Realistic (and unrealistic) Trades - 2024 Edition

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

As much as I complain about the ownership’s unwillingness to rebuild, I will say that they have shown the willingness to spend money to win. So it’s always been odd that they are unwilling to retain salary in trades. I do think part of it is the fact that the Flames have been up against the cap for quite awhile making it very difficult to retain cap in trades. 
 

In a Markstrom trade, if you are going to retain cap you had better be getting a really good return. I am not sure that Holtz is the right return, for me to retain cap for this year and 2 years after.

 

The impact of the retained salary in future years is lessened, but it's still a big consideration.  For a pending UFA it's not an issue.  There has to be something included in the trade that would justify that.  Simply getting a cheap player isn't it.  

[cross16]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

As much as I complain about the ownership’s unwillingness to rebuild, I will say that they have shown the willingness to spend money to win. So it’s always been odd that they are unwilling to retain salary in trades. I do think part of it is the fact that the Flames have been up against the cap for quite awhile making it very difficult to retain cap in trades. 
 

In a Markstrom trade, if you are going to retain cap you had better be getting a really good return. I am not sure that Holtz is the right return, for me to retain cap for this year and 2 years after.

 

 

That would be my angle here, have they really had the opportunity to do so? Since salary retention became more common the Flames have traditionally been in the position of the other team needing to retain and not them. I don't think any team out there wants to retain if they can help it. I trust this ownership group doesn't want to spend money if it doesn't have to so it really comes down to the can the GM pitch to them that paying a player to go away is worth it for the organization, and I have full confidence that if they did the club would retain. I just don't think that opportunity has existed very often. 

 

 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

That would be my angle here, have they really had the opportunity to do so? Since salary retention became more common the Flames have traditionally been in the position of the other team needing to retain and not them. I don't think any team out there wants to retain if they can help it. I trust this ownership group doesn't want to spend money if it doesn't have to so it really comes down to the can the GM pitch to them that paying a player to go away is worth it for the organization, and I have full confidence that if they did the club would retain. I just don't think that opportunity has existed very often. 

 

 

I would think they're not reluctant to do it ..it just has to make sense ..  they've never been shy to buy out a player and that's probabaly been way higher $ overall..  last time they retained was David Rittich to Toronto ..  but they only have 3 spots and this would tie one up for 2 more years ..

 

I'd suspect the return and the retain go hand in hand .. NJ wants us to retain the return just went up.. id be wanting a significant roster player on top of the pick and prospects.. at the very least a Dawson Mercer or similar 

 

And also ..Calgary is in the driver's seat on this one.. they're not actively trying to move him.. but they're open if the offer is right.. there's no deadline, so meet our price or no deal 

[sak22]

2 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I would think they're not reluctant to do it ..it just has to make sense ..  they've never been shy to buy out a player and that's probabaly been way higher $ overall..  last time they retained was David Rittich to Toronto ..  but they only have 3 spots and this would tie one up for 2 more years ..

 

I'd suspect the return and the retain go hand in hand .. NJ wants us to retain the return just went up.. id be wanting a significant roster player on top of the pick and prospects.. at the very least a Dawson Mercer or similar 

 

And also ..Calgary is in the driver's seat on this one.. they're not actively trying to move him.. but they're open if the offer is right.. there's no deadline, so meet our price or no deal 

Another thing I've heard floated around (pure speculation) that NJ would want Vanacek to go the other way, retaining salary plus taking on a bad contract that would likely need to be bought out shouldn't be considered unless you are getting a steal.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

11 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I would think they're not reluctant to do it ..it just has to make sense ..  they've never been shy to buy out a player and that's probabaly been way higher $ overall..  last time they retained was David Rittich to Toronto ..  but they only have 3 spots and this would tie one up for 2 more years ..

 

I'd suspect the return and the retain go hand in hand .. NJ wants us to retain the return just went up.. id be wanting a significant roster player on top of the pick and prospects.. at the very least a Dawson Mercer or similar 

 

And also ..Calgary is in the driver's seat on this one.. they're not actively trying to move him.. but they're open if the offer is right.. there's no deadline, so meet our price or no deal 

Exactly. Theres really no time constraint to move Marky as opposed to Tanev and Hanifin. My worry is if Conroy is taking time listening to offers for Marky then the Tanev/Hanifin scenario is either at a stalemate or there hasnt been an offer worth noting. I would hope the focus is still on the D men and this is just a stalling tactic to gain interest in the offerings.

