quite clearly done.

[Badgers Nose]

It’s an interesting debate, but as we all know it’s moot. All we can do is judge the product on the ice and the direction of the team long-term right now I’m happy with both.

I think Conroy has autonomy to do whatever he needs to do short of paying people not to play here. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for an owner to want to get involved in that kind of situation. So I’m not alarmed at all by the possibility that ownership did.

I’d much rather the flames use their cap space to acquire a ‘show me’ young centre on an expiring contract whereby the team sending said player includes a first round pick. If it screwed us in the past I don’t see any reason why we can’t screw another team the same way.

[Bingo]

Yeah if ownership/Bean/whoever blocked the deal on the premise of multi year retention, or the value of multi year retention I get it.

If the business guy is blocking the trade himself based on thinking they're in a playoff race it's a huge concern.

I'm not going to guess which if any is true.

They made the deals they needed to make with their UFAs. They seem to have done pretty well with the pro scouting in in who they brought back. And they retained on two deals putting the "Flames won't retain" theory to bed.

If they felt Jersey was dealing in an unscrupulous way (Fitz seemed pretty emotional about things), or that the offers will be better next summer then you have wait and see. They have to act in that fashion if that was the case.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah if ownership/Bean/whoever blocked the deal on the premise of multi year retention, or the value of multi year retention I get it.

If the business guy is blocking the trade himself based on thinking they're in a playoff race it's a huge concern.

I'm not going to guess which if any is true.

They made the deals they needed to make with their UFAs. They seem to have done pretty well with the pro scouting in in who they brought back. And they retained on two deals putting the "Flames won't retain" theory to bed.

If they felt Jersey was dealing in an unscrupulous way (Fitz seemed pretty emotional about things), or that the offers will be better next summer then you have wait and see. They have to act in that fashion if that was the case.

Yeah, we’ll never know but that just sounds like one side of the negotiation saying “we’re fighting for a playoff position right now and he’s our best player. Therefore, we’re gonna need some thing really big in return to send him your way.“

I think the ownership getting involved in the retention discussion and the posturing for maximum return is getting conflated by people that are hearing a lot of gossip secondhand.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It doesn't sound like there was a deal agreed to at all, because if there was, a trade would have happened. I think the price kept fluctuating because of retention/no retention.

Why would Conory present the deal to Bean and have it killed or whatever it was that was reported on here if he wasn't going to go through with it?

Dreger alluded to the same thing, and his cousin is on our management team.

Maybe they wanted Conory to go back and get a larger return if they retained 2 years of salary.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Yeah, we’ll never know but that just sounds like one side of the negotiation saying “we’re fighting for a playoff position right now and he’s our best player. Therefore, we’re gonna need some thing really big in return to send him your way.“

This was what everyone connected to the team was saying though. And the insiders. Friedman said almost that exact thing word for word.

So IMO this was exactly that.

They didn't get anything really big offered to them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Why would Conory present the deal to Bean and have it killed or whatever it was that was reported on here if he wasn't going to go through with it?

Dreger alluded to the same thing, and his cousin is on our management team.

Maybe they wanted Conory to go back and get a larger return if they retained 2 years of salary.

If you need to get permission, you don't have power to make a deal. I don't see how people are confused about this. So it doesn't matter if Conroy thought it was good or not - there wasn't a deal.

[DeadShot]

Hello All.

Longtime (15ish years) lurker. Deciced to join during Bingo's trade deadline membership drive.

Really appreciate all the time so many of the quality posters put into this board. It certainly makes being a fan of this team more enjoyable.

Looking forward to what the offseason/draft have in store and hopefully the Flames make a lot of those picks they've amassed this year and fill the cupboards with quality prospects.

[DeadShot]

Originally Posted by DeadShot

Hello All.

Longtime (15ish years) lurker. Deciced to join during Bingo's trade deadline membership drive.

Really appreciate all the time so many of the quality posters put into this board. It certainly makes being a fan of this team more enjoyable.

Looking forward to what the offseason/draft have in store and hopefully the Flames make a lot of those picks they've amassed this year and fill the cupboards with quality prospects.

Almost forgot the most important part of any new member's first post...

E=NG

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If you need to get permission, you don't have power to make a deal. I don't see how people are confused about this. So it doesn't matter if Conroy thought it was good or not - there wasn't a deal.

It could be for this one particular deal only, who knows.

2.5 years of retention vs trading Tanev and Hanifin retained for 20 games a big difference.