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

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Plus, he's 34. If he was even 30 and had that track record I'd be more likely if I was acquiring him to give him a pass for the weird seasons.

I think a good comparison for off-season return is Darcy Kuemper who fetched a first and a c-level prospect when traded to Colorado from Arizona. He was 31 at the time. He was making $4.5 million.

I am not sure a former 32nd overall pick who was 21 at the time and had already played 33 NHL games is a c level prospect. A comparable prospect to Timmins at the time this past summer would have been Alexander Holtz who as a 21 year old had played 28 NHL games. The Kuemper deal also had a 3rd round pick.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Toonage

If he knew that he couldn't retain on contracts with term then the issue would be amount for the rest of this year which seems trivial if the return was agreed upon.

If he knew he couldn't retain on contracts with term, then he knew he couldn't retain on Markstrom, period. You aren't allowed to retain on just one year of a contract; you have to retain the same percentage over the remaining term.

It's fairly clear from Friedman's reporting that this was not the issue. I believe Conroy has permission to retain for multiple years, but he wants a significant extra return for doing so – and he is right to ask for it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Because you don't spend hours hammering out the fine details of a trade if there is no trade to be made.

If I'm negotiating on behalf of the Devils, I'm not wasting my time on that. I'd be telling Conroy, ‘Here is my initial offer. If you think we can work out a deal, ask Markstrom now if he will waive, because it's not worth my time to discuss it if he won't.’

Retention isn’t a fine detail though. I guess we will see how it shakes out

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What’s more logical, and fits with the reports, is that Conroy himself did not agree to a deal because the Devils wanted him to retain salary but were not willing to give up additional assets to make that worthwhile. There's no reason to suppose the owners were involved in that decision.

Except in that article it says this:

"That checks out. Yesterday, Elliotte Friedman reported that although the deal died, the Devils and Flames were in agreement on a package that worked for both teams."

Now, that's not a quote from Seravalli, so it might just be the author of the article misrepresenting what Elliotte Friedman said, but if it is true, the only logical snag would be retention from ownership, because it says we were in agreement on the return.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Saros is out there. He's 28, only one year left on the deal ($5M). Similar pedigree but having a down season so as a team I think you'd wonder if making a mid-season trade for him will get you to the playoffs when you probably need to play .650 hockey to get it done.

You'd also have to think that one of Ullmark or Swayman would be made available for a kid like Mercer too..

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If he knew he couldn't retain on contracts with term, then he knew he couldn't retain on Markstrom, period. You aren't allowed to retain on just one year of a contract; you have to retain the same percentage over the remaining term.

It's fairly clear from Friedman's reporting that this was not the issue. I believe Conroy has permission to retain for multiple years, but he wants a significant extra return for doing so – and he is right to ask for it.

Yes, thank you. Brain fart on my part.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

If everything is decided, NTC waived etc, and the only hold up would be the extra year of retention I would hope the management team is banging down ownerships door.

It's two extra years of retention, and Jersey could be asking for as much as 50%, which is $7 million in both dead cap space and actual money. That's not an insignificant obstacle.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Except in that article it says this:

"That checks out. Yesterday, Elliotte Friedman reported that although the deal died, the Devils and Flames were in agreement on a package that worked for both teams."

Now, that's not a quote from Seravalli, so it might just be the author of the article misrepresenting what Elliotte Friedman said, but if it is true, the only logical snag would be retention from ownership, because it says we were in agreement on the return.

Friedman himself only said that the teams were close, not that they were in agreement.

Originally Posted by Bonded

Retention isn’t a fine detail though. I guess we will see how it shakes out

No, but these would be fine details:

1. Conroy offers to retain 20%. Jersey wants 30%.

2. Conroy agrees to retain 30% for a 2nd-round pick. Jersey only wants to offer a 3rd for that.

These both seem to me like the kind of thing you wouldn't negotiate until after you knew the player was willing to accept a trade.

[SuperMatt18]

It would be interesting to know what the package was....

If it was Holtz+1st for Markstrom I could see why the Devils would think that would be more than enough with some level of retention.

