2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I'm not saying don't trade for Markstrom. I'm just saying they should not overpay.

Markstrom for Mercer, if that deal went down, I would be praising Conroy for the work he has done this year. That's a great trade, yet some want top prospects and 1sts added? NJ should walk away of that is the case.

I would add a mid-pick with Markstrom just to get Mercer/Holtz.

I think the fact that NHL teams never trade starting goalies because they are too valuable and once you find one you generally would be crazy to trade them should not be misconstrued for goalies have no value. I can only think of two starting goalies that have been traded in the last decade. Kuemper was one (he had been a starter for 2 seasons at the age of 31 and Freddie Andersen who had been a starter for 2 seasons and was 26.

Kuemper got a 1st, a 3rd and what would currently be a D+4 former first round pick.

Andersen got a 1st and a 2nd.

Other than that a true number one starting goalie has never been traded that I can remember in the past decade or so. If the Flames eat 20% of Markstrom's salary he will be the cheapest true number one starting goalie traded in the last decade or so in terms of cap percentage. If they eat 50% he will be the cheapest by a factor of almost two.

I have no idea how Connie could trade the cheapest starting goalie who has been traded and not get at a minimum more than either the Kuemper trade and the Andersen trade and probably more.

Just getting Mercer if the Flames retain salary relative to the quality of goaltender the Devils are receving would be a steal of a deal for New Jersey. The Flames adding to it by throwing in a 3rd rounder or something would be grand larceny for New Jersey.

[SuperMatt18]

I agree with Macho that it feels like the rumored interest and return from the Devils is the best package you can expect for Markstrom, I don't see the value being higher than it is now.

You might have more buyers in the offseason (Buffalo, and some other non-playoff teams have interest)

But I also feel like the offseason is generally when teams are hesitant to move value for goalies and are less desperate.

Devils feel like the perfect combination of desperation, need, and valuable assets to me.

If a 1st and one of Mercer/Holtz are/were on the table then I really doubt there is a better package than that available in the offseason...retention or not.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I agree with Macho that it feels like the rumored interest and return from the Devils is the best package you can expect for Markstrom, I don't see the value being higher than it is now.

You might have more buyers in the offseason (Buffalo, and some other non-playoff teams have interest)

But I also feel like the offseason is generally when teams are hesitant to move value for goalies and are less desperate.

Devils feel like the perfect combination of desperation, need, and valuable assets to me.

If a 1st and one of Mercer/Holtz are on the table then I really doubt there is a better package than that available...retention or not.

Yeah the packages wont get better.

I also don't understand holding out for Mercer if that is true just because he is a C. Yes a C is what we need, but Holtz is also a young player with a lot of value.

The more young assets we collect, we can always make a trade later on and trade a Holtz or whatever to get back a C from a team looking to make a change.

Imagine having these assets available when Eichel was available. Teams are more likely to make a trade when they are getting young players back, not a bunch of scraps.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Vanecek likely has a bounce back year. It happens more often than teams trading what some are suggesting they trade for Markstrom.

So you're the GM of a team that maybe has the best collection of young talent in the NHL; your team is struggling and almost the entire hockey world agrees that there is one obvious, glaring problem; there is a clear and available solution to said problem; your franchise lives almost perpetually under the shadow of your cross-town rival; your bosses (and of course your fans) want playoffs; and your answer is: Vanecek likely has a bounce back year.

In a results-driven and highly competitive league, how long do you think you're keeping your job?

[united]

Unsure if already posted, but Friedman on The Jeff Marek show today:

"I want to say one thing about Calgary. I don’t believe the issue is Calgary not wanting to retain money. I don’t think that’s the problem here. I think the issue is the price of retention…and it’s an interesting one to me. Basically, there’s a chart (that illustrates) “if we are retaining this much, this is what it’s worth”…and yes, you try to negotiate a better deal for yourself. And you sit there and you say “well maybe the chart says third-rounder but maybe we can try and get a second-rounder”. This is different. A lot of time that chart is about just a player that’s coming up (for free agency) at the end of the year and you only have to eat a little bit of money. This one with Markstrom: it’s going to be a few years. So, I think Calgary is asking for a higher price and I think that’s where the challenge is. Not that Calgary is unwilling to retain, but the two sides disagree what the price is for that retention. The problem right now if you’re the Devils is sometimes you have the hammer and sometimes you don’t. The Devils for a long time kind of had the hammer. They could say “ah, we don’t believe we want to pay a ton for goaltending”. The Devils I think are pretty smart with the way they use analytics; I think they’re good at it and a lot of the very analytically-inclined thinking teams don’t believe you should pay a lot for goaltending. My line is “you don’t think you should pay a lot for it until you absolutely need it”…well the Devils are in that space right now."

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by united

The Devils I think are pretty smart with the way they use analytics; I think they’re good at it and a lot of the very analytically-inclined thinking teams don’t believe you should pay a lot for goaltending.

