SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Markstrom

Créé par: Devsfan25
Équipe: 2023-24 Devils du New Jersey
Date de création initiale: 11 févr. 2024
Publié: 11 févr. 2024
Mode - plafond salarial: Basique
Transactions
CGY
  1. Bahl, Kevin
  2. Vanecek, Vitek
  3. Choix de 1e ronde en 2024 (NJD)
  4. Choix de 3e ronde en 2025 (NJD)
Rachats de contrats
Frais appliqués
Repêchage1e ronde2e ronde3e ronde4e ronde5e ronde6e ronde7e ronde
2024
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de COL
Logo de NJD
Logo de NSH
2025
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
2026
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
Logo de NJD
TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
2383 500 000 $73 269 166 $422 500 $5 540 000 $10 230 834 $
Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
894 167 $894 167 $ (Bonis de performance850 000 $$850K)
AD, AG
RFA - 2
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
8 000 000 $8 000 000 $
C
UFA - 7
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
7 875 000 $7 875 000 $
AD, AG
UFA - 8
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
6 000 000 $6 000 000 $
AG, AD
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
7 250 000 $7 250 000 $
C
UFA - 4
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
8 800 000 $8 800 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 8
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
2 125 000 $2 125 000 $
AD, AG
UFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
3 150 000 $3 150 000 $
C, AG
NTC
UFA - 3
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
894 167 $894 167 $ (Bonis de performance400 000 $$400K)
AD, C
RFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
1 000 000 $1 000 000 $
AD, C
UFA - 2
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
1 000 000 $1 000 000 $
AG, C
UFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
1 350 000 $1 350 000 $
AD
UFA - 2
Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
3 400 000 $3 400 000 $
DG
UFA - 5
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
918 333 $918 333 $ (Bonis de performance3 250 000 $$3M)
DD
RFA - 3
Logo de Flames de Calgary
6 000 000 $6 000 000 $
G
NMC
UFA - 3
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
925 000 $925 000 $ (Bonis de performance925 000 $$925K)
DG/DD
RFA - 2
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
4 400 000 $4 400 000 $
DD
UFA - 4
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
850 833 $850 833 $ (Bonis de performance57 500 $$58K)
G
RFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
1 100 000 $1 100 000 $
DG/DD, AG
UFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
1 850 000 $1 850 000 $
DD
UFA - 1
Laissés de côtéListe des blessés (IR)Liste des blessés à long terme (LTIR)
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
863 333 $863 333 $
AG
RFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
9 000 000 $9 000 000 $
DD
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
850 833 $850 833 $ (Bonis de performance57 500 $$58K)
DG
RFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
1 400 000 $1 400 000 $
C
RFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
775 000 $775 000 $
C
UFA - 1
Logo de Devils du New Jersey
800 000 $800 000 $
DD
RFA - 1

Code d'intégration

  • Pour afficher cette équipe sur un autre site Web ou blog, ajoutez ce iFrame à la page appropriée
  • Personnalisez les dimensions dans le code IFrame ci-dessous pour adapter votre site de manière appropriée. Minimum recommandé: 400px.

Texte intégré

Cliquer pour surligner
11 févr. à 10 h 29
#1
MisstheWhalers
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2019
Messages: 23,654
Mentions "j'aime": 12,372
Calgary should retain like a million or so.
SomeonesOffended a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 10 h 54
#2
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2023
Messages: 203
Mentions "j'aime": 69
Markstrom (retained 50%) + 2nd for Mercer.
11 févr. à 11 h 17
#3
LBS
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2023
Messages: 1,518
Mentions "j'aime": 559
100% disagree with the other two commentors, I think if Calgary moves Markstrom they won't retain. It makes no sense to retain on a goalie that won a Vezina 2yrs ago, has bounced back well after a down year and is already at a reasonable price for a goalie that averages 60ish games as a starter

I think the offer is fair, I'd hope for a better prospect but if this was the return I wouldn't complain. Markstrom's full no move is the only thing to worry about
MoxNix a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 11 h 20
#4
I Love J Boqvist
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2023
Messages: 11,903
Mentions "j'aime": 3,138
I’d want retention at that price.