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Exactly. Theres really no time constraint to move Marky as opposed to Tanev and Hanifin. My worry is if Conroy is taking time listening to offers for Marky then the Tanev/Hanifin scenario is either at a stalemate or there hasnt been an offer worth noting.

I don't think that at all...   Tanev hes got his offers..he's simply trying to drive up the price .. I know people are concerned he keeps playing but that to me only drives it harder ..someone is gonna blink and panic every time he blocks a shot or goes up the the tunnel..

 

Hanifin.. it's all on him..I suspect his "deadline" is the end of the roadtrip.. come home and sign the deal or he already has a handful of offers on speed dial.. I suspect Tampa is on that list now and if he'd pulled the trigger a week ago they wouldn't be in play to drive it up even more 

[JTech780]

14 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I would think they're not reluctant to do it ..it just has to make sense ..  they've never been shy to buy out a player and that's probabaly been way higher $ overall..  last time they retained was David Rittich to Toronto ..  but they only have 3 spots and this would tie one up for 2 more years ..

 

I'd suspect the return and the retain go hand in hand .. NJ wants us to retain the return just went up.. id be wanting a significant roster player on top of the pick and prospects.. at the very least a Dawson Mercer or similar 

 

And also ..Calgary is in the driver's seat on this one.. they're not actively trying to move him.. but they're open if the offer is right.. there's no deadline, so meet our price or no deal 

 

That might be the sticking point as I doubt Mercer is available, especially after they lost McLeod for the rest of his career most likely. I doubt the Devils are moving anyone from their top 9 at this point. 

 

As you said the Flames can set their price and if nobody matches it, they just keep him. 

[cross16]

14 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

That might be the sticking point as I doubt Mercer is available, especially after they lost McLeod for the rest of his career most likely. I doubt the Devils are moving anyone from their top 9 at this point. 

 

As you said the Flames can set their price and if nobody matches it, they just keep him. 

 

I get it's because we like him, and there are rumors the Flames really wanted him in that draft, but I think your dreaming if you think the Devils are going to trade Mercer to the Flames for Markstrom and/or Hanfin. When was the last time a good young top 6 forward was traded for an aging goalie or a pending UFA?

 

If that's your price I don't think you are trading with the Devils

[JTech780]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

I get it's because we like him, and there are rumors the Flames really wanted him in that draft, but I think your dreaming if you think the Devils are going to trade Mercer to the Flames for Markstrom and/or Hanfin. When was the last time a good young top 6 forward was traded for an aging goalie or a pending UFA?

 

If that's your price I don't think you are trading with the Devils

Oh I agree. If they are looking to make a deal, then Conroy will need to look at less established players and/or prospects from the Devils.

 

My point is more that with Markstrom they don’t have to trade him today, and as such they can set their price high and make teams come up to that price.

 

Tanev and Hanifin there is a time limit on making a trade, so they have to be somewhat flexible in setting a minimum price for them and make a move when you are comfortable with that you aren’t going to get a better return than that minimum level.

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Oh I agree. If they are looking to make a deal, then Conroy will need to look at less established players and/or prospects from the Devils.

 

My point is more that with Markstrom they don’t have to trade him today, and as such they can set their price high and make teams come up to that price.

 

Tanev and Hanifin there is a time limit on making a trade, so they have to be somewhat flexible in setting a minimum price for them and make a move when you are comfortable with that you aren’t going to get a better return than that minimum level.

 

 

I don't disagree in theory but I do think there is a line between a high price and an unreasonable one. Flames should be cautious about where that line is drawn IMO especially with a goalie. There are only so many potential landing spots for Markstrom so if you are going to make your price unreasonable teams will move on. 

 

so yes I agree they have time, but what they  may lack is a reasonable amount of suitors. I'm not suggesting the Flames should have taken a deal but if their approach was "Mercer or bust" then basically they don't want to trade Markstrom. 

