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

[devo22]

given that Vanecek coming back just makes little sense to the Flames, I could see where retention is becoming a sticking point. With two more years on his deal, that's just a completely different discussion than when you're trading a rental, and it needs to be reflected in the return. Still think there's a deal there, the Flames and Devils are just obvious trade partners at this point ... I just hope the Flames are open to using their retention slots in general. Friedman sure made it sound like the Flames are a bit allergic to the concept.

[Toonage]

I think Vanecek coming back would be a requirement, but I also suspect they'd just throw him in the minors regardless of how much still counted against the cap and run with Wolf & Vladar.

[GioforPM]

If Vanacek comes AND you retain salary that price better be massive. It's a 4-6 million dollar hit next season for a guy who either won't play or will be in Wolf's way.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

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.

Is it fair to say that the comments from other teams and other media sources fit and support the narrative? The lack of the mechanism being used fit the narrative? Is it also possible that maybe Conroy's comments were meant to help try and drag people to table who maybe have been long aware that past managers in Calgary have not been able to use the mechanism and used that as a reason to not even bother picking up the phone? I suspect there is a limit to possible retention use and Conroy has not been able to make that fit.

[GioforPM]

I'm sure Conroy has a green light on retention for any expiring contracts. That's money already spent.

Markstrom is whole different story.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If Vanacek comes AND you retain salary that price better be massive. It's a 4-6 million dollar hit next season for a guy who either won't play or will be in Wolf's way.

That's the challenge. I think it's either retain or take a contract back, not both. It makes Conroy's job difficult and probably why he's on the side of making sure the contracts coming back and can fit with the team and biting that bullet.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I think Vanecek coming back would be a requirement, but I also suspect they'd just throw him in the minors regardless of how much still counted against the cap and run with Wolf & Vladar.

The Devils have ~10M of cap space this season. It's the next two that is the issue.

There is no need to send Vanacek as a part of the deal, Jersey could buy him out next year and be a head of the game with modest retention on Markstrom.

[Aarongavey]

The Devils might now even have a 2024 1st round pick either which further complicates trading with them. Any of their picks would have to extend into 2025 presumably. They really should be pushing all in now that they traded two firsts (potentially 3 firsts) two former seconds (and another second if they don’t make the eastern conference finals this year, that pick is either a 2024 1st or 2nd) for Timo Meier.

Kinda crazy to me given their depth up front that they blew their brains out for Meier and left goaltending the way it is.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The Devils might now even have a 2024 1st round pick either which further complicates trading with them. Any of their picks would have to extend into 2025 presumably. They really should be pushing all in now that they traded two firsts (potentially 3 firsts) two former seconds (and another second if they don’t make the eastern conference finals this year, that pick is either a 2024 1st or 2nd) for Timo Meier.

Kinda crazy to me given their depth up front that they blew their brains out for Meier and left goaltending the way it is.

It’s not too crazy. Blackwood was supposed to be one of the next great Canadian goaltenders. He never transpired so that’s a shame.

[devo22]

well, Vanecek and Schmid had solid numbers last season ... they probably felt Schmid and/or Daws would make a step forward and they'd be fine. But all three goalies have been pretty awful, they surely didn't expect all of them to hover around 3.2 GAA and .891% svs. It's just gone all sideways for them this year ... heck, even Blackwood, who they practically gave away, has been more solid for the Sharks.

you just never know with goaltenders. Last season, Marky sat at 2.92 and .892% ... now he looks like a no-brainer for them.

[TheIronMaiden]

What's the league history re retaining money. How often does it really happen?

[Flames1217]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The Devils might now even have a 2024 1st round pick either which further complicates trading with them. Any of their picks would have to extend into 2025 presumably. They really should be pushing all in now that they traded two firsts (potentially 3 firsts) two former seconds (and another second if they don’t make the eastern conference finals this year, that pick is either a 2024 1st or 2nd) for Timo Meier.

