SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Salary retention

Created by: Shaun80
Team: 2023-24 Calgary Flames
Initial Creation Date: Feb. 22, 2024
Published: Feb. 22, 2024
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Everyone says Calgary won't retain salary on players due to the fact that they've only done it once before. No one takes into account that salary retention has only been a thing since the 2012-13 season. So in the 10 previous seasons Calgary only sold at the deadline in 3 of those seasons. Only 2 of the players they traded had large cap hits, Iginla and Bouwmeester. Pittsburgh added 12 million worth of cap hits at that deadline, and St Louis added 10 million. Both teams didn't need retention to add them so why would they pay extra for it? 5 of the other seasons the Flames were buyers and 2 they did nothing. The current version of the Flames is in a much different situation then the teams of the past decade, the flat cap has pretty much every team right up against the cap making it pretty much impossible to move a player without retaining salary.
Trades
1.
CGY
  1. Dellandrea, Ty
  2. 2024 2nd round pick (DAL)
DAL
  1. Tanev, Christopher ($2,250,000 retained)
2.
CGY
  1. Forbort, Derek
  2. Lohrei, Mason
  3. 2025 1st round pick (BOS)
BOS
  1. Hanifin, Noah ($2,475,000 retained)
  2. 2024 2nd round pick (CGY)
3.
CGY
  1. Holtz, Alexander
  2. Vanecek, Vitek
  3. 2024 1st round pick (NJD)
NJD
  1. Markström, Jacob ($2,000,000 retained)
Retained Salary Transactions
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2024
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the DAL
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CGY
2025
Logo of the FLA
Logo of the BOS
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
2026
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the CGY
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
26$83,500,000$84,420,833$0$1,062,500-$920,833
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$10,500,000$10,500,000
LW, RW
NMC
UFA - 8
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$3,100,000$3,100,000
C, LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$5,500,000$5,500,000
LW, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$4,900,000$4,900,000
RW, LW
NTC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$5,350,000$5,350,000
C
NMC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$5,800,000$5,800,000
RW, LW
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$863,333$863,333 (Performance Bonus$212,500$212K)
LW, C
RFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$7,000,000$7,000,000
C
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$894,167$894,167 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
RW, LW
RFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$863,333$863,333
LW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$1,300,000$1,300,000
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Dallas Stars
$900,000$900,000
RW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$775,000$775,000
LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$825,000$825,000
RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$2,300,000$2,300,000
LW, RW, C
RFA - 1
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$775,000$775,000
RW
RFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Boston Bruins
$925,000$925,000
LD
RFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$6,250,000$6,250,000
LD/RD
NTC
UFA - 8
Logo of the Boston Bruins
$3,000,000$3,000,000
LD
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$4,550,000$4,550,000
RD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$2,200,000$2,200,000
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$2,500,000$2,500,000
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$775,000$775,000
RD
RFA - 2
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$3,400,000$3,400,000
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$925,000$925,000
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$762,500$762,500
LD
UFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Calgary Flames
$762,500$762,500
RW, LW
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Feb. 22 at 12:41 p.m.
#1
Bcarlo25
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 20,981
Likes: 6,949
not on this planet.
Feb. 22 at 12:43 p.m.
#2
Donald
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 307
Likes: 238
the first two trades I can see happening. the thing with markstroms term is retaining 2 mil for another three years is a lot more than not, not sure the approach conny takes even with the trades falling through last time, but it really depends on if NJ gets desperate and pull the trigger on rolling out the red carpet for a guy like marky. just my opinion tho
Feb. 22 at 12:45 p.m.
#3
Future Norris guy
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2022
Posts: 15,216
Likes: 8,476
The Dallas trade is at full value not 50% retained which would cost a 1st round pick.

Boston declines that Hanifin trade.

And for Craig Conroy to eat $4,000,000 on Jacob Markstrom, The offer would have to be far better than this.
Feb. 22 at 12:46 p.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 39,861
Likes: 18,263
I think the first two look fine...but use a later pick for NJD deal.

And I like the idea of retaining Vanecek 50% as way to buy down trade (or add more retention on Markstrom).
Protects either side if either goalie falls apart and needs a buyout.


