Holland didnt want to give Markstrom that kind of deal. Doubt he does it for Campbell

Literally if he offered Markstrom what Calgary offered he would have chosen Edmonton. But Holland was not comfortable giving him 6 years. Its the same with his time in Detroit Mrazek wanted 4mill Holland traded him as he didnt feel comfortable giving him that kind of money.

Look to the trade market.

I agree with you completely, but I wonder how Holland feels about that decision now, looking at Markstrom's 92.5% save rate and 2.13 GAA. Of course, Calgary's defense isn't Edmonton's and Darryl Sutter isn't Dave Tippitt . . .

Campbell has 118 career games played with a .920 save percentage. That's his resume. And the three netminders that seem to fit these criteria and have also recently signed extensions appear to be Jordan Binnington, Linus Ullmark, and Cal Petersen.

Campbell in for a four- or five-year deal for just shy of $5 million, but he could push that AAV north if he posts a Vezina-calibre performance, which right now, he is not (last nine starts .899 SV% and 3.00 GAA).

Frederik Andersen: 2 years, $9 million ($4.5 million cap hit)

Cal Petersen: 3 years, $15 million ($5 million cap hit)

Elvis Merzlikins: 5 years,$27 million ($5.4 million cap hit)

Philipp Grubauer: 6 years, $35.4 million ($5.9 million cap hit)

My guess, Campbell signs a 4 year 5,250,000 AAV in TORONTO

My unanswered question remains: Who?

Hellebuyck was 25 when he signed that deal and was a RFA. Winnipeg had to spend more to buy out more years of his prime. Campbell will be a UFA at 30. $6M is not justifiable at all.

Absolutely terrible comparison of Markstrom for Campbell. Markstrom had 3 seasons of being a full time starting goalie under his belt plus playoff success when he signed that deal. Campbell will only have 1 year of being a starter and maybe 1 year of playoff success. Nothing justifies that comparable except the Toronto media trying to overhype him the same way they overhyped Hyman last off-season.

Well I can't speak for teams for who's gonna be available, but off the top of my head (in no particular order):
Chris Driedger
Alex Georgiev
Antti Raanta
Kappo Kahkonen/Cam Talbot
Semyon Varlamov
Jonathan Bernier
Jake Allen

Then free agents there's still the likes of:
Marc-Andre Fleury
Darcy Kuemper
Joonas Korpisalo
Braden Holtby


Now you can argue who Campbell is better than on that list or not; but a tandem of any two of those goalies for under $7M total is guaranteed to be better than Campbell and Skinner (who's an AHL goalie) and then be able to spend money elsewhere depending how much is saved

I'm sorry but Campbell is staying with Leafs, other pieces will get moved to make it happen

Good luck!

And I mean that sincerely, because I'd hate to see him come back and haunt the Kings.

You have an interesting concept of who is of similar value to Jack Campbell.

To begin with, your initial objection to Campbell was that he is “on the wrong side of 30.” Then, as comparables, you list Marc-Andre Fleury (37), Cam Talbot (turns 35 in the off-season), Jonathan Bernier (turns 34 in the off-season), Antti Raanta (turns 33 at the end of this season and has an injury history), and Jake Allen (turns 32 during the off-season). Signing them long-term, which was your first complaint, would seem an even worse idea than signing Campbell long-term, if you are correct in your objection.

Second, as I said in my Team Explanation, the object of this exercise was to find a long-term solution to Edmonton’s chronic goalie problem. Citing Semyon Varlamov and Cam Talbot, who are signed for only one more year, as long-term solutions seems . . . short-sighted. And Talbot’s lack of term would seem to rule Kappo Kahkonen out as a trade target.

Third, if you accept the premise that Campbell has now shown his on-ice capability, I don’t see how you can consider Allen, Bernier, Driedger or Georgiev – all career backups so far – the solution to Edmonton’s need for a long-term starter. Now the criticism that it’s very dangerous to use a small sample of games as an indication of permanent future success is an absolutely valid one, and that is the obvious and admitted risk of signing Campbell to any contract.

Fourth, contending that any of your proposed trade targets would be necessarily cheaper than signing Campbell for free overlooks the fact that real assets would have to be spent to acquire them, and there would be a further cost to replace the assets so spent.

Finally, going from acquiring one goalie to a tandem seems to be changing the subject, inasmuch as it would be hard in some instances to create such a tandem or stay under your $7 million figure.

