• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Core 4 No More: The Motherfucking Off-Season Thread

It’ll be Liljegren for Markstrom or some bullshit. Fuck me.

Tbh I don’t mind taking a chance on Markstrom. But man I hope they have to eat some money and the cost to acquire is low. Maybe he has the Flames by the balls here.
 
Leafin' said:
It’ll be Liljegren for Markstrom or some bullshit. Fuck me.

Tbh I don’t mind taking a chance on Markstrom. But man I hope they have to eat some money and the cost to acquire is low. Maybe he has the Flames by the balls here.
Click to expand...
Nah Jersey will up the bidding on Markstrom and then after we overpay they’ll find some value add who outperforms him
 
There's a chance Markstrom has another good year left in him, he has been elite before. Based on the last 2 seasons, I'd prefer to look elsewhere. But if comparing a 34 year old Markstrom to a 37 year old Talbot, even if you give the edge to Talbot based on recent performance, what is the likelihood he's better/healthier than Markstrom? 53-47%?

Hopefully he goes to NJ or elsewhere, but it wouldn't be that surprising if he's good either.
 
Markstrom’s a steaming pile of garbage.

But because he can handle a heavy workload of starts while playing like a steaming pile of garbage, people figure that somehow makes him a good starter I guess.
 
axlsalinger said:
There's a chance Markstrom has another good year left in him, he has been elite before. Based on the last 2 seasons, I'd prefer to look elsewhere. But if comparing a 34 year old Markstrom to a 37 year old Talbot, even if you give the edge to Talbot based on recent performance, what is the likelihood he's better/healthier than Markstrom? 53-47%?

Hopefully he goes to NJ or elsewhere, but it wouldn't be that surprising if he's good either.
Click to expand...

The edge for Talbot is that he's likely to come in at 2-3 million on a 1-2 yr deal. Assuming you can get him for something like 2.25x2 (which is better than the 1yr x 2 he signed last year and that 2 million was 1 million guaranteed and 1 million performance bonuses), that's 3.75 million more for the blueline.

So yeah, 50/50 on him being better/healthier than Markstrom but a pretty good chance they're roughly equivalent and being able to sign Matt Roy instead of Edmundson or some shit. I'll take it.
 
MindzEye said:
Yeah, I'm deeply concerned by this.

Not that "I'm a Republican Senator from Maine and I'm deeply concerned" either. Really fucking concerned.

Markstrom should have something resembling negative value. 34 yrs old coming off of a very average season which was a bouceback from a dreadful season, 2 x 6M left on his deal.

If Calgary ate half the deal I still wouldn't love it tbh.
Click to expand...

Markstrom will get a very strong return of real asset(s), tho not nearly as much as Ullmark and Saros will cost.
 
LeafGm said:
Markstrom’s a steaming pile of garbage.

But because he can handle a heavy workload of starts while playing like a steaming pile of garbage, people figure that somehow makes him a good starter I guess.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, GSAA/60 & league rank. I'll use a minutes cut off of 2000 in any season not affected by the pandemic, and 1200-1800 in the pandemic seasons to keep it representative of tandem and starter's only.

23/24: +.05 (18th of 36)
22/23: -.32 (28th of 36)
21/22: +.42 (5th of 34)
20/21: -.10 (31st of 44 - min 1200 minutes)
19/20: +.27 (10th of 39 - min 1800 minutes)
18/19: +.08 (22nd of 45)
17/18: -.01 (23rd of 37)

A few top 10 years, a few bottom 10 years, a few dead nuts average years. Now that's an asshole. But really he's just an average NHL goalie with the normal variance that comes from being pretty fucking average but can handle a starter's workload without dying.
 
zeke said:
Markstrom will get a very strong return of real asset(s), tho not nearly as much as Ullmark and Saros will cost.
Click to expand...

Examples?

