Salary Cap: The Guds days are gone, now it's time to look forward

[The Old Master]

Although I agreed with keeping MM at the expansion draft, you'd have to think that the return for him