2024 Off-season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Paulie Walnuts]

I wouldn’t mess around. If New Jersey is offering 10 Markstrom you take it and run.

Turn it around and imagine if Conroy was the one trading a 10th overall pick for a 35 year old goalie who is starting to have some injury concerns.

New Jeresey issue wasn’t just goal against, it was coaching and the offence going dry. You don’t deplete depth on a team with scoring like that for a goalie.

I mean Stuart ####ing Skinner is in the final. One of the worst playoff goalies of all time.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The league. I'd do it though

Exactly why would the league say no?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But at present they aren't retaining salary on anybody, because those contracts have been paid out in full. Anybody they do trade has already been paid in full for this year, and retention will start in the next league year.

Capfriendly says the Flames have all 3 retention slots open. Where are you seeing otherwise?

The slots are tied to the contracts which expire June 30th not to the payments. It looks like capfriendly completely rolled to 24/25 already.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I wouldn’t mess around. If New Jersey is offering 10 Markstrom you take it and run.

Turn it around and imagine if Conroy was the one trading a 10th overall pick for a 35 year old goalie who is starting to have some injury concerns.

That's a pretty silly speculation. New Jersey is a talented team that missed the playoffs because of bad goaltending. Calgary is a thoroughly bad team that missed the playoffs even with good goaltending.

New Jeresey issue wasn’t just goal against, it was coaching and the offence going dry. You don’t deplete depth on a team with scoring like that for a goalie.

How does trading a draft pick deplete the team's scoring depth? Whoever gets picked at 10th is years away from the NHL at best.

[dissentowner]

I am not buying NJ having any interest in Mangiapane. The GM said they want to get tougher on the wing and there was rumours before they like Pospisil. So the question becomes would you do Markstrom and Pospisil for #10?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am not buying NJ having any interest in Mangiapane. The GM said they want to get tougher on the wing and there was rumours before they like Pospisil. So the question becomes would you do Markstrom and Pospisil for #10?

100% yes. I like Pospisil and he is good story but I’m not sure he is long for the league with his injury history.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's a pretty silly speculation. New Jersey is a talented team that missed the playoffs because of bad goaltending. Calgary is a thoroughly bad team that missed the playoffs even with good goaltending.



How does trading a draft pick deplete the team's scoring depth? Whoever gets picked at 10th is years away from the NHL at best.

I was referring to talk around Dawson Mercer.

A first and Dawson Mercer for Markstrom lol.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The slots are tied to the contracts which expire June 30th not to the payments. It looks like capfriendly completely rolled to 24/25 already.

I'm quoting the last CBA because that's the text I have before me, but I have not heard that this particular clause was changed. It says that a team may not:

Have in its Averaged Club Salary in any single League Year amounts attributable to more than three (3) Retained Salary SPCs for Players that the Club has Traded to other Club(s)

If Markstrom (or any other player) were traded today with retention, the amount attributable to retained salary on that SPC for 2023-24 would be zero, because there is no remaining 2023-24 salary to be retained. Therefore, based on the rule as written, trades made at this time of year will only count against retention slots for future years.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm quoting the last CBA because that's the text I have before me, but I have not heard that this particular clause was changed. It says that a team may not:

If Markstrom (or any other player) were traded today with retention, the amount attributable to retained salary on that SPC for 2023-24 would be zero, because there is no remaining 2023-24 salary to be retained. Therefore, based on the rule as written, trades made at this time of year will only count against retention slots for future years.

Yeah, the contract itself would still be retained and a team can only have three in any given year. Markstrom would be fine and Mangiapane would not.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I was referring to talk around Dawson Mercer.

A first and Dawson Mercer for Markstrom lol.

Yes, well, that first wasn't going to be 10th overall. The Devils were expecting to make the playoffs – the very reason they wanted to add a goalie – and in any case the pick would most likely have been protected.

