[Rumour] Friedman: Devils and Flames have had legit discussions about Markstrom

[Duffalufagus]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Murray Edwards has allowed salary retention so few times that the Flames might be one of the teams to do it the least.

I just think's it's in his blood to really not have players bought out or being paid by him if they are not working for him. It's not that it has never happened but probably 25+owners allow that more then the Flames

He sure likes to pay a lot of coaches that don't work for him...

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I didn't actually check but you are right. Never recovered to the Iggy years and the attendance during the young guns era was bad.
https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attenda...h.php?tmi=5090

I don't think they can seat 19000+ anymore - aren't a bunch of the nosebleeds closed off now?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Nelson

He specifically says he heard retention was the much bigger problem. Start at 33:19 of the most recent 32 thoughts podcast, after he talks about the history with CGY not retaining in the past.

Saying he heard retention is the bigger problem doesn't automatically mean the Flames won't retain a) on Markstrom or b) at all.

That's a huge leap.

They certainly may have a line in the sand with multi year deals. Or they may have a level of compensation that has to be met in order to entertain the idea.

Either way there is nothing pointing to why retention is an issue.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I don't think they can seat 19000+ anymore - aren't a bunch of the nosebleeds closed off now?

The Saddledome still lists capacity as 19,289 for hockey games.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Saying he heard retention is the bigger problem doesn't automatically mean the Flames won't retain a) on Markstrom or b) at all.

That's a huge leap.

They certainly may have a line in the sand with multi year deals. Or they may have a level of compensation that has to be met in order to entertain the idea.

Either way there is nothing pointing to why retention is an issue.

I agree with you. Why do you think I would disagree with anything you said?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by blankall

50% retention? If NJ isn't willing to pay more than $3 million to fill out a position like starting goalie, that's probably where a lot of their issues are coming from.

It's a negotiation. Why pay $4M when you could get it for $3M?

The Devs signed Schneider to a $6M AAV contract in 2014. Suggesting they aren't willing to pony up for a starting goalie is pure fiction.

[butterfly]

The money is gone either way, the question is whether you want a year of Markstrom in return or a 1st round pick.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I think people are making assumptions about the retention piece.

Why would we just say yeah we will retain 50%, its a negotiation. You want to squeeze the most out of a team while giving up the least.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I agree with you. Why do you think I would disagree with anything you said?

Because you were replying to someone that something similar to me with a direction to listen to the podcast.

Felt like you wanted the person to go listen again.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Because you were replying to someone that something similar to me with a direction to listen to the podcast.

Felt like you wanted the person to go listen again.

I was saying it’s not only that Friedman was speculating based on history. I was saying he said he heard, has a source.

[Jiggy_12]

I don't think Conroy would bat an eye on Markstrom salary retention if he was a pending UFA - but tying up 1 of those valuable retention slots for another 2 years is a fairly big decision to weigh.

If we can get a team to take the full salary, that's obviously best case.

Why settle for less than best case when you still have almost a month to see if the other team caves?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Friedman is just connecting the dots, here. He does not know that the issue is the Flames's reluctance to retain money, but speculates this based on past history. Of course, you are going to leap to premature conclusions like you always do. But, given that ALL the information we have is that retention is a sticking point, and given that Conroy has gone on record to say that the Flames are open to retention, and given that two years of retention is a MASSIVE ask for ANY team, it seems at least as likely that this situation is a lot more nuanced than just "mUrRaY eDwArDs Is ChEaP!"

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

Hmmmm, never said Murray Edwards was cheap. EVER. A guy that allows a middling team to spend to the cap is not cheaping out on the team. But continue on with your fantasy fiction. The fact you think the issue of retention is just about spending money is adorable. Edwards has always been willing spend money if it is going to lead to value. That's the issue. Finding value that aligns with the expectations of the team and the ownership. Rule of thumb at any of Edwards' companies has been to spend a dollar to make two (or more). That's Cpnroy's challenge. If he's retaining, he has to extract that same level of value for dollars spent.

[Harry Lime]

I think Edwards is cheap everywhere except with the Flames. I think that has something to do with his respect for Doc and wanting to maintain that legacy. I could be reading into that last part.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Nelson

He specifically says he heard retention was the much bigger problem. Start at 33:19 of the most recent 32 thoughts podcast, after he talks about the history with CGY not retaining in the past.

Retention could definitely be the problem if NJ is trying to get it for free. Markstrom should be able to get a significant return without retention and without dead weight salary coming back.

If NJ is asking for Markstrom with 2 more seasons of retention then the asking price should be significantly higher.
If NJ is asking to send Vanecek back with his $3.4M contract then the asking price should be higher. (Most of us would want to see a Wolf-Vladar tandem, not a 3 headed goalie monster)
If NJ is asking for both retention and sending their $3.4M struggling goalie back to us, then that should crank the asking price up to the highest amount.

Many of the trade suggestions floating around out there make it sound like the Flames are suddenly desperate to move Markstrom and that we should be willing to retain salary or take on dead cap just to make the deal happen. But the reality is that we are not desperate to move Markstrom and if other teams want our cap space in addition to a bonified #1 goalie then they have to pay extra for it.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

In my eyes Conroy and the organization should be aggressive in being willing to do it though. If they truly want to fast forward things and not dwell in irrelevancy, using the cap space in the short term to effectively skip the line in the draft is a good way to do it.