 

Not sure I would agree with that approach. 

 

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I don't disagree in theory but I do think there is a line between a high price and an unreasonable one. Flames should be cautious about where that line is drawn IMO especially with a goalie. There are only so many potential landing spots for Markstrom so if you are going to make your price unreasonable teams will move on. 

 

so yes I agree they have time, but what they  may lack is a reasonable amount of suitors. I'm not suggesting the Flames should have taken a deal but if their approach was "Mercer or bust" then basically they don't want to trade Markstrom. 

 

Not sure I would agree with that approach. 

 

And that's exactly it.. they don't. Blow us away or move on..that is their position . They are perfectly resdy and content to have him here or at least the next 2 years 

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

And that's exactly it.. they don't. Blow us away or move on..that is their position . They are perfectly resdy and content to have him here or at least the next 2 years 

 

I get it.

 

I don't agree with it is what I'm saying.  I have no idea what the Devils offered so i'm not trying to suggest the Flames are doing anything wrong. If the idea is it has to be Mercer or you move on then IMO the Flames are making a mistake.  For example if the flames were offered Hotlz and said no that be a mistake IMO. 

 

If it were me, I would not be happy to have Markstrom here for 2 more years if you are getting good trade offers now. Set a high price sure but don't make it unreasonable. 

[JTech780]

25 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I get it.

 

I don't agree with it is what I'm saying.  I have no idea what the Devils offered so i'm not trying to suggest the Flames are doing anything wrong. If the idea is it has to be Mercer or you move on then IMO the Flames are making a mistake.  For example if the flames were offered Hotlz and said no that be a mistake IMO. 

 

If it were me, I would not be happy to have Markstrom here for 2 more years if you are getting good trade offers now. Set a high price sure but don't make it unreasonable. 

I am not super high on Holtz so if he is the return and we have to retain cap, then I am passing.

[sak22]

21 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I don't disagree in theory but I do think there is a line between a high price and an unreasonable one. Flames should be cautious about where that line is drawn IMO especially with a goalie. There are only so many potential landing spots for Markstrom so if you are going to make your price unreasonable teams will move on. 

 

so yes I agree they have time, but what they  may lack is a reasonable amount of suitors. 

 

I agree, with Saros potentially being available or if you wait until the offseason perhaps Boston makes Ullmark available, and teams with lower cap space might try running with a lower cost option in the UFA market like a Brossoit or Nedeljkovic.

 

For me its whether you need to move him or not, from the asset management perspective you can get something for Markstrom and won't for Vladar.  From the Wolf developmental perspective I think Markstrom would serve a better mentor.

[MP5029]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

I don't disagree in theory but I do think there is a line between a high price and an unreasonable one. Flames should be cautious about where that line is drawn IMO especially with a goalie. There are only so many potential landing spots for Markstrom so if you are going to make your price unreasonable teams will move on. 

 

so yes I agree they have time, but what they  may lack is a reasonable amount of suitors. I'm not suggesting the Flames should have taken a deal but if their approach was "Mercer or bust" then basically they don't want to trade Markstrom. 

 

Not sure I would agree with that approach. 

 

I would, at least for

now, we not…in the summer well then it gets reconsidered…I think you absolutely set Mercer as pat of a Hanifin/Markstrom deal another team may play ball and panic the Devils or make an offer similar if jot no big…wait it out to the summer.

 

now Hotlz for Markstrom im

ok with but there is absolutely NO retention…NJD can figure their own cap issues out themselves 

 

if there is retention, there is a cost for Cgy to manage NJD’s salary cap and that is Mercer for Markstrom 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

I get it.

 

I don't agree with it is what I'm saying.  I have no idea what the Devils offered so i'm not trying to suggest the Flames are doing anything wrong. If the idea is it has to be Mercer or you move on then IMO the Flames are making a mistake.  For example if the flames were offered Hotlz and said no that be a mistake IMO. 

 

If it were me, I would not be happy to have Markstrom here for 2 more years if you are getting good trade offers now. Set a high price sure but don't make it unreasonable. 