I don't blame the Flames at all for not taking Holtz instead. They don't need another middle-six winger, and even the Devils don't appear to think much of that particular one.

But that's all water under the bridge. The question is whether Markstrom with retention is worth the 10th pick to the Devils, with no other players or prospects thrown in, and how much one side or the other would have to add.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Yeah, the contract itself would still be retained and a team can only have three in any given year. Markstrom would be fine and Mangiapane would not.

That's not what the rule says.

The rule does not say that a team can only have three retained-salary SPCs in one year. It says it can only have salary attributable to three retained-salary SPCs in one year.

I repeat: The amount of salary that any team would retain for 2023-24 on a trade made today is zero. It therefore should not count against this year's limit – as the rule is written, and as common sense would apply it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not what the rule says.

The rule does not say that a team can only have three retained-salary SPCs in one year. It says it can only have salary attributable to three retained-salary SPCs in one year.

I repeat: The amount of salary that any team would retain for 2023-24 on a trade made today is zero. It therefore should not count against this year's limit – as the rule is written, and as common sense would apply it.

I see what you keep repeating but that’s not how I read it but no need to muck up this thread. There’s about a zero percent chance the Flames will retain on Markstrom and Mangiapane in a single trade before the draft.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I see what you keep repeating but that’s not how I read it but no need to muck up this thread. There’s about a zero percent chance the Flames will retain on Markstrom and Mangiapane in a single trade before the draft.

No, but there's a non-zero chance they might want to retain on some combination of two players in two separate trades.

The thing is, ‘retention slots’ is media talk. There are no retention slots as such. Sports reporters are not a numerate bunch on average. They can count to three easily enough, but you can't expect them to grasp accounting procedures; so they talk about ‘slots’ to simplify matters.

‘Salary attributable’ is a clear enough phrase, and on any trade made after the close of the regular season, the salary attributable to retention for that particular season is zero.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, well, that first wasn't going to be 10th overall. The Devils were expecting to make the playoffs – the very reason they wanted to add a goalie – and in any case the pick would most likely have been protected.

I don't blame the Flames at all for not taking Holtz instead. They don't need another middle-six winger, and even the Devils don't appear to think much of that particular one.

But that's all water under the bridge. The question is whether Markstrom with retention is worth the 10th pick to the Devils, with no other players or prospects thrown in, and how much one side or the other would have to add.

I used the Mike Smith trade before. Same age, some length left. Similar stats. He got a 3rd, Brandon Hickey and I believe a 5th? Not sure about retention.

Markstrom for 10th straight up is a fleecing. So I think New Jersey would want retention. It’s also 2 years of retained salary, I don’t think that’s happened before. The 1st year is cool but the 2nd year that 3 million could be used to take on a bad contract with assets so that should be worth something.

Think the 1st for him 50% is fair.

It cost Toronto a 1st to get rid of Marleau cap. Cost us a 1st to trade Monny.

Maybe they can throw in a late round pick as well.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am not buying NJ having any interest in Mangiapane. The GM said they want to get tougher on the wing and there was rumours before they like Pospisil. So the question becomes would you do Markstrom and Pospisil for #10?

Yes - I absolutely would.

I'd probably prefer a Markstrom + 28 for 10 trade, but I love the idea of selecting 9, 10, and 28.

I like Pospisil, but in the name of properly building this and believing that the sequence in how you build a team is important - Markstrom + Pospisil for 10th OA is a homerun in my eyes.

[keenan87]

Nothing from Sec214 on trades in a while. That's too bad.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Nothing from Sec214 on trades in a while. That's too bad.

I hear a rumour that Sec214 is being traded to HF for a minor-league server and a poster to be named later.

[mdubz]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Nothing from Sec214 on trades in a while. That's too bad.

His cryptic memes didn’t amount to anything ever anyways.

[CFO]

A hockey trade built around zegras and necas

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by CFO

A hockey trade built around zegras and necas

You sure have to be careful using those two names in the same sentence.