Markstrom @ 50% for Alexander Holtz (I don't think we'd see a deal like this being a 1 for 1, but for as example)

That's a 34 year old goalie and ~$6M for a 22 year old top-10 pick that has already spent some time being developed. Those types of players are rarely traded, and would help the Flames get down this re-tool road quicker. When you look at Wolf being a sub-$2M goalie for the duration of that Markstrom retention period, it's not a very painful pill to swallow. Especially when we look at recent history and the fact that we spent that $6M in goalie salary on the league's worst goalie just last season.

The Flames seemingly don't want a prolonged period of pain, and using things like salary retention helps them avoid that. Conroy should of course extract maximum value, but the team is in a really good/intriguing spot when it comes to the goaltending position and dealing from a position of power right now seems like a smart move.

I'd sooner see Markstrom traded than Hanifin at this point. If we extend Hanifin and trade Markstrom and Tanev? I'd view that as a big ol' W (...bigger W being trading all 3).

I think Conroy needs to figure out what the value of Markstrom is before any retention. If Kuemper was worth a 1st, a 3rd and a former 32nd overall pick at 5.5% of the cap then what is Markstrom worth for two years without any retention when he is projected to be 6.8% of the cap and 6.5% of the cap. In my mind he is definitely worth a 1st and a 3rd at that rate. To get him down to 5.5% of the cap combined for those two season you have to eat a million on retention.

For me a 5 million dollar a year Markstrom is worth a minimum of a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd with no bad salary coming back. If there is bad salary coming back he is probably worth more unless the thinking is he is a worse goalie than Kuemper.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I was saying it’s not only that Friedman was speculating based on history. I was saying he said he heard, has a source.

"- he heard this all from multiple sources"

This is not some secret. When a team has retained in one trade in the history of the club since this CBA went into being that is an operational constraint made because of a business decision. If retention was an option, you can bet Treliving would have exploited it. Unless Conroy has changed the thinking of the bean counters the same constraints are going to hold. It seems that this remains an expectation based on the mechanism not being used and retention being brought up as an issue in possible trades multiple times.

[Badgers Nose]

Conroy doesn’t want his hands tied by using up the retention slots beyond this season unless the offer is good enough to justify losing that flexibility next season.

I don’t know this for sure, but in interviews he’s been pretty clear that he wants maximum flexibility to take advantage of opportunities that may arise.

Having his hands tied for the balance of Marky’s contract is something that needs to be fairly compensated for.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Retention could definitely be the problem if NJ is trying to get it for free. Markstrom should be able to get a significant return without retention and without dead weight salary coming back.

If NJ is asking for Markstrom with 2 more seasons of retention then the asking price should be significantly higher.
If NJ is asking to send Vanecek back with his $3.4M contract then the asking price should be higher. (Most of us would want to see a Wolf-Vladar tandem, not a 3 headed goalie monster)
If NJ is asking for both retention and sending their $3.4M struggling goalie back to us, then that should crank the asking price up to the highest amount.

Many of the trade suggestions floating around out there make it sound like the Flames are suddenly desperate to move Markstrom and that we should be willing to retain salary or take on dead cap just to make the deal happen. But the reality is that we are not desperate to move Markstrom and if other teams want our cap space in addition to a bonified #1 goalie then they have to pay extra for it.

To add to that, Tre gave up a 1st for Montreal taking on a year of Monahan’s contract. Taking on money should have a heavy cost. Glad Conroy knows where he stands. It may not be our money as fans, but it’s important to extract the best value possible. So far Conroy seems very well thought out and isn’t taking the easy rookie route. He’s handling himself well it seems.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

"- he heard this all from multiple sources"

This is not some secret. When a team has retained in one trade in the history of the club since this CBA went into being that is an operational constraint made because of a business decision. If retention was an option, you can bet Treliving would have exploited it. Unless Conroy has changed the thinking of the bean counters the same constraints are going to hold. It seems that this remains an expectation based on the mechanism not being used and retention being brought up as an issue in possible trades multiple times.

I think it's fair to say that it's a debate until we see one used.

But the two cases this year aren't proof that they won't be used.

And I'm not sure Conroy discussing retention slots on three different occasions fits with the narrative that he's not allowed to use them.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

"- he heard this all from multiple sources"

This is not some secret. When a team has retained in one trade in the history of the club since this CBA went into being that is an operational constraint made because of a business decision. If retention was an option, you can bet Treliving would have exploited it. Unless Conroy has changed the thinking of the bean counters the same constraints are going to hold. It seems that this remains an expectation based on the mechanism not being used and retention being brought up as an issue in possible trades multiple times.

Yeah, the Flames MO would be taking back Vanacek but I am guessing they'd only do that if they can dump Vladar. We will see but I'd be shocked if Markstrom goes out with retention although I am not sure Treliving was ever in a spot to really gain much from retaining on a contract though and it has become much valuable with the flat cap.