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

[Heavy Jack]

Pay up NJ

[Heavy Jack]

And no kidding the cost should be more for retaining on a contract that has two years left on it past this one. It’s laughable NJ would think otherwise and it sounds to me like they’re blowing a good opportunity to remedy a specific area of need (potentially two if they start talking about a D as well) past just this year. I think this is why Sec mentioned they’re working away at it but it’s complex, Conroy will be rewarded for sticking to his guns on this one I think.

[NewFan]

No, no, no
I'm absolutely against trading Hanifin, Tanev or Markstrom.
Until Sunday. Just Win against those Losers.
Then sure trade all of them.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So you're the GM of a team that maybe has the best collection of young talent in the NHL; your team is struggling and almost the entire hockey world agrees that there is one obvious, glaring problem; there is a clear and available solution to said problem; your franchise lives almost perpetually under the shadow of your cross-town rival; your bosses (and of course your fans) want playoffs; and your answer is: Vanecek likely has a bounce back year.

In a results-driven and highly competitive league, how long do you think you're keeping your job?

So they should over pay because the Rangers are good? Shesterkin hasn’t been his best yet they are good because they are very good at forward d and goaltending.

NYR are old too. Nj time is coming but doesn’t need to be this year

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If the top buying candidate isn’t meeting the price now, why would they meet it in the summer?

The Flames don't need to trade him. The price isn't going to be dictated by the buyer here.

There was an argument made that he would cost less in the summer (no trade deadline premium). My point is that Conroy has no reason to change his price. As someone said, a lack of retention would drop the price, but I don't see any reason why the Devils would need less retention in June than they need now.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by NewFan

No, no, no
I'm absolutely against trading Hanifin, Tanev or Markstrom.
Until Sunday. Just Win against those Losers.
Then sure trade all of them.

Honestly I think the flames should consider sitting Hanifin and Tanev against the Oil and starting Vladar… don’t trust those punks and Perry, Kane, Nurse and Drai all have the propensity to throw dirty hits or slashes.

[dammage79]

I'm having a good chuckle today as Twitter has been growing this narrative that Flames fans are salivating at trading Markstrom. Well no and yes, we wouldn't if it wasnt for the media telling us it's been going on for a couple months now. Weekes first Marky to Devs tweets was early December IIRC, maybe even earlier, like late Nov.

2. Don't make it like we the Flames fans are the ones fuelling the fervor for this.

3. Don't forget how rampant the Devils side has been the last two or three days now. They were chomping hard at the bit last night. Hard. ALL of the buzz came from the Devils fan side of things.

Trade season is crazy, but this one feels especially wild with all the chatter in the Flames world.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

At first glance I thought that was the Eberle trade tree.

[dammage79]

I don't need Casey in a retention trade. The 1st and one of the young FWs is good for me. Just make it happen and stop with the song and dance.

[Beninho]

I mean good teams can get by with average goaltending but New Jerseys situation is far more dire given both goalies are playing at an AHL level this season. Daws should not even be in the league. Their team has talent but horrible goaltending deflates teams. Unfortunately if New Jersey continues to skid maybe they look for a bandaid option in the off season. Markstrom is their best option and they know it given his contract situation.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

But only Edmonton went out and blew money on a UFA goalie. Flames and Leafs didn't make any changes.

Vegas won the cup despite goalie issues all year. Teams just don't blow 1sts and good young players for 34-year-old goalies.

If the Flames can get a 1st or Mercer or Holtz, take it. It's not going to be 2 or 3 of that calibre pieces coming back.

That's quite a take.

Also, why are you so hell-bent on the Flames taking less back in return for Markstrom?

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Flames don't need to trade him. The price isn't going to be dictated by the buyer here.

There was an argument made that he would cost less in the summer (no trade deadline premium). My point is that Conroy has no reason to change his price. As someone said, a lack of retention would drop the price, but I don't see any reason why the Devils would need less retention in June than they need now.

Markstrom has a full no move clause so the buyer has some say. He ain’t going to Buffalo

They won’t pay more in the summer and there is a ready to do it now

1. His play
2. All good rebuild have at least 1 or 2 top 5 picks. Every season we sit around 10th pick just puts more pressure on drafting well with other picks and hitting some home runs later in the draft.

[Paulie Walnuts]

So it sounds like they have agreed on the trade for Markstrom, just not the retention cost.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Markstrom has a full no move clause so the buyer has some say. He ain’t going to Buffalo

They won’t pay more in the summer and there is a ready to do it now

1. His play
2. All good rebuild have at least 1 or 2 top 5 picks. Every season we sit around 10th pick just puts more pressure on drafting well with other picks and hitting some home runs later in the draft.

The seller holds the cards here, not the buyer

No, they won't pay more in the summer, I agree.

As to the last point, I assume you are arguing in favour of doing the trade now vs summer - yes so am I. My point to you though was why are you so determined to argue that the Flames should take less? What is wrong with maximizing value?