Holtz
Vanecek (50%)
2nd round pick

Markstrom (33%)
6th round pick

(something like that)
Feb. 22 at 12:52 p.m.
#5
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 3,593
Likes: 1,125
Quoting: MoSeider53
The Dallas trade is at full value not 50% retained which would cost a 1st round pick.

Boston declines that Hanifin trade.

And for Craig Conroy to eat $4,000,000 on Jacob Markstrom, The offer would have to be far better than this.


Does Boston decline that deal? I don’t see them trading Lohrei and a first without getting something back. I think this kind of bridges that value. In fact, part of me wonders if Boston would have to add a secondary prospect with projectable skill to Calgary.
Feb. 22 at 1:02 p.m.
#6
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: Celtics21
Does Boston decline that deal? I don’t see them trading Lohrei and a first without getting something back. I think this kind of bridges that value. In fact, part of me wonders if Boston would have to add a secondary prospect with projectable skill to Calgary.


Could change it to Dallas' 2nd round pick instead of Calgarys. That should even it out some.
Feb. 22 at 1:05 p.m.
#7
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: MoSeider53
The Dallas trade is at full value not 50% retained which would cost a 1st round pick.

Boston declines that Hanifin trade.

And for Craig Conroy to eat $4,000,000 on Jacob Markstrom, The offer would have to be far better than this.


1st for retention, holtz for markstrom. Could take vanecek out I guess. He has no real value either way.
Feb. 22 at 1:06 p.m.
#8
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: NHLfan10506
I think the first two look fine...but use a later pick for NJD deal.

And I like the idea of retaining Vanecek 50% as way to buy down trade (or add more retention on Markstrom).
Protects either side if either goalie falls apart and needs a buyout.


Holtz
Vanecek (50%)
2nd round pick

Markstrom (33%)
6th round pick

(something like that)


The double retention just seems strange to me, I don't know if there has ever been a trade like that.
Feb. 22 at 1:08 p.m.
#9
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: donald
the first two trades I can see happening. the thing with markstroms term is retaining 2 mil for another three years is a lot more than not, not sure the approach conny takes even with the trades falling through last time, but it really depends on if NJ gets desperate and pull the trigger on rolling out the red carpet for a guy like marky. just my opinion tho


If I remember right they said it broke down over the cost or amount of retention. I think a 1st for what would be 4.6M is about the going rate.
Feb. 22 at 1:22 p.m.
#10
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 3,593
Likes: 1,125
Quoting: Shaun80
The double retention just seems strange to me, I don't know if there has ever been a trade like that.


33% retention on Markstrom is $2m over 3 years
50% retention on Vanacek is $1.7M over 2 years

So basically it is $300k retention for 2 years and $2m in year 3.
Feb. 22 at 1:30 p.m.
#11
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 1,943
Quoting: Shaun80
If I remember right they said it broke down over the cost or amount of retention. I think a 1st for what would be 4.6M is about the going rate.


Why not get a third team involved and just make it happen? What am I missing? Soem team with cap who is not going to be in has gotta take a look at that no?
Feb. 22 at 1:34 p.m.
#12
Best armchair GM yet
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 536
Likes: 128
Quoting: Celtics21
Does Boston decline that deal? I don’t see them trading Lohrei and a first without getting something back. I think this kind of bridges that value. In fact, part of me wonders if Boston would have to add a secondary prospect with projectable skill to Calgary.


It's a pretty even trade if Hanifin gets an extension with Boston. There are 2 perspectives you can view the trade from:

1: The bruins are all in and want to try to win the cup this year. This could be worth the trade. If Hanifin has an extension, I guess I'm not super against it.

2: (my perspective) The bruins have an eye on the future, and this year it is what it is. They're overachieving and it's very hard to make the case that they're a true contender. Hanifin would be nice, but even with him, I just don't see how they win a cup without a 1c. Add that to my opinion Lohrei is more NHL ready than people are willing to admit, and the Bruins desperately need a 1c, which will only be via draft in the first round, likely as a top 12 pick.