History has also shown us that Marky having a good year tends to mean the next one wont be, which in turn negatively affecting his value. That tells us the time to move him would be now but it would be nice if there was a better picture how Wolf is going to transition then maybe that gives you some direction moving forward.

 

IF Marky gets traded tomorrow you've got a Wolf/Dansk combo until Vladar comes back. Get rid of 2 veteran D men also and you're setting up your tandem for failure.

[MP5029]

Personally if i’m Cgy and Mercer is a 100% no go ok…

 

Holtz 

Venek

Semion 

2024 first rounder

 

for Markstrom+ Hanifin with retention…

[travel_dude]

43 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

History has also shown us that Marky having a good year tends to mean the next one wont be, which in turn negatively affecting his value. That tells us the time to move him would be now but it would be nice if there was a better picture how Wolf is going to transition then maybe that gives you some direction moving forward.

 

IF Marky gets traded tomorrow you've got a Wolf/Dansk combo until Vladar comes back. Get rid of 2 veteran D men also and you're setting up your tandem for failure.

 

I view next season as being the inevitable down year for Marky.

It's happened like that since we signed him, but for many different reasons.

Bottom line is we don't get 2 years in a row like this year, or the year he had 9 SO's.

 

TDL or summer, it doesn't matter.

We do have to know what we have in the remaining two.

If we do it now, we may have to replace Vladar this summer.

Or we know he is good enough to run as 1a/1b.

If we do it in the summer, we might get better value but we should know who we are starting.

So, Vladar has to prove he is okay to start.

 

We are not trading Markstrom while Vladar is out, and I doubt it's serious.

I think we are being careful by not trading him this week.

You never know, we might be offered Holtz and Vanechek, so I would not worry as much.

Maybe not what I want in return, but it has less risk than just a player and pick.

[Thebrewcrew]

Markstrom makes sense for NJ. It's just hard to find a trade package that makes sense.

 

I don't believe NJ would trade any of their young roster players for Markstrom. I don't blame them.

 

The Flames have no reason to move Markstrom. I would ask for two 1st's. I would also be willing to retain up to 2m, if NJ threw in another pick. Finally, I would take Vanecek. Two 1st's is a big ask, but NJ keeps their prized younfg players, gets Markstrom at a discount and gets rid of bad money in Vanecek.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Markstrom makes sense for NJ. It's just hard to find a trade package that makes sense.

 

I don't believe NJ would trade any of their young roster players for Markstrom. I don't blame them.

 

The Flames have no reason to move Markstrom. I would ask for two 1st's. I would also be willing to retain up to 2m, if NJ threw in another pick. Finally, I would take Vanecek. Two 1st's is a big ask, but NJ keeps their prized younfg players, gets Markstrom at a discount and gets rid of bad money in Vanecek.

 

NJ would have 2.5 years of Markstrom to try to win the cup.

Young players aren't going to impact fast enough, so if that's the cost, it's the cost.

1st plus Holtz.  Maybe not even enough from their end.

Vanacek to make them a little happier.

 

They have Dougie on LTIR so cao is not an issue.

Next year Miller drops off and they don't have to worry about Foote or McLeod.

 

 

[bosn111]

Even with Dougie on LTIR, they are still against the cap. Toffoli is UFA and Mercer is RFA looking for a big raise. The loss of Toffoli covers the Mercer raise, but how then do they replace Toffoli. This was the basis for the Mercer suggestion.

[travel_dude]

35 minutes ago, bosn111 said:

Even with Dougie on LTIR, they are still against the cap. Toffoli is UFA and Mercer is RFA looking for a big raise. The loss of Toffoli covers the Mercer raise, but how then do they replace Toffoli. This was the basis for the Mercer suggestion.

 

If I am not mistaken, the LTIR has $9M available to counteract the overage.

They using $330k of LTIR.

That is this year's problem fixed, right?

Next year is their problem.

You want a $6M goalie, you pay for it.

Nobody is going to pay you 1/4 or 1/2 of it so you can run up the rest of the roster.

 

Toffoli will get signed.

They will need to cheap out a bit, maybe trade Haula.

And by trading Vanacek, they get rid of $3M.

Mercer has zero leverage, so they can pay him for a year or two below the big $$.