Kinda crazy to me given their depth up front that they blew their brains out for Meier and left goaltending the way it is.

Feel like any deal with the Devils won't be overly loaded with picks.

This is more of two teams dealing from areas of strength and needs. Flames need young forwards with potential and Devils need a stud goalie.

I would be very surprised if the deal was centered around a first round pick.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

What's the league history re retaining money. How often does it really happen?

Cap Friendly shows the details,

Example with Flames and Oilers trade years ago, Oilers retained $750K on the Lucic trade

Nashville has two existing contracts that they have retained salary

Sharks have two existing contracts

etc.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

What's the league history re retaining money. How often does it really happen?

In the last year there have been 128 trades, 24 included retained salary, and 6 of the 24 involved a 3rd team retaining salary.

[SuperMatt18]

25% retention would be fair IMO and I'd say it's probably worth about a 2nd

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Is it fair to say that the comments from other teams and other media sources fit and support the narrative? The lack of the mechanism being used fit the narrative? Is it also possible that maybe Conroy's comments were meant to help try and drag people to table who maybe have been long aware that past managers in Calgary have not been able to use the mechanism and used that as a reason to not even bother picking up the phone? I suspect there is a limit to possible retention use and Conroy has not been able to make that fit.

You can put weight wherever you want.

The actual GM commenting on still having his retention slots twice certainly speaks to me that he is able to use them.

A media member speculating has less weight to me.

The Flames history of not using them is certainly the trump card in this until it's not.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

25% retention would be fair IMO and I'd say it's probably worth about a 2nd

Looking back on retained salary trades over the past year, $1.5M appears to be worth around a 4/5. For two years, you might get the equivalent of a 3 and a 5.

It’s enough to bump a 2nd and a 3rd into a 1st, or something like that, but it doesn’t look like that level of salary retention is worth a 2nd on its own.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by 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.

Doc, BJ, and, most importantly, Mr. Hotchkiss.
Reference has often been made by Murray to honouring and continuing Mr. Hotchkiss' legacy, commitments, and contributions.

[Textcritic]

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.

Originally Posted by Elliotte Friedman

@33:27: "I heard the retention was the much bigger problem—the much bigger problem—and, like, I had people telling me it's fallen apart; it's over. But, I don't know that. I don't like to say that because I've learned in this business that just because something is true one day doesn't mean it's true the next day."

Friedman has a source who has said clearly that retention on any deal is a big issue. THAT'S ALL. He did not say that he is hearing that Calgary is balking at any retention, nor that the Flames won't retain on Markstrom. He qualifies what he has heard by saying that HIS BELIEF is that Calgary's reluctance to retain is the issue...

Originally Posted by Elliotte Friedman

@33:03: "I think the surest predictor of future events is past events, so teams know that the Flames are not crazy about this, right? So, I do believe that is a major hurdle and was probably the major hurdle, and I think the package was—I think they were closer on that. I'm not 100% sure, but I think they were closer on that."

Importantly, he has noted that this is his impression, NOT what has been reported—only that "retention was the much bigger problem." He is drawing an inference based on what the Flames have done in past deals, NOT on what he was told. For all we know, NJ's offer with retention is not close to what Calgary needs to make it work, and good for Conroy for ensuring that the Flames get the deal they need to move such an important player.

People form conclusions based on bits of information they hear reported in the media as if they are foregone conclusions, when they are mere speculations. It could very well be that the Flames are determined to make a deal without retaining any salary, but WE DO NOT KNOW THAT. What has been reported on this deal DOES NOT demonstrate that.

That is all.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Is it fair to say that the comments from other teams and other media sources fit and support the narrative?

Where are these?

Also, savvy consumers of media will understand how to weigh the content and to recognise the differences between reported fact, speculation, cover, spin, etc. You seem to understand how these skills work, but then struggle to use them effectively to do anything but validate your pre-formed conclusions.