But I could also see why the Flames would probably want an additional asset.

Holtz
2024 1st* (Transfers to 2025 if 2024 pick goes to the Sharks)
2026 2nd

for

Markstrom (25% retention)

Overall that feels pretty fair to me, with the caveat being that Markstrom's Vezina calibre play this season has caused his value to sky rocket.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's two extra years of retention, and Jersey could be asking for as much as 50%, which is $7 million in both dead cap space and actual money. That's not an insignificant obstacle.

If it is just Holtz that is a pretty middling return for a 3 million dollar Markstrom.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's two extra years of retention, and Jersey could be asking for as much as 50%, which is $7 million in both dead cap space and actual money. That's not an insignificant obstacle.

Yeah its not, I don't think any owner would be happy about paying a player half their salary to play for someone else.

I would think the package coming back for that type retention would be a plus + + with Holtz and the 1st.

The Devils are not a shoe in for the playoffs either, that 1st could be be decent.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

You'd also have to think that one of Ullmark or Swayman would be made available for a kid like Mercer too..

I am not so sure of that. There have been reports that Boston feels this is their big shot before the window shuts and they think a big part of their success is having those two goalies they can tandem, plus it is really great insurance if one gets hurt. I think one of those guys might be available after the season is done but right now? I don't think so.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I am not sure a former 32nd overall pick who was 21 at the time and had already played 33 NHL games is a c level prospect. A comparable prospect to Timmins at the time this past summer would have been Alexander Holtz who as a 21 year old had played 28 NHL games. The Kuemper deal also had a 3rd round pick.

I mean, Timmins was traded a year later for a career minor leaguer. I don't know what his value was at the time of the trade, but I don't think it was near Holtz. Maybe Graeme Clarke.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

You'd also have to think that one of Ullmark or Swayman would be made available for a kid like Mercer too..

I doubt the Bruins would want to interrupt their team midseason when they're in first place. They seem to like the rotating goalie strategy. I'd imagine if they deal one of Ullmark or Swayman we'll see that in the off-season.

[Kolsch]

I don't think Seravalli can be trusted 100%. If Freidman said Markstom waived, then I'd believe that. I take most of what Frank says as rumor.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Friedman himself only said that the teams were close, not that they were in agreement.

https://newjerseyhockeynow.com/2024/...-devils-trade/

According to Friedman on the latest episode of 32 Thoughts the Podcast, Friedman explains to Jeff Marek that’s exactly where he believes the issue was between the Devils and Flames.

“I think that the Devils and Flames have awkwardly been looking at each other,” Friedman stated. “I just heard it got pretty serious. I’ve talked before on this pod about how the Flames have only kept money once. I believe that was David Rittich to Toronto. That was a deal that had no term. Again, I think the surest predictor of future events is past events. Teams know that the Flames are not crazy about this. I do believe that is a major hurdle and probably the major hurdle.”

“I think the package, they were closer on that, I’m not 100% sure, but I think hey we’re closer on that,” Friedman continued. “It wasn’t perfect, but I heard the retention was the much bigger problem. I’ve had people tell 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, that doesn’t mean it’s true the next day.”

[jg13]

I know he hasn't broken much at all but Pagnotta also said that Markstrom would go to New Jersey.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If it is just Holtz that is a pretty middling return for a 3 million dollar Markstrom.

I don't think so. Especially if there was a 1st or 2nd attached to it. There aren't many goalie trades where a player like Holtz is coming back.



https://www.reddit.com/r/Flyers/comm..._see_what_the/

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I don't think so. Especially if there was a 1st or 2nd attached to it. There aren't many goalie trades where a player like Holtz is coming back.



https://www.reddit.com/r/Flyers/comm..._see_what_the/

If we’re retaining HALF of 6m for another 2 years I want Holtz and a 1st. Consider the 1st as the cost of 3m (x2) retention.

[Paulie Walnuts]

See that's why people get annoyed with people like Elliote.

I think, I think, and I wonder. He doesn't get to the point or actually say much about retention. Who isn't crazy, the Ownership or management?

To bad Bob McKenzie retired.