Outside the box

Rejoint: mai 2019

Messages: 40,173

Mentions "j'aime": 18,355

Screen-Shot-2020-05-05-at-4.55.33-PM.png

dgibb10 et Smitty426 a aimé ceci.

27 févr. à 15 h 28

#2

Démarrer sujet

Rejoint: mai 2019

Messages: 40,173

Mentions "j'aime": 18,355

Read above

Smitty426 a aimé ceci.

27 févr. à 15 h 33

#3

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

I think where a lot of Calgary fans are getting confused on this deal is hearing a bunch of different information and putting it all together.

I’m sure seperate packages Centered around Casey, Holtz, and 1st were offered/discussed, leaked from different sources.

Reality:
Package around holtz
Package around a 1st
Package around Casey

What Calgary fans convert that to
Package involving all 3 assets

Smitty426 a aimé ceci.

27 févr. à 15 h 44

#4

Démarrer sujet

Rejoint: mai 2019

Messages: 40,173

Mentions "j'aime": 18,355

Here is another pick value calculator

Smitty426 a aimé ceci.

27 févr. à 16 h 0

#5

Démarrer sujet

Rejoint: mai 2019

Messages: 40,173

Mentions "j'aime": 18,355

Quoting: dgibb10

I think where a lot of Calgary fans are getting confused on this deal is hearing a bunch of different information and putting it all together.

I’m sure seperate packages Centered around Casey, Holtz, and 1st were offered/discussed, leaked from different sources.

Reality:
Package around holtz
Package around a 1st
Package around Casey

What Calgary fans convert that to
Package involving all 3 assets

There is all sorts of stuff flying about.

I do not know where they get Casey...nor the 1st...in the Markstrom side of things as that deal has been reported in a number of places.

It may just be the confusion between a Markstrom package and a Markstrom/Hanifin package

1. The simplest explanation is just the one-for-one retention story

-- Fitzy and Conroy had general conversations on Markstrom
-- Conroy asked Fitzy to put Holtz on table for Markstrom
-- Fitzy agreed
-- Conroy took trade to Markstrom to waive NTC
-- Did not agree on retention, cost of retention
-- Deal stalled

2. The other possibility is the Markstrom/Hanifin package that didn't get finalized.

-- Fitzy and Conroy had general conversations on both players
-- Conroy asked Fitzy to put Holtz on table for Markstrom
-- Fitzy agreed, expecting both pieces
-- Conroy took trade to Markstrom to waive NTC
-- Fitzy asked for package deal (Hanifin+Markstrom)
-- Conroy wanted separate deals (knew there was more of market for Hanifin...likely bidding war)
-- Fitzy said package deal or no deal
-- Deal on pause until Conroy gets best alternative (from BOS, FLA, TBL) for Hanifin

It also would make sense that Vanecek was once in deal, then later out of deal (per Pagnotta).
In a Markstrom/Hanifin package...they would likely want to move out salary.

dgibb10 et Smitty426 a aimé ceci.

27 févr. à 16 h 25

#6

KingofRnR

TrevorA

Rejoint: janv. 2021

Messages: 6,802

Mentions "j'aime": 1,839

You’re off on your retention compensation

A team retaining $1.8-2mil gets a 3rd/4th RD Pick for 0.33 of the rest of a season at the Deadline. For a whole season it’d be a 2nd.

So 2.33 seasons of retention on Markstrom of $1.8mil is more like a 2nd + 2nd + 3rd = 1st Round Pick

So Markstrom 1.8mil retained FOR 1st + Holtz

Hanifin should go for a 1st + Top Prospect + Decent Roster Player = 1st + Casey + Bahl

27 févr. à 16 h 30

#7

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

Quoting: KingofRnR

You’re off on your retention compensation

A team retaining $1.8-2mil gets a 3rd/4th RD Pick for 0.33 of the rest of a season at the Deadline. For a whole season it’d be a 2nd.