1st+Vitek for Markstrom is the highest I’d go unretained.
11 févr. à 11 h 21
#5
MisstheWhalers
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2019
Messages: 23,654
Mentions "j'aime": 12,372
Quoting: lowblocksniper
100% disagree with the other two commentors, I think if Calgary moves Markstrom they won't retain. It makes no sense to retain on a goalie that won a Vezina 2yrs ago, has bounced back well after a down year and is already at a reasonable price for a goalie that averages 60ish games as a starter

I think the offer is fair, I'd hope for a better prospect but if this was the return I wouldn't complain. Markstrom's full no move is the only thing to worry about


You're really that hung up on $1M retention?
11 févr. à 11 h 23
#6
LBS
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2023
Messages: 1,518
Mentions "j'aime": 559
Quoting: MisstheWhalers
You're really that hung up on $1M retention?


Less about the money and more about the occupation of a rentention slot for 3yrs and it's not like he makes Bobrovsky money
MoxNix a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 11 h 30
#7
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2022
Messages: 7,382
Mentions "j'aime": 3,174
Calgary already told NJ the price for Markstrom starts with Mercer.
11 févr. à 11 h 31
#8
I Love J Boqvist
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2023
Messages: 11,903
Mentions "j'aime": 3,138
Quoting: lowblocksniper
Less about the money and more about the occupation of a rentention slot for 3yrs and it's not like he makes Bobrovsky money


You’re almost certainly gonna have to retain if you want real bidders.

Otherwise your choices come down to
Vitek+whatever from NJD, and again that’s only if NJD is in a position to buy
Or
Anderson+whatever from Carolina, and that’s if Carolina even buys a goalie

Completely saying no to retention cuts down your trade market significantly.
MisstheWhalers a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 11 h 36
#9
MisstheWhalers
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2019
Messages: 23,654
Mentions "j'aime": 12,372
Quoting: lowblocksniper
Less about the money and more about the occupation of a rentention slot for 3yrs and it's not like he makes Bobrovsky money


So besides Tanev and Hanifin is there anyone else the Flames might retain on this year?

They'd still have two retention spots the next two trade deadlines which should be fine for selling off their UFAs.
11 févr. à 11 h 37
#10
MisstheWhalers
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2019
Messages: 23,654
Mentions "j'aime": 12,372
Quoting: MoxNix
Calgary already told NJ the price for Markstrom starts with Mercer.


I'm sure Fitzgerald already told Conroy to **** off then.
Smitty426, Tintin et Devil a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 11 h 40
#11
LBS
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2023
Messages: 1,518
Mentions "j'aime": 559
Quoting: dgibb10
You’re almost certainly gonna have to retain if you want real bidders.

Otherwise your choices come down to
Vitek+whatever from NJD, and again that’s only if NJD is in a position to buy
Or
Anderson+whatever from Carolina, and that’s if Carolina even buys a goalie

Completely saying no to retention cuts down your trade market significantly.


That's fine, personally I don't want to trade Markstrom so if retention is mandatory I hope they hold onto him. I want Wolf to learn for Markstrom and back him up before taking the reigns in 2-3yrs time. Also all Calgary needs is two teams like Carolina and NJ that can afford him not being retained to have a bidding war
11 févr. à 11 h 44
#12
LBS
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2023
Messages: 1,518
Mentions "j'aime": 559
Quoting: MisstheWhalers
So besides Tanev and Hanifin is there anyone else the Flames might retain on this year?

They'd still have two retention spots the next two trade deadlines which should be fine for selling off their UFAs.


Your (Calgary) limiting the amount of transactions that you can make for a 3yr period by occupying that spot. You keep it free and you can enter 3way trades this year and the next 2

It's not the worst thing in the world but, since again Markstrom's contract is very affordable, retaining should only be if the return is crazy like Mercer but if I was NJ I wouldn't move Mercer.
MisstheWhalers et MoxNix a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 11 h 50
#13
I Love J Boqvist
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2023
Messages: 11,903
Mentions "j'aime": 3,138
Quoting: lowblocksniper
That's fine, personally I don't want to trade Markstrom so if retention is mandatory I hope they hold onto him. I want Wolf to learn for Markstrom and back him up before taking the reigns in 2-3yrs time.Also Also all Calgary needs is two teams like Carolina and NJ that can afford him not being retained to have a bidding war


Carolina is the stingiest front office in the league, NJD openly states they prefer to make their goalie moves in the offseason.

And while both teams can technically afford it, Markstrom at full cap creates significant issues for both teams.

It forces NJD to eat bonus overages. Meaning Markstrom would be closer to 8.5 mill next year if acquired unretained.

And Carolina is in a tight spot next year with a bunch of key guys expiring. Bringing Markstrom in significantly impairs their ability to bring back important pieces on their team
11 févr. à 11 h 57
#14
LBS
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2023
Messages: 1,518
Mentions "j'aime": 559
Quoting: dgibb10
Carolina is the stingiest front office in the league, NJD openly states they prefer to make their goalie moves in the offseason.

