I don't see Fitz giving up a 10 OA pick for JM.
Is Holtz worth that pick? Right now, no!
That is your yardstick, Holtz was the rumored player back at tdl.
It's going to be a '25 2nd with conditions and some smaller stuff, more if retained

Fitz has already acknowledged that the 10th is up in the air for a goalie. And the goalie market is like 4-5 goalies, but really the options are just Ullmark and JM. The flames kinda hold all the cards with 2 yrs left and Devs need retention and there are other potential suitors. Plus the Bs are not just gonna give the Devs Ullmark would probably be a little pricy again with other suitors and rivalry (Plus they are gonna want player assets).

The Devils spent a 3rd to get Jake Allen, and there is a condition in the trade that if he plays over 40 games it becomes a 2nd, so that trade has not a lick of logic.

That is not what Fitzgerald said. He said he would trade 10th overall if an offer blows him away for a player that fits our age demographic and timeline. Not a 34 year old Markstrom.

The flames do not hold the cards. What they hold is a ticking time bomb that’s pissed at their franchise. You wait on a 35 year old goalie and try to play hardball, chances are, he plays like so many other 35 year old goalies have (dog****) and you’re stuck with him.

They backed out in February and were rewarded by Jacob Markstrom posting a 0.876 over his final 15 games.

What do you mean, the Devs are not gonna get the value back on the trade. This is a cap clearing move (near 2 mil) and Devs get some value back. Devs could stash him too (thats why I said the trade doesn't have to happen) but then Devs are paying him, Schmid, and Dawes. The Devs made that move when they still had a fighting shot at the playoffs and they were in a goalie crisis.

https://x.com/sportsnet960/status/1798133909064224944?s=46&t=yOQbHenKeif1WyTP-cICVQ

You're acting as though the devils have other options for goalie. They could sign Cam Talbot in free agency with that mindset which would just kill this team. Or overpay for Ullmark, Saros is not gonna be for sale, let's be realistic. And if they pay Gibson I may die.

I don't understand what you aren't understanding so I'll go slower.

The Devils traded a 3rd for Jake Allen. It could become a 2nd if he plays 40 games no matter where that is. So if we trade him to a team that plays him 40 games, we send a 2nd to MTL, having only gotten a 3rd from LAK.

DeBrusk also just made $4m, he's not taking a pay cut in free agency

Yes the Devs will lose value but at this point to clear cap I could deal with the devils giving up a 2nd late which would hopefully turn into a mid third. I kinda covered all of that in my last post so won't repeat. I will also repeat that no team is giving up a second for 1 yr Allen.

Another reason I left 3.5 in space is for contract negotiations, I would pay near 5.

Jake Allen was acquired to be the backup. That was literally the plan the entrie time

I'd rather overpay for Ullmark than overpay for Markstrom

Again move doesn't have to happen but I like having Schmid and Dawes as backups and more cap space.


Also fine but that means no retention and paying him somewhere in the ballpark of 6-8 mil for the next 4-6 yrs after this yr. Also means offseason for forwards will be quiet.

Retention on Ullmark would be easier since it’s 1 year. And Ullmark being much better than Markstrom makes it an easy choice.

Regardless, we could also just, hear me out, NOT vastly overpay for a goalie just for the sake of overpaying.

What do we need all this difference of $700k in cap space for to take a loss man? Goalies get hurt, you'll have a choice of Schmid or Daws if and when that happens....but this makes no sense man.

Just because we have the 10th overall, doesn't mean we have to use that on a 34yr old goalie that has a NMC and can pick where he wants to go. Name ALL the teams that would give up their 2024 1st for Markstrom that even make any sense.

You have combined the two things that he said.
The 10OA is available to upgrade the team
AND (the important part of how things are said)
We need to get a goalie

Incorrect on G market. These are the ones we know, what about those we dont? Is Van ok with Silvos, would they move Demko is a perfect example. Yes we have inquired with Boston and Calgary, but hardly only options.
Now on Cal holding anything- JM has a NMC and used it for LA trade (I believe). JM did waive for Jersey, so our GM knows he'd come here, thats not a position of strength! Retention is nice but its not gonna hold us back if we don't get it. It also doesn't cost what you seem to think it does.
Most Bruins fans expect a '25 1st and 3rd this year for Ullmark. That puts JM below this ask. Vezina trophy winner last year, 5 years younger. Prospects ask is not a problem either.
Lastly the bad G play shook out at the end of the year with KK and Allen, its not as terrible as the first 85% of the season. Upgrade the LD and get some nasty on the bottom line and this team looks different. Fitz said he's going hinting so they may change the Gs in NJ but these JM for 10OA are nuts and should not be made

Again its more like 2 mil in cap freed, and as I said in the trade details and before Allen trade does not NEED to happen but if we need space cause we could end up being against the cap, I would be happy with it.

Toronto if they clear, Sens (more likely higher end assets with 7th pick and not contenders), Wings, and Kings. Also direct quote from Lebrun "The Flames are getting calls from multiple teams on Markstrom, not just from the Devils... At this point in time, there's still a difference of opinion on the return, on what it should cost the Devils to get Jacob Markstrom out of Calgary and the Flames are willing to be patient in terms of having a team meet their price"

1. The Devils aren’t trading 10oa for ANY goalie. Fitzgerald was very specific in those interviews that the 10th pick is available for someone special with term and fits the core demographic (meaning someone in their twenties).

2. The agreed upon Markstrom trade in February was Holtz for a retained Markstrom. Some earlier reports had Vanecek included with a pick to pay for that, but sounds like it was later omitted. And there were a couple of places where there was an unnamed bottom-six winger and mid pick included to cover that. So the final trade was something like Markstrom ($2-3m retained) and Duehr (or similar) for Holtz and 4th. That is probably the base line to work off of going forward. (Hopefully Fitz and Conroy have patched things up).

3. Schmid is waiver exempt, so we can keep Allen and Schmid for 2024-25 (as is Daws). So no reason for Kings trade.

4. DeBrusk is likely to get a little more $$. If we are holding onto Holtz, I’d put Alex at 2LW and sign a Will Carrier type for bottom six (Holtz should be on right side in bottom six role, left side in offensive role).

5. I think the RFA figures are spot on.

I should have looked before responding, Gibbs response looks similar with more facts to back up claims! Bravo

Always good to have more voices

…and when we checked in with Boston at deadline, we asked for the other guy (Sweeney told Fitzy to pound rocks, obviously)…but never hurts to ask. Until the other guy is signed, I hopes he asks again.

I'd rather give 10th overall+2025 1st (and even more tbh) for Swayman than any of the other bull**** I've been seeing thrown around lately.

If I'm gonna overpay, it might as well be for someone actually worth overpaying for

You wanna use the 10 OA do it there for Sway

Also from The Athletic, yesterday, from Calgary-based reporter:

“Fitzgerald controls this conversation, and it will turn into a game of poker at some point, with him trying to play the various GMs off against one another to extract the best possible deal.”