So 2.33 seasons of retention on Markstrom of $1.8mil is more like a 2nd + 2nd + 3rd = 1st Round Pick

So Markstrom 1.8mil retained FOR 1st + Holtz

Hanifin should go for a 1st + Top Prospect + Decent Roster Player = 1st + Casey + Bahl

That’s a hell of a lot more than Lindholm went for with retention AND a reasonable extension.

4.2 mill in total retention 1.8x2.33 is not a 1st. Pair of 2nds maybe.

I’d also expect holtz to cover a portion of the retention himself.

27 févr. à 16 h 31

#8

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

No idea where you got the idea Markstrom = Holtz. I'm quite confident that was never a 1 for 1. More than likely it was Holtz and a 1st (with protection ofc) if there was a deal to be made. Anything less than that and Calgary would have backed out since Holtz by himself does not fill a need in Calgary by any means

KingofRnR a aimé ceci.

27 févr. à 16 h 32

#9

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy

No idea where you got the idea Markstrom = Holtz. I'm quite confident that was never a 1 for 1. More than likely it was Holtz and a 1st (with protection ofc) if there was a deal to be made. Anything less than that and Calgary would have backed out since Holtz by himself does not fill a need in Calgary by any means

More likely it was Holtz for Markstrom with some retention than it was Holtz+1st for unretained Markstrom

27 févr. à 16 h 48

#10

KingofRnR

TrevorA

Rejoint: janv. 2021

Messages: 6,802

Mentions "j'aime": 1,839

Quoting: dgibb10

That’s a hell of a lot more than Lindholm went for with retention AND a reasonable extension.

4.2 mill in total retention 1.8x2.33 is not a 1st. Pair of 2nds maybe.

I’d also expect holtz to cover a portion of the retention himself.

Which Lindholm are you talking about

Elias went for a 1st + A Prospect + B Prospect + 3rd/4th + 0.50-0.75PPG Right Shot Sniper

A Mid-1st + Casey + Bahl for Hanifin is arguably less than the above for Hanifin who is Younger, Playing Better and a Prime Long-Term Extension Candidate compared to Elis Lindholm

If you’re comparing to Hampus, he wasn’t having near as good of a season going in to the Trade Deadline as Hanifin

27 févr. à 17 h 0

#11

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

Quoting: KingofRnR

Which Lindholm are you talking about

Elias went for a 1st + A Prospect + B Prospect + 3rd/4th + 0.50-0.75PPG Right Shot Sniper

A Mid-1st + Casey + Bahl for Hanifin is arguably less than the above for Hanifin who is Younger, Playing Better and a Prime Long-Term Extension Candidate compared to Elis Lindholm

If you’re comparing to Hampus, he wasn’t having near as good of a season going in to the Trade Deadline as Hanifin

I was talking about Hampus. He has been the absolute peak of the rental dman market, top of the line comp

If your definition of A prospect is Bruz, quality player is Kuzmenko (we’ve discussed at length my view on him) and B prospect is Jurmo I think it’s much more reasonable than my general view of a B prospect (I have Bruz as a B prospect)

Jurmo would be Edwards, Leddy, Malek, Halonen, etc.

27 févr. à 17 h 1

#12

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

Quoting: dgibb10

More likely it was Holtz for Markstrom with some retention than it was Holtz+1st for unretained Markstrom

lol whatever helps you sleep at night

27 févr. à 17 h 3

#13

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy

lol whatever helps you sleep at night

1 is in line with historical goalie proposals, common sense, and reports (Mine)

1 is the biggest goalie package since Cory Schneider (26 year old who had ranked 1st in the NHL in Sv% and GAA over the 3 previous years) for a 34 year old with expensive term. (Yours)

27 févr. à 17 h 4

#14

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

Quoting: dgibb10

I was talking about Hampus. He has been the absolute peak of the rental dman market, top of the line comp

If your definition of A prospect is Bruz, quality player is Kuzmenko (we’ve discussed at length my view on him) and B prospect is Jurmo I think it’s much more reasonable than my general view of a B prospect (I have Bruz as a B prospect)

Jurmo would be Edwards, Leddy, Malek, Halonen, etc.