And while both teams can technically afford it, Markstrom at full cap creates significant issues for both teams.

It forces NJD to eat bonus overages. Meaning Markstrom would be closer to 8.5 mill next year if acquired unretained.

And Carolina is in a tight spot next year with a bunch of key guys expiring. Bringing Markstrom in significantly impairs their ability to bring back important pieces on their team


I'd have to check Markstrom's bonuses but, I'll trust you're right. I think a trade like this would definitely be better in the off-season.

Carolina IMO should just right out Kochetkov he's the future for them, him and a hopefully healthy Andersen should be good next year

NJD would be best served IMO trading for a retained Jake Allen or Kahkonen or Lankinen for the season and re-evaluate in the off-season by getting Ullmark or Markstrom, etc when they have a better understanding of the cap they'll be working with
11 févr. à 12 h 5
#15
Démarrer sujet
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juill. 2017
Messages: 4,322
Mentions "j'aime": 1,338
Quoting: MoxNix
Calgary already told NJ the price for Markstrom starts with Mercer.


That’s not true lol. That was probably off some BS website run by Flames fans. You can’t actually believe the Devils would trade a 22 year old forward for a 34 year old goalie
Smitty426 et MisstheWhalers a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 12 h 6
#16
I Love J Boqvist
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2023
Messages: 11,903
Mentions "j'aime": 3,138
Quoting: lowblocksniper
I'd have to check Markstrom's bonuses but, I'll trust you're right. I think a trade like this would definitely be better in the off-season.

Carolina IMO should just right out Kochetkov he's the future for them, him and a hopefully healthy Andersen should be good next year

NJD would be best served IMO trading for a retained Jake Allen or Kahkonen or Lankinen for the season and re-evaluate in the off-season by getting Ullmark or Markstrom, etc when they have a better understanding of the cap they'll be working with


Not markstroms bonuses. NJDs rookies. If we move out toffoli+Vitek we can avoid them entirely, as we stand pat we avoid a portion. If we move vitek more, toffoli more, etc etc.

If we get markstrom it guarantees we use LTIR money and that bonus carry’s ever
11 févr. à 12 h 28
#17
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2022
Messages: 7,382
Mentions "j'aime": 3,174
Modifié 11 févr. à 12 h 36
Quoting: Devsfan25
That’s not true lol. That was probably off some BS website run by Flames fans. You can’t actually believe the Devils would trade a 22 year old forward for a 34 year old goalie


Actually it came from NJ fan websites. It'd didn't say NJ would do it, it said the Flames told NJ Markstrom would cost them Mercer. Calgary is no rush to move Markstrom, Conroy has stated he won't even ask Markstrom if he'd waive unless they get an offer they really like.
11 févr. à 12 h 32
#18
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2016
Messages: 6,827
Mentions "j'aime": 1,977
Quoting: MoxNix
Actually it came from NJ fan websites.


Not a reliable fan site for sure. Clickbait obviously
11 févr. à 12 h 33
#19
I Love J Boqvist
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2023
Messages: 11,903
Mentions "j'aime": 3,138
Quoting: Smitty426
Not a reliable fan site for sure. Clickbait obviously


Probably Nichols lol
Smitty426 a aimé ceci.
11 févr. à 12 h 40
#20
Shaners79
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2016
Messages: 641
Mentions "j'aime": 187
Quoting: MoxNix
Actually it came from NJ fan websites. It'd didn't say NJ would do it, it said the Flames told NJ Markstrom would cost them Mercer.


If you go back to Mercer's draft year. We had 3 first round picks,the second was Mercer at 18 and I truly believe that the coveted him and when we pick him they immediately traded down to the Rangers who picked Schneider. Was there discussion between them when BT was Gm to Fitzgerald that they wanted Dawson. Who knows. I still believe they want Mercer
11 févr. à 12 h 55
#21
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2022
Messages: 7,382
Mentions "j'aime": 3,174
Quoting: Shaners79
If you go back to Mercer's draft year. We had 3 first round picks,the second was Mercer at 18 and I truly believe that the coveted him and when we pick him they immediately traded down to the Rangers who picked Schneider. Was there discussion between them when BT was Gm to Fitzgerald that they wanted Dawson. Who knows. I still believe they want Mercer


You might be right. Calgary's pick was at 19 and they did trade down after NJ took Mercer at 18.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Soumettre le sondage