I don't think the goalie market is where people think it is. Hellebuyck is still in Winnipeg because nobody wanted to give up a real package for him in trade. I can't see goalies a tier below him all of a sudden blowing the doors off. Not even sure 1 yr old Saros Ullmark gets a 1st tbh.
 
Kuemper is the best comp for Saros and Ullmark, also with 1 year left, and he got a 1st, 3rd and a young Conor Timmins. 1st and junk does it for those two probably if the bruins or preds want to trade them.

Not a particularly crazy price or anything. I'm just far more cautious about paying those guys long-term.
 
MindzEye said:
The edge for Talbot is that he's likely to come in at 2-3 million on a 1-2 yr deal. Assuming you can get him for something like 2.25x2 (which is better than the 1yr x 2 he signed last year and that 2 million was 1 million guaranteed and 1 million performance bonuses), that's 3.75 million more for the blueline.

So yeah, 50/50 on him being better/healthier than Markstrom but a pretty good chance they're roughly equivalent and being able to sign Matt Roy instead of Edmundson or some shit. I'll take it.
Click to expand...
Fair point on salary for sure. If a team really prefers Markstrom, it shouldn't be that hard to get Calgary to retain, if they're planning to rebuild. If for some reason they're not, they should probably keep him for at least one more year. He's a lot more palatable at $3m with 50% retention.
 
Wasn't the issue with trying to acquire Markstrom last season, that Calgary was unwilling to retain?
 
Markstrom is absolutely going to cost Lilly or Robby along with dead money like Kampf or Krok. Some combination of that with the true disaster being both kids
 
In terms of quality is Markstrom> Talbot? I want the better player.

Didn’t Talbot flop pretty hard in Edmonton? Broissoit too?

Someone good out there has to shake loose. I don’t believe there is no quality starter out there that we can overpay to acquire.
 
Preston said:
Kuemper is the best comp for Saros and Ullmark, also with 1 year left, and he got a 1st, 3rd and a young Conor Timmins. 1st and junk does it for those two probably if the bruins or preds want to trade them.

Not a particularly crazy price or anything. I'm just far more cautious about paying those guys long-term.
Click to expand...

Quick note on the Kuemper return.

That 3rd rounder was conditional on Colorado winning the cup and Kuemper playing 50% of the playoff games or more.
 
Leafin' said:
In terms of quality is Markstrom> Talbot? I want the better player.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say so, no.

Same analysis as Markstrom above, just ranks because fuck you guys, natty is publicly available. Had to wiggle around the minutes minimum to get Talbot to qualify in a few of the years though.

23/24: 8th
22/23: 30th
21/22: 18th
20/21: 10th
19/20: 12th
18/19: 43rd
17/18: 27th

Especially if you just want to omit the oldest shit there, over the last 5 years Talbot has been average to average plus in 4 of 5 seasons with that ugly one being in Ottawa. Slightly better than Markstrom over the last few years, though in a lighter workload to be fair. Which is fine, I don't want anyone starting 60 games here.

Leafin' said:
Didn’t Talbot flop pretty hard in Edmonton? Broissoit too?
Click to expand...

Talbot was really good for Edmonton overall but did flame out at the end, but workload is a motherfucker. Playing a goalie 70 times a year is nutty. Hard to call what Brossoit was in Edmonton a flop, really didn't get much of an opportunity.



1718148889067.png


Fwiw, I don't see the daylight between Talbot and either Ullmark or Saros being worth a significant overpay. Saros is coming off of a downish year for him (he was pretty average) and is a 29 yr old midget who if we're lucky would age like Halak or similar which would mean 4-5 more years of above average tandem play. Zeke is right to point out that in small sample Ullmark has struggled in the playoffs and that he's about to turn 32.

I understand the "risk" argument, I just think that doesn't properly take into account the much greater risk of running Woll and some backup out there. If the cost of avoiding that is a 1st and junk and then a reasonable extension for where they fit in the market, I'm in. But I don't want to be throwing picks and Lilly/Robbie's at this problem when Talbot isn't a huge step down, costs just money and not a lot of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top