Jurmo is whatever, he's a C level prospect in my books. But Brzustewicz is on par with Casey. You view Casey as an A prospect so you should also view Bruz the same way

27 févr. à 17 h 9

#15

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy

Jurmo is whatever, he's a C level prospect in my books. But Brzustewicz is on par with Casey. You view Casey as an A prospect so you should also view Bruz the same way

Casey has been better at every level.

At the US program Casey got consistent top 4 time. Bruz was a 6/7 D

Bruz ducked Michigan, Casey went there and had arguably the best analytical season as a freshman of any NCAA dman and arguably the best overall dman in the NCAA again this year.

Casey 2 invites to the juniors, Bruz 0.

Casey went significantly higher in the draft.

dominating in the NCAA>>playing in the weakest OHL of all time

27 févr. à 17 h 9

#16

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

Quoting: dgibb10

1 is in line with historical goalie proposals, common sense, and reports (Mine)

1 is the biggest goalie package since Cory Schneider (26 year old who had ranked 1st in the NHL in Sv% and GAA over the 3 previous years) for a 34 year old with expensive term. (Yours)

Starting goalies rarely ever get traded so your "historical goalie proposals" argument is borderline non existent. Let alone with term left and potentially retention included making it even more scarce. Common sense? Based on what?
What reports?

27 févr. à 17 h 11

#17

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy

Starting goalies rarely ever get traded so your "historical goalie proposals" argument is borderline non existent. Let alone with term left and potentially retention included making it even more scarce. Common sense? Based on what?
What reports?

There are a number of comps for starting goalies out there. You just don’t like them.

27 févr. à 17 h 19

#18

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

Quoting: dgibb10

Casey has been better at every level.

At the US program Casey got consistent top 4 time. Bruz was a 6/7 D

Bruz ducked Michigan, Casey went there and had arguably the best analytical season as a freshman of any NCAA dman and arguably the best overall dman in the NCAA again this year.

Casey 2 invites to the juniors, Bruz 0.

Casey went significantly higher in the draft.

dominating in the NCAA>>playing in the weakest OHL of all time

LMAO the lengths you go to are ridiculous. Your worse than Habs fans who think Hutson is going to be a perennial superstar. Players develop at different rates for starters. It's very obvious that Brz has take massive leaps this year in his development.

27 févr. à 17 h 20

#19

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

Quoting: dgibb10

There are a number of comps for starting goalies out there. You just don’t like them.

Really? Lets see them. Find me ones similar to Markstrom

27 févr. à 17 h 25

#20

Démarrer sujet

Rejoint: mai 2019

Messages: 40,173

Mentions "j'aime": 18,355

Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy

No idea where you got the idea Markstrom = Holtz. I'm quite confident that was never a 1 for 1. More than likely it was Holtz and a 1st (with protection ofc) if there was a deal to be made. Anything less than that and Calgary would have backed out since Holtz by himself does not fill a need in Calgary by any means

Have never once seen anything about a 1st rounder attached to Markstrom deal.

The Holtz-for-Markstrom piece has been reported by a number of people. Many of them even said it was not the first offer/conversation. The two GMs had likely exchanged multiple ideas. Conroy’s early position was that he wouldn’t even approach Markstrom to waive unless he got a specific piece (which we know now to be Holtz). Once Fitzy relented and offered Holtz, Conroy then got Markstrom to waive. There was an undetermined amount of retention and cost for that retention. Although some, probably very minor, amount of retention was included as Conroy was said to have had some $$ in the Markstrom-for-Holtz scenario.

This part is my speculation based on all that I have seen, read and heard…on why the ask for retention broke down.