The bruins can keep focusing on luxuries, but until they get a 1c, I think it's a waste of time and avoiding the elephant in the room. Just seems like a distraction more than anything. But who knows, maybe elite defense and goaltending can win you a cup with average offense. Nashville was 2 wins away in '17...
Feb. 22 at 1:34 p.m.
#13
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: Smitty426
Why not get a third team involved and just make it happen? What am I missing? Soem team with cap who is not going to be in has gotta take a look at that no?


You'd think Chicago would be interested in more picks. They're not going to be a cap team before markstroms contract expires.
Feb. 22 at 1:41 p.m.
#14
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 3,593
Likes: 1,125
Quoting: Kogut35
It's a pretty even trade if Hanifin gets an extension with Boston. There are 2 perspectives you can view the trade from:

1: The bruins are all in and want to try to win the cup this year. This could be worth the trade. If Hanifin has an extension, I guess I'm not super against it.

2: (my perspective) The bruins have an eye on the future, and this year it is what it is. They're overachieving and it's very hard to make the case that they're a true contender. Hanifin would be nice, but even with him, I just don't see how they win a cup without a 1c. Add that to my opinion Lohrei is more NHL ready than people are willing to admit, and the Bruins desperately need a 1c, which will only be via draft in the first round, likely as a top 12 pick.

The bruins can keep focusing on luxuries, but until they get a 1c, I think it's a waste of time and avoiding the elephant in the room. Just seems like a distraction more than anything. But who knows, maybe elite defense and goaltending can win you a cup with average offense. Nashville was 2 wins away in '17...


Ultimately, every team makes difficult decisions on cap allocation and it’s never perfect.

I personally feel the late first is the most overated asset in the NHL, but acknowledge that Sweeney has taken that to a bit of an extreme and it lowers the potential for impact assets.

I could see a structure like this. I’d prefer the Calgary 2nd rounder for obvious reasons, but it is directionally it looks more feasible
Feb. 22 at 1:43 p.m.
#15
New Star Rising
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2018
Posts: 486
Likes: 130
The value seems even on the Dallas trade.
Feb. 22 at 4:30 p.m.
#16
Beanmachine
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 497
Without the retention this trade is in the ballpark - I think NJ would need the first to be their 2025 pick as it would most likely be in the 20-32 range next year.

However everyone on this site drastically underestimates the costs associated with retention. You want Cgy to take back Vanacek @ $3.4M for another year and retain $4+M on Marky.

Consider Calgary had to pay a 1st for MTL to take Sean Monahan for 1 yr @ $6M ( granted this was one of the dumbest things Treliving ever did). Why on earth would Calgary take on @ $7M of salary back without proper compensation.

The issue isn't that Calgary won't do retention - Conroy has simply made it know he ain't gonna do it for free!
Feb. 22 at 4:50 p.m.
#17
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: BlastyRocks
Without the retention this trade is in the ballpark - I think NJ would need the first to be their 2025 pick as it would most likely be in the 20-32 range next year.

However everyone on this site drastically underestimates the costs associated with retention. You want Cgy to take back Vanacek $3.4M for another year and retain $4+M on Marky.

Consider Calgary had to pay a 1st for MTL to take Sean Monahan for 1 yr $6M ( granted this was one of the dumbest things Treliving ever did). Why on earth would Calgary take on $7M of salary back without proper compensation.

The issue isn't that Calgary won't do retention - Conroy has simply made it know he ain't gonna do it for free!


New Jersey is paying a 1st for the retention, maybe you can add another later pick if you think it's needed. In hind site yeah trading a 1st to move Monahan wasn't the best move, but at the time it was. It was basically trading a 1st for Nazem Kadri. Even if we didn't trade him away I doubt we would have resigned him last off season after he was injured again. So we wouldn't have been the team flipping him for a first this year.
Feb. 22 at 5:16 p.m.
#18
Beanmachine
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 497
Quoting: Shaun80
New Jersey is paying a 1st for the retention, maybe you can add another later pick if you think it's needed. In hind site yeah trading a 1st to move Monahan wasn't the best move, but at the time it was. It was basically trading a 1st for Nazem Kadri. Even if we didn't trade him away I doubt we would have resigned him last off season after he was injured again. So we wouldn't have been the team flipping him for a first this year.


