travel_dude

I don't think the upcoming game really is impacted by the Tanev trade. PITTS is one of those teams that can beat you or look horrible. Tanev is not going to do much with Malkin or Sid. So, Markstrom is not going to look horrible if we are in fact trading him. The teams that want him know exactly what he is. Remember that Markstrom's HD SA% is one of the best in the league. His goalie stats on unblocked shots are in the top 3. His actual goals against are better than Shesterken and tied with Helly. Those that want him will make a trade if it makes sense now or in the summer.

I think it was reported that they talked before Christmas. He wanted more and I think it was both term and dollars, than the Flames were willing to give. No point talking after that when you are that far off.

2 years ago? The year we won the Pacific and were 2nd in the league? On one hand you trade while the players are at the top of their game, but on the other we were expected to complete for the cup. Hard to sell then. The best time to trade him would have been that summer but he got messed up against Dallas. Big questions for making a trade then.

The risk of holding your cards is also that teams move on and you get a lesser offer. Right now there are fewer teams that have signaled no compete. I am glad not to have to see him in Leafs blue or Oiler puke-orange. All the Oilers could provide would be the 1st. Not exactly impressed with a lot of their propsects. BT making a deal with us? Only if we completely drained their prospect pool and a 1st.

Leafs fans can speculate he will sign there for that cheap. If that was all he wanted, the Flames would have given it to him. I don't know that I heard an actual number he wanted or if he wanted more term, but I think his defensive numbers earned him at least what he was making. Whatever he signs for in term, this will be his last deal before the dreaded 35+ contract. So, there's only a couple of scenarios that improve our draft odds, well actually one. Stars aren't division leader and lose in the first round. The 2026 3rd is added if they make it to the cup finals but hurts our 2024 2nd. I don't really care to that point of analysis. Too far out at this point. We will see how they place this year.

I was flipping through twiiter and was amazed how negative the reviews were. I don't have an issue getting back a defensive D prospect and a 2nd. I wasn't so happy with retaining 50%, perhaps that's the conditional 3rd, but it's not the end of the world. From what I understand, they have scouted this player over the last couple of weeks? They like his poise and PK ability. Whatever. He's a young prospect that could become a lot better with time. I would like to see some forwards in any Hanifin trade. Prospects or young players. May not get more than one, but should get a pick(s) if just one. A first should be a given.

So, next year they have to re-sign Toffoli and do something with Mercer. He has no leverage and can get a bridge deal. They have Foote and McLeod who won't be playing for them again. Two young goalies with little experience as RFA and RFA with arbitration. Neither is costing much. I say all of this because they have $19M available to make those moves. They lose a couple of UFA D-men that were getting up there in age. Nothing really crazy to replace in $$. Not with Dougie back. They could take Markstrom on without making any sacrifices. Just means they have to delay the big 2nd contract for Mercer. And not pay Toffoli $8M.

I mean they traded a young un-signed goalie prospect to DAL, through us. So they traded 1.125M retained plus the prospect for a DAL 4th. I don't know what that says. They are as in the hunt for the playoffs as we were, minus a goalie. They are close to 3rd in the division and 2nd WC spot - 5 back. We are 5 back of WC2, but 7 back of 3rd. I wouldn't call that out of the hunt.

What was the rumoured return for both Hanifinan and Tanev? Dellandrea, Faska, 1st and something?

If they want to complete the tandum, send us Stanky and a 1st. Or 1st + Dilandrea

All the more curious why they would bother asking us to retain some of Marky's salary. NJ got hosed unless they hated the goalie and love a 4th.

So, in some ways we got the conditional for retaining salary for Jersey. It doesn't (and can't) show that way. NJ got very little, where they sent Brady for a 4th and retained 25%.

I missed the part where we retained 50%. My bad

You mean for NJ, we didn't use a retention spot per se. Unless there is some weird rule about a team that trades to a 3rd team that retains costs us.

Doesn't matter how you skin the cat, once you trade a top D, you are tanking. Any chance they had to make the playoffs, no matter how slim, are done. I have been pushing to trade him and Hanifin, because we have to move on. But I recognize the fact that the season is now done.

Markstrom without Tanev. Reminds me of the 2nd round of the playoffs. If you trade your best defensive defenseman, are you not tanking?

This trade reminded me of the Kris Russell trade. Get a guy with a name that's tough to spell. Get a 2nd. We ended up with a player in that deal (Brett Pollock former 2nd rounder) that never did anything. So the equivalent of two 2nds. Though the pick was conditional on reaching conference final.

Time for BT to mess that up? Naw, it's late career for those guys. Gio keeps going an going, but Brodie is showing his age. I think he hangs it up soon. Been around for so long. Never really got paid

Well I don't think he has earned prime time yet over the awesome Oesterle. If anything, they move Kylington to Weegar and Hanifin to Ras. That leaves open Gilbert or Oesterle with Pachal. Neither of them should be in the top 6, but we shall see. New guy is a LHS, so COULD pair with Pachal, but maybe shouldn't yet. He's 20. Solo deserves it first. Or perhaps they go for the field goal from 50 yard line and call up Poirier.

I liked the signing but what made it difficult was that it was essentially Brodie for Tanev. We failed to deal with Brodie's pending UFA and ended up signing Tanev before circling back to Brodie. BT failed us too often to overcome the good things. Neal begat Lucic trade in 19/20 Lucic begat losing Brodie (cap) but able to sign Tanev. Lucic begat losing 1st to MTL for Monahan. Signing Neal and Brower set us up to fail. Trading Neal for Lucic left us sucking air for cap space. We aren't able to spend where we needed it.

Need some forwards now with the Hanifin and Markstrom trades. They are giving Kuz the 4th line treatment. Because Hunt is such a fine player that never stuck anywhere.

I don't like getting nothing if Dallas doesn't go to the cup, but whatever. It's a 3rd 2 years from now.

So, we weren't deep in our D prospects, where Solo and Kuz were the only stay at home types we had in the pipeline. This guy is a plus player in 45 AHL games. They claim they have scouted him. A 2nd plus a prospect plus another pick is about what we would have expected I guess. No retention and all NJ got was a different pick. We get back $4.5M of cap in the deal. Less if he plays right away. I wasn't sure why people expected a bigger return for Tanev than Hanifin. Maybe we get worse for him, maybe a lot better. We didn't lose him for nothing.

Toffoli was not a "not signing" trade. He had a certain expectation and was signed for this year. He did not ask to be traded. From a cap view alone, his future deal did not fit with the aims of the team. This also flies in the face of making the playoffs every year. The GM (and to a certain extent the owners) evaluate what kind of team they have. Half a year of team struggles does not suggest you have a team that will make the playoffs. Sometimes a GM will address the fans and tell them they are rebuilding, but most times it's just through actions. Announcing means fire sale and low prices. But anyway, who really cares what they say out loud. His actions will speak.

Oh totally. I don't think they are looking for an overpay, just something approaching the value of a #1 goalie with term going out the door. If the sticking point was price of retention (some debate there), then they weren't looking for the doors being blown off. In the context of what the value of a (possibly) declining goalie is to the organization, you sell if you are not competing for the playoffs in the window of his term. I don't think there is enough value in keeping him if the trades are reasonable for the value of the player. You wait for the doors to be blown off for young D or young C/W on the cusp of becoming a star.