Fitzy was pushing for combined package with both Markstrom and Hanifin. Conroy wanted two separate deals, knowing the goalie market and dman market were very different (more likely to be bidding war for Hanifin). Conroy knew it was in his interest to wait on dman, move on goalie. Fitzy had agreed to put up a certain amount for combined deal….knowing he could overpay on one piece, and make it back on the other. Conroy said, yes, overpay on that first piece…we’ll get back to you on the other, but the price may change. Fitzy responds with request to retain more on Markstrom to lock in some of the benefits for spending the amount that he agreed for the two pieces. Conroy says no.

And here we are…waiting for BOS, FLA, TBL to outbid the latter half of the combined package to see if we are buying a goalie…or a goalie and a dman.

27 févr. à 17 h 41

#21

I Love J Boqvist

Rejoint: janv. 2023

Messages: 11,881

Mentions "j'aime": 3,127

Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy

Really? Lets see them. Find me ones similar to Markstrom

The best comp for Markstrom in terms of age cap and production is one you won't like and it's MAF from Vegas to Chi.

If you go to 26 year old freddy andersen getting a late 1st and a 2nd. for 5 years of term (RFA extension).
1 year of Kuemper at 3.4 (younger, similar production) got a 1st+B prospect. The next 2 years of markstrom at 6 mill 35 and 36 are NOT a benefit.
2 full years of Lehner got a 1st
etc etc. You can look at all goalies traded here

goalie trades

The best of the best, a top 3-5 goalie in hockey at 26 years old with 2 years of term got only 9th overall.

And looking at trends on contracts, trade values, and draft picks, the way teams value goaltenders is going down, not up.

They're getting less money than they used to, going later and later in drafts than they used to.

Here's a cool comp;

30 year old goalie, 6 mill AAV, coming off a 4th and 10th place vezina finish the 2 previous years. Acquired at a cost of nothing. free to a good home in free agency. (It's jacob markstrom).

That's the best comp. you can see what these guys get as free agents

27 févr. à 17 h 42

#22

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

Quoting: NHLfan10506

Have never once seen anything about a 1st rounder attached to Markstrom deal.

The Holtz-for-Markstrom piece has been reported by a number of people. Many of them even said it was not the first offer/conversation. The two GMs had likely exchanged multiple ideas. Conroy’s early position was that he wouldn’t even approach Markstrom to waive unless he got a specific piece (which we know now to be Holtz). Once Fitzy relented and offered Holtz, Conroy then got Markstrom to waive. There was an undetermined amount of retention and cost for that retention. Although some, probably very minor, amount of retention was included as Conroy was said to have had some $$ in the Markstrom-for-Holtz scenario.

This part is my speculation based on all that I have seen, read and heard…on why the ask for retention broke down.

Fitzy was pushing for combined package with both Markstrom and Hanifin. Conroy wanted two separate deals, knowing the goalie market and dman market were very different (more likely to be bidding war for Hanifin). Conroy knew it was in his interest to wait on dman, move on goalie. Fitzy had agreed to put up a certain amount for combined deal….knowing he could overpay on one piece, and make it back on the other. Conroy said, yes, overpay on that first piece…we’ll get back to you on the other, but the price may change. Fitzy responds with request to retain more on Markstrom to lock in some of the benefits for spending the amount that he agreed for the two pieces. Conroy says no.

And here we are…waiting for BOS, FLA, TBL to outbid the latter half of the combined package to see if we are buying a goalie…or a goalie and a dman.

This whole thing is entirely your own speculation. There were mentions of Holtz, there were mentions of Casey, there were mentions of a 1st. But it was reported that Calgary specifically wanted Mercer, and that a deal was close. So considering Mercer is reportedly off the table, and more valuable than any of the previously mentioned pieces then I think it is pretty clearly more than just Holtz in the offer

27 févr. à 18 h 35

#23

Rejoint: juin 2019

Messages: 38,334

Mentions "j'aime": 19,566

Quoting: dgibb10

The best comp for Markstrom in terms of age cap and production is one you won't like and it's MAF from Vegas to Chi.

If you go to 26 year old freddy andersen getting a late 1st and a 2nd. for 5 years of term (RFA extension).
1 year of Kuemper at 3.4 (younger, similar production) got a 1st+B prospect. The next 2 years of markstrom at 6 mill 35 and 36 are NOT a benefit.
2 full years of Lehner got a 1st
etc etc. You can look at all goalies traded here

goalie trades

The best of the best, a top 3-5 goalie in hockey at 26 years old with 2 years of term got only 9th overall.

And looking at trends on contracts, trade values, and draft picks, the way teams value goaltenders is going down, not up.

They're getting less money than they used to, going later and later in drafts than they used to.

Here's a cool comp;

30 year old goalie, 6 mill AAV, coming off a 4th and 10th place vezina finish the 2 previous years. Acquired at a cost of nothing. free to a good home in free agency. (It's jacob markstrom).

That's the best comp. you can see what these guys get as free agents

You always have such a warped view of value and never consider circumstance at all.

In the case of Freddy he was not traded with 5 years of term, he was traded with zero term as an RFA. Also Anaheim had 2 starting goalies at the time, both RFA's. They chose to keep the one was younger and didn't have arbitration rights.

Kuemper was a year away from UFA when he was traded. He helped win the Avs the cup and then walked right after. How in the world do you view Markstrom having term as a negative but that as a positive considering New Jersey probably isn't a cup favorite this year.

Lehner was never a starter in Ottawa, when he was traded to Buffalo he was Ottawa's 3rd best goalie.

Luongo was traded after loosing the starting job to... oh look Cory Schneider the previous year, who was then traded to your New Jersey Devils. in 13/14 when he was moved to Florida he had nearly lost the starting job to 26 year old rookie Eddie Lack. I know how much you love GSAx so here is what it looked like for the Canucks goalies back then

Now how exactly does that compare to Markstrom's +32.5 GSAx?

Idk how to make this any clearer to you though. I highly doubt Markstrom is traded because I don't think anyone will meet Conroy's asking price. I am also perfectly fine with that. Markstrom staying a Flame is not at all an issue. Cap space is not going to be a problem next year and once again he can be an excellent mentor for Wolf

27 févr. à 18 h 47

#24

Démarrer sujet

Rejoint: mai 2019

Messages: 40,173

Mentions "j'aime": 18,355

Quoting: Ledge_And_Dairy

You always have such a warped view of value and never consider circumstance at all.

In the case of Freddy he was not traded with 5 years of term, he was traded with zero term as an RFA. Also Anaheim had 2 starting goalies at the time, both RFA's. They chose to keep the one was younger and didn't have arbitration rights.

Kuemper was a year away from UFA when he was traded. He helped win the Avs the cup and then walked right after. How in the world do you view Markstrom having term as a negative but that as a positive considering New Jersey probably isn't a cup favorite this year.

Lehner was never a starter in Ottawa, when he was traded to Buffalo he was Ottawa's 3rd best goalie.

Luongo was traded after loosing the starting job to... oh look Cory Schneider the previous year, who was then traded to your New Jersey Devils. in 13/14 when he was moved to Florida he had nearly lost the starting job to 26 year old rookie Eddie Lack. I know how much you love GSAx so here is what it looked like for the Canucks goalies back then

Now how exactly does that compare to Markstrom's +32.5 GSAx?

Thomas Vokurn is probably the best comp…if you want picks only comp. Veteran workhorse goalie, term on deal, young kid coming up, buying team a little desperate…2007 so far enough back where pick value, cap differences skew the comparison.

But Conroy wants a skater back…and goalie-to-skater conversion is a challenge.

Maybe the better question..when was the last time a 22-year old, former top-10 pick, offensive weapon like Holtz was traded for a goalie?

Ledge_And_Dairy a aimé ceci.

27 févr. à 19 h 23

#25