easy tony soprano...

Why do they do that? They just need to dump Vladar, let Wolf develop as a backup, and keep a vet who wants to stay there

They can easily do what Boston has done with Swayman with Wolf and it likely helps him rather than throwing him to the wolves and let him fail like NJD did this year with Schmid.

Calgary can’t get their vets to stay there anyway, Why trade one who has for nothing and pay on top of it. I get the potential for a pick is there, but no reason to deal with those conditions

I wouldn't do this trade.
Markstrom is aging and he won't be a good fit for NJ.

If they’re confident in Markstroms abilities like they claim to be they should be getting 3 1sts in this trade.

I completely agree. But Calgary fans seem to think there is no way that a 34 year old goaltender falls off in the next 3 years. (They all fall off).

Lol I wish you could put conditions like that on a trade.

Isn't this considered gambling?

But the reality is NJD could easily manipulate that condition and Markstrom is in his last big contract. It’s not how deals happen. You trade value for value with nominal conditions. If he tears an ACL after a bad game, what happens?

Hell, they’d be incented to Tanya Harding him

why would NJD in the middle of their contention window actively eat 18 million dollars over 3 years for picks.

Sure they could do that, and waste 3 years of Jack Hughes Nico Hischier Dougie Hamilton Timo Meier and Jesper Bratts prime.

If he tears his ACL then why should NJD have paid for him in the 1st place. Calgary fans want all the reward without taking on any of the risk associated with a 34 year old goalie. I’m telling them to take some of the risk. If Markstrom is what they’ve been claiming he is, they’ll get a much bigger haul for Markstrom than they’ve been asking for.

All these points you illustrate on why Calgary wouldn’t take the risk here is why NJD shouldn’t take the risk of buying Markstrom at all (this is the point I’m trying to illustrate)

I’m sure you could just no team has the balls to take that kind of risk (because if it doesn’t work out it’ll get you fired). Just conditions on things like save%, GAA, etc. (I’m sure at some point down the line once analytics get more accepted stuff like GSAx will become a part of conditions and incentives too)

They don’t have to. That’s the reality. I think sometimes we are too caught up in winning an argument where we forget that the answer is probably in between.

I fully expect Markstrom to stay in Calgary.

Calgary seems to view the NMC as a reason why markstroms price goes up significantly. The other 31 teams will view an NMC as lowering his value

Calgary seems completely opposed to retaining salary.

A 34 year old goalie at 6 mill x 3 isn’t going to garner the return needed to ask him to waive.

And I expect him to fall off sometime next year.

If I’m gonna gamble on a goalie I’d rather it be Knight tbh. If you hit on that gamble it’s your next decade set in net.

My guess is that teams haven’t made a viable offer to them for whatever reason.

I also believe the late first to late second round pick is probably the most overvalued asset by relative fan bases.

Give me a 3rd round pick that has shown positives at the AHL level over a late 2nd round any day of the week. Give me a former first that has shown well at the AHL over a late first round pick. The conversion to the AHL kills prospective good prospects. It’s a hard conversion.

Just curious. Would you do the same with Dawson Mercer

A first if he continues down the current production level
A second first if he improves his production by 30%
A third first if he improves it by 50%.
A return of a second if he reduces his production by 30%
A return of a first if he reduces his production by 50%

Put the same onus on the young emerging player not living up to capabilities. The unfortunate aspect is it does t seem to protect from injuries

The problem with your logic is it completely ignores that teams usually want to make more than 1 trade over a 3 year period. You are essentially locking up 3 1sts from both sides as untradeable assets during any given season. Not to mention both Calgary and New Jersey have their 1sts from next year already part of prior trade conditions.

Again though, goaltending is your problem. If you don't want to pay to fix it then don't. Calgary is under no pressure at all to move him unless he wants a trade, and management has said they are not even going to ask him unless an offer blows them away.

Lastly what's your basis for performance? Sv%, GSAx, GAA, xSv% vs Sv%, what?

No because that price is way short since Mercer has an ELC contract

Let’s assume Mercer came with a 4x4 extension.

If Mercer played at his current level that’s a 1st (he makes 900k this year)

After that if he plays at a quality top 6 forward level that’s a 1st.

If Mercer provides top 6 quality play over the next 5 years for a total of 17 million dollars I would want a significant sum yes. And there’s virtually no scenario where Mercer isn’t worth his dirt cheap contract

Mercer would have to turn around and play for the other team and actively try and score on his own net in order to not return positive value on a contract of 900k. A 50% reduction in mercers value would still have him at +ve value on a 900k deal

Personally I would use GSAx. Heck I’d have an independent arbitrator value him.

The point is Calgary wants a massive reward without any of the risk.

And refuse to acknowledge the massive risk on Markstrom.

He was bad in 22-23 and 20-21. He’s 34 and the results are not kind historically to mid 30s goalies.

He has a 6 million dollar contract

The point was simply to have Calgary fans consider the risks associated with markstroms possible fall off, which mean a lot more when you have to bear responsibility for those risks.

I think Calgary can keep Markstrom. Call me in 3 years and we’ll see how he performed from today on, next year, and the year after.

Was he worth 8 mill AAV (the level he’d have to perform at to be worth a 1st imo)

Mercer just doesn’t make sense for this scenario because there’s no downside and he also has just 1 year of official contract and his next contract is whatever the team wants.

I’d do that on a guy like Palat.

Or heck the best example would be Vanacek.

If Vanacek continues his current level of suck for this year we’d pay a 3rd, if he sucks again next year we pay a 2nd (2.4 mill buried). If he bounces back to mediocre play we pay nothing. If he plays good we get paid.

Goalies are the most volatile position in hockey

You could easily make the same argument with Mercer or any young prospect. The downside risk is present as seen this year.

Volatility is present with youth, prospects, or age. It’s why teams would never consider this structure because you can put it towards most scenarios.

What downside risk? Mercer is still providing positive value on his contract??

If Mercer plays at a 900k level he’s worth 0
If Markstrom plays at a 900k level he’s worth significant negative assets.

But yes.

Sign Mercer to a 4x4 deal. Have an independent arbitrator value him compared to UFAs.

I expect Mercer to provide about 35 mill in value over the next 5 years. At bare minimum I expect 20. If Mercer provides 5 mill in value sure I’d pay to dump him.

4 1sts for Mercer if he plays at a top 6 forward level on a 4x4 deal like I expect him to. Even more if he becomes elite

You need to stop projecting your issues with acquiring him on to Calgary as if they have the same issues if they don't trade him.

The point is Calgary isn't selling him unless you offer something they can't turn down. They aren't asking for anything at all for him because they aren't marketing him. If you call and ask about him then offer like a 3rd and a B prospect they are obviously going to decline. Keeping him and his 6M contract is not a risk at all to the Flames, in fact they view keeping him as the more ideal option to mentor Wolf. Whether he plays up to his current level of play or falls off doesn't matter as much if he successfully helps Wolf develop into his potential.

I’m using him as an example of why this deal structure doesn’t work. His next contract will likely not be a low risk one. In reality, there probably is a strong probability he doesn’t offer excess value in the first two years of it if it is not a bridge deal.

I would never do this type of deal if I had a viable asset. It might work for a depressed asset like Huberdeau or Campbell where if they step up, you return the pick compensation.

I agree. Keep him. I would not want that contract and age in jersey (he’d be the oldest player on the team)

Calgary is vehemently against retention. Without retention tbh Markstrom isn’t worth much at all at his age. So keep him and don’t ask him to waive for scraps.

It’s not like you’ll be looking to compete next year or 2 years from now where that contract will hurt you

I’d argue at 34 years old with a full NMC and a hefty contract playing the least valuable position (trade value wise) in hockey, that Markstrom isn’t a particularly viable asset.

As good as he is this season, even fleury after his Vezina win got traded for future considerations. Because he was old, and because he made a ton of money.

The difference is you are basically selling cap room as a benefit to a team that has a hard time getting people to stay. In doing so, you are removing a player who wants to stay and doing it for a return that has some inherent risk on it.

I’ll take your good goalie when I have none on the roster and have massively underachieved and I will offer you something you don’t value. That deal just won’t work.