That's what happens.  Not every player gets the big money on 2nd contract.

 

[cberg]

14 hours ago, sak22 said:

I agree, with Saros potentially being available or if you wait until the offseason perhaps Boston makes Ullmark available, and teams with lower cap space might try running with a lower cost option in the UFA market like a Brossoit or Nedeljkovic.

 

For me its whether you need to move him or not, from the asset management perspective you can get something for Markstrom and won't for Vladar.  From the Wolf developmental perspective I think Markstrom would serve a better mentor.

Yes, there are always other options for teams, but usually, those are not the same value.  Maybe we could think of it like buying groceries.  There is a need, to feed yourself and your family(hiring enough players to field a team), and there is a budget(in this case with mins and maxes defined externally),  although that can be somewhat flexible because there is also debt, which still has to be paid but puts repayment off till into the future(eg draft picks).  There is also the possibility of increasing the budget by selling off some items you already have(eg trades to increase cap space), by not spending as much on other budgeted items(eg internal salary management), or by raising more money by other means (eg ticket sales).  When you go to the grocery store you have to figure out your shopping list based on what the essentials are, what is available at that moment, plus its price and what your particular needs are, for example, are you buying extra to celebrate something special, ie birthdays or anniversaries, or do you have special recipes, ie health/celebration needs, or an upcoming competition?   In addition, you have to look at the shelf life of the items you buy, and the "Best Before" dates on your purchases.  Finally, it is not just the basics that are required for life, but the quality of food that can add extra energy, strength, and stamina, and help fight off disease to keep everything functioning at a peak rate.  This is a daily to weekly chore that is quite complex and a critical one.

 

As far as Markstrom goes, as a goalie, he is a foundational basic that every team has and is one of the Flames' priorities and strengths.  Since he is performing at an excellent level, the Flames are succeeding to a higher level based on him alone, but since other parts of the team are weak or immature that level is nothing special.  In fact, outside of fleeting bursts of excellence, and individual achievements he is keeping the team from failing to the point of going to the place needed to bring in the future players required for ultimate success, the top of the draft board.  The only real benefit of keeping him is as a mentor for Wolf.  The idea of maintaining a "winning culture" is kind of a false narrative, since winning is, or should be at the least, being a consistent playoff performer with actual playoff success a regular occurrence.  

 

From the NJ perspective, the goalies they currently have may not be good enough to put them over the top by themselves, and Markstrom may certainly help in that regard, but time has proven that even the best teams can fail come playoffs(eg Boston 2023) because there is so much luck, fortuitous bounces and unforeseen injuries that can derail the best-constructed teams come playoffs.  How much value does Markstrom add to NJ's chances versus the debt required to obtain him, and do they have other, less expensive alternatives?  At the same time, they don't want to diminish what they currently have outside of the goalie.... So many issues.

 

[cberg]

11 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Markstrom makes sense for NJ. It's just hard to find a trade package that makes sense.

 

I don't believe NJ would trade any of their young roster players for Markstrom. I don't blame them.

 

The Flames have no reason to move Markstrom. I would ask for two 1st's. I would also be willing to retain up to 2m, if NJ threw in another pick. Finally, I would take Vanecek. Two 1st's is a big ask, but NJ keeps their prized younfg players, gets Markstrom at a discount and gets rid of bad money in Vanecek.

Agree, give them what they need today without detracting from the rest of their team, for future picks and/or recent draftees, that the Flames need.

[cross16]

10 hours ago, bosn111 said:

Even with Dougie on LTIR, they are still against the cap. Toffoli is UFA and Mercer is RFA looking for a big raise. The loss of Toffoli covers the Mercer raise, but how then do they replace Toffoli. This was the basis for the Mercer suggestion.

 

Devils have a lot of flexibility. They are not using Hamilton's LTIR so they have that and next year for 14 players they have 20 million in cap space. Outside of Toffoli and Mercer that's is a lot of money to fill out the roster. Neither Toffoli, nor Mercer are going to warrant that large of contracts right now. 

 

I think the Devils would want Vanacek in the deal to free up both the space and that cap, but they don't need to include Mercer for salary reasons.