If the 1st is for the retention and taking on Vanacek then I certainly don't think Holtz for Markey straight up is anywhere near enough from our perspective. Would probably need to be Holtz & Bahl or an additional 2nd to make it palatable.
Feb. 22 at 5:28 p.m.
#19
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 1,943
Quoting: Shaun80
You'd think Chicago would be interested in more picks. They're not going to be a cap team before markstroms contract expires.


exactly
Feb. 22 at 5:37 p.m.
#20
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: BlastyRocks
If the 1st is for the retention and taking on Vanacek then I certainly don't think Holtz for Markey straight up is anywhere near enough from our perspective. Would probably need to be Holtz & Bahl or an additional 2nd to make it palatable.


Holtz for Markstrom would be the biggest return for a goalie I can think of in recent history.
dgibb10 liked this.
Feb. 22 at 7:05 p.m.
#21
Best armchair GM yet
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2023
Posts: 536
Likes: 128
Quoting: Celtics21
Ultimately, every team makes difficult decisions on cap allocation and it’s never perfect.

I personally feel the late first is the most overated asset in the NHL, but acknowledge that Sweeney has taken that to a bit of an extreme and it lowers the potential for impact assets.

I could see a structure like this. I’d prefer the Calgary 2nd rounder for obvious reasons, but it is directionally it looks more feasible


I 100% agree on late first round picks being overvalued. I think the reason they're overvalued is because they have the potential to be higher in a lot of trade scenarios, you never know if a contender has a down year and gets a mid teens pick. That's a big difference. But overall, if you're looking to fill a specific positional need in your pool via the draft, anywhere the quality/odds drop-off from 20-50 isn't that crazy. Poitras for example. And most late first round picks end up as solid 3rd liners on average.
Feb. 22 at 7:21 p.m.
#22
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 3,593
Likes: 1,125
Quoting: Kogut35
I 100% agree on late first round picks being overvalued. I think the reason they're overvalued is because they have the potential to be higher in a lot of trade scenarios, you never know if a contender has a down year and gets a mid teens pick. That's a big difference. But overall, if you're looking to fill a specific positional need in your pool via the draft, anywhere the quality/odds drop-off from 20-50 isn't that crazy. Poitras for example. And most late first round picks end up as solid 3rd liners on average.


It’s kind of ironic. I’d value Bostons first in 2025 over a team in the 23 to 29 slot this year. It has considerably more upside depending on protections. Calgary fans don’t seem to see it that way, which is fine … but it doesn’t change my opinion.
dgibb10 liked this.
Feb. 22 at 7:38 p.m.
#23
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: Celtics21
It’s kind of ironic. I’d value Bostons first in 2025 over a team in the 23 to 29 slot this year. It has considerably more upside depending on protections. Calgary fans don’t seem to see it that way, which is fine … but it doesn’t change my opinion.


I'm curious about you're opinion here, I know next years draft class is supposed to be better, but not great. So do you think Bostons pick is going to be a lot higher next year?
Feb. 22 at 9:11 p.m.
#24
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 3,593
Likes: 1,125
Quoting: Shaun80
I'm curious about you're opinion here, I know next years draft class is supposed to be better, but not great. So do you think Bostons pick is going to be a lot higher next year?


We are at the stage of the season where you know Vancouvers pick is going to be post 20. I’d assume most of the teams pursuing Hanifin fit in that description.

Next year, an injury could happen that could change the construct of the team or an older team regresses or Montgomery’s message becomes stale. Lots of things could happen
Feb. 22 at 9:35 p.m.
#25
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2023
Posts: 950
Likes: 321
Quoting: Celtics21
We are at the stage of the season where you know Vancouvers pick is going to be post 20. I’d assume most of the teams pursuing Hanifin fit in that description.

Next year, an injury could happen that could change the construct of the team or an older team regresses or Montgomery’s message becomes stale. Lots of things could happen


Most people won't agree with me, but about the only difference i see between Boston and Calgary is Pasta. Defense is about the same, depth scoring is the same,both teams are getting great goal tending. Calgary just lacks that one difference maker.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll