Declining starters have little value to begin with. If they don't get rid of him here, there's no way they'll get rid of him once his age catches up to him. Something is better than nothing and cap space is never a bad thing.

I wouldn't want him at his full cap hit. I've said the same about gibson. He makes top 5 money rn and top 10 money over the life of his deal, and in my estimation he isn't near either of those marks.

I don't expect it to age well (the last decade of goalies from age 34-36 hasn't been pretty, not a single one has played at a top 10 level over that span, which is what Markstrom would need to do to be worth the money).

He may have value if he can provide great goaltending this year tho without giving up any meaningful assets and win us a cup, and then NJD would eat the next 2 years which are likely ugly, and impossible to dump with his NMC
However for Calgary, there is no upside. Even in a retool you aren't competing this year or next, and then you have a 36 year old Markstrom making 6 mil in 25-26 if you are trying to compete again then. Is that helpful, probably not

The trade off is not something vs nothing. It is what could they get for him now vs. what would they get by keeping him. Keeping him could mean a playoff birth and added ticket sales revenue for the owners. Keeping him could mean a shorter retention term to facilitate a better trade. Or he might have a renaissance season.

Maybe the potential for a better future return is low outside of retention, but if the "something" he would fetch today is also low value, then holding onto him is inherently low risk.

He has a full NMC and is at the age where he could show up to camp and be swiss cheese. Once that happens, he is a cap dump and likely won't waive for teams that can take him

The incentive for Calgary would be clearing the books. Giving flexibility to make other moves, take on cap dumps in other moves, take fliers on UFAs to potentially sell, give Wolf the reigns, etc etc

Another important factor is that NHL teams aren't like NFL teams, where every team is massively profitable no matter what. The 20 mill markstrom still has to be paid isn't meaningless. It actually effects the owners bottom line in a significant way. Which you have to acknowledge as a factor.

Unless you're toronto or a handful of other teams, you can't just sit on dead or bad money without it having an impact

Calgary has no desire to move him, especially with retention. If a team wants him then they will have to pay up for what he is right now which is a top goalie in the league. If you don't want to do that then so be it. Calgary has no issue letting him mentor Wolf, Markstrom has already shown to be very good at that role first with Demko and rhen again with Vladar

How has Vladar been mentored? He was a highly promising prospect turned into a bad backup

Does the owner want to keep paying his Salary through a rebuild? The nhl is still a business and money talks. This isn't the NFL where every team profits hand over fist regardless of how good they are

By what measure is he a top goalie?
sv%: 31st of goalies with 10 GP
MoneyPuck GSAx/60: 19th of goalies with 10 GP
NST GSAA/60: 36th of goalies with 500 TOI
HockeyRef GA% Rel: 30th of goalies with 500 TOI

And even not looking at the stats.

Give me:
Saros, Gustafsson, Swayman, Igor, Oetter, Sorokin, Helle, Demko, Vasy, Georgiev. And I don't think any of those are debatable. Personally I have markstrom at 22 on my list, right below Gibson

Thank you for once again proving your ignorance.

Last year when Markstrom was having a very bad season due to external issues and Vladar was starting to get a lot of the starts he didn't let his pride get the better of him. Instead he was very encouraging and mentoring for Vladar. During practices and every partial break in games he would have very informative conversations with Vladar at the bench. He would help make sure Vladar never let a bad goal get to him and throw him off, give advice, etc. That is what a good mentor does, always willing to provide guidance. His communication skills are fantastic and he doesn't have an ego.

He is #2 in GSAx on Evolving Hockey with +15.72
He on Money Puck he has a +6.2 GSAx

Again he has been fantastic this year, the rest of Calgary as a team has let him down. If you don't want him that is not Calgary's problem. Keep trying to contend with your bottom 5 goaltending in the league

He has a full NMC, thats not the owners choice.

Changed awfully quick from “Calgary doesn’t want to move him” to “he has an NMC”

To me, this only applies if a team is having near term financial troubles. I don't follow the Flames, so I do not know if that applies.

Owners care about profits, but the best way to increase thier take at the gate is to ice a team that performs well and to get some bonus games in April with no extra cost to pay players. $6m is a big cap hit for a goalie, but the cap's effect is that the value of the asset is far higher than their salary cost. We basically never talk about salary as the primary driver for a trade. It usually only factors into timing or as a secondary incentive.

So you are not entirely wrong, but trading an active, contributing player primarily to avoid paying his salary would be a weird move for a financially healthy franchise.

Leafs fans catching strays over here!

I still contend that if they are rebuilding, that is not a big risk. Which is more likely to get Conroy fired: underselling on Markstrom early to a team where he thrives, or hang onto Markstrom during a rebuild and he does nothing when they could have gotten a 1B goalie. Those are just the polar extreme scenarios, but both are realistic. I don't see the latter getting him fired. None of us have a crystal ball to know what any of these players will be next year, but one of those moves is much more risky for CGY, IMO.

You asked about the owner specifically. I said it's irrelevant since Markstrom has full control. But Calgary still has to make the cap floor next year and right now they are projected at 57.3M with 13 players signed. they very likely aren't making any major free agent signings either so even though they still need sign or promote 10 roster players they will only be a bit above the floor currently.

You keep trying to justify Calgary moving him for a fraction of what he brings to the team and its just a stupid argument. Go waste someone elses time with this nonsense. If you want Markstrom, pay up. If you don't want to pay up F off. Simple as that

Markstrom is not a 6x3 at 34 years old goalie.

You can pretend that it isn’t true, but I know for a fact if Markstroms contract was voided there’s not a chance Calgary offers him the same deal as he has right now

A lot of teams in the NHL don’t make a lot of money if they aren’t winning. Very few teams consistently make big dollars when they suck

Calgary declines hard. That isn't enough for Hanifin alone.

He doesn't turn 34 until January so if he was a free agent this last summer he would have still been 33. You can call him 34 when he turns 34.

And yes you are probably right, if he hit UFA during this last summer he would probably get something like 4M x 3 years.

I really don't understand your point though. Thats how long term deals always work. Dougie Hamilton hasn't been a 9x5 player this year. EK65 isn't an 11.5x4 player, hell he isn't 10x4 either. Doughty isnt an 11x4 player. Ovi certainly isn't playing like a 9.5x3 player. Bobrovsky isnt a 10x3 player. In 5 years Hellebuyck isnt going to be worth his 8.5x3 either

Hanifin won't be a rental he will be traded to team he'll extend with... I guess that's why you want Markstrom because he's especially not worth much?

I want Markstrom because at this point it's him or Gibson and Gibson will be more expensive with a higher cap hit