I readily concede without reservation that I could be wildly off in my estimation of what figure and term Campbell will command on the open market. I tried to hit an upper number to illustrate that signing him is not beyond Edmonton’s reach, but I’m persuaded by comments from reasonable fans like tkecanuck341 and aadoyle and MatthewsFan that he will get less than I have suggested here. Subconsciously, I’m sure that I was trying to dial a number which I knew to be above Toronto’s capability.

I’m certainly not saying your wrong, that’s exactly the type of term and AAV that it would take the lure Campbell away from TOR. And if there was one organization willing to give a 31 year old goalie with only two seasons of being a #1 6 years at 6.5 it’s EDM and it’s GM.

But realistically on the high end I say Jack gets somewhere near 5.5 AAV and low end of 4.8AAV. Term being anywhere from 3-4 years. Can’t see him going for 2 and IMO no team is giving him 5 (without some serious regret if they do).

I obviously do not own a crystal ball and only confident that he will resign in TOR due to his connection with Dubas dating all the way back to the Soo, he loves TOR, and the Leafs are a perennial playoff team. I’ll be very surprised if he leaves. Dubas and Co will make the necessary trades to fit him in.

As I said to your wonderful Toronto colleague Trickster, Good luck!

And I mean that sincerely, because I'd hate to see him come back and haunt the Kings.

RFAs get less money, not more, because of their rights restrictions and limited negotiation power.

You can argue that Campbell deserves less term than Hellebuyck because of his age, but not less money.

3-4 years at $6-$6.5M is what he will get, unless he is willing to take a discount to stay in Toronto. With all the teams out there looking for goaltenders, if Campbell hits the open market, someone will absolutely pay that price.

RFA's get less money? Are you serious? Have you not been seeing all the guys coming outta ELC's and getting paid long term?

That is a completely false statement.

You have an interesting concept of who is of similar value to Jack Campbell.

To begin with, your initial objection to Campbell was that he is “on the wrong side of 30.” Then, as comparables, you list Marc-Andre Fleury (37), Cam Talbot (turns 35 in the off-season), Semyon Varlamov (turns 34 at the end of this season), Jonathan Bernier (turns 34 in the off-season), Antti Raanta (turns 33 at the end of this season and has an injury history), and Jake Allen (turns 32 during the off-season). Signing them long-term, which was your first complaint, would seem an even worse idea than signing Campbell long-term, if you are correct in your objection.

Second, as I said in my Team Explanation, the object of this exercise was to find a long-term solution to Edmonton’s chronic goalie problem. Citing Semyon Varlamov and Cam Talbot, who are signed for only one more year, as long-term solutions seems . . . short-sighted. And Talbot’s lack of term would seem to rule Kappo Kahkonen out as a trade target.

Third, if you accept the premise that Campbell has now shown his on-ice capability, I don’t see how you can consider Allen, Bernier, Driedger or Georgiev – all career backups so far – the solution to Edmonton’s need for a long-term starter. Now the criticism that it’s very dangerous to use a small sample of games as an indication of permanent future success is an absolutely valid one, and that is the obvious and admitted risk of signing Campbell to any contract.

Fourth, contending that any of your proposed trade targets would be necessarily cheaper than signing Campbell for free overlooks the fact that real assets would have to be spent to acquire them, and there would be a further cost to replace the assets so spent.

Finally, going from acquiring one goalie to a tandem seems to be changing the subject, inasmuch as it would be hard in some instances to create such a tandem or stay under your $7 million figure.

I readily concede without reservation that I could be wildly off in my estimation of what figure and term Campbell will command on the open market. I tried to hit an upper number to illustrate that signing him is not beyond Edmonton’s reach, but I’m persuaded by comments from reasonable fans like tkecanuck341 and aadoyle and MatthewsFan that he will get less than I have suggested here. Subconsciously, I’m sure that I was trying to dial a number which I knew to be above Toronto’s capability.

RFAs get less money because they're not operating in an open market. That open markets create higher prices than closed ones is the principle on which capitalism is built.

RFA's get less money? Are you serious? Have you not been seeing all the guys coming outta ELC's and getting paid long term?

That is a completely false statement.

Out of the top 30 contracts by AAV in the NHL, 10 were signed by RFAs and 20 by UFAs. In the top 10, 3 were RFAs and 7 UFAs. UFAs get more money.

Guys that only have to negotiate with one team are going to get paid less than if they can negotiate with 32 teams.

Tell that to Matthews, Marner, McDavid, Aho, etc.

You do know that RFA's are 100% allowed to negotiate with other teams right...

Tell that to Panarin, Price, Kopitar, Tavares, Kane, Toews, Karlsson.

I can cherry pick names too.

You do know that RFA's are 100% allowed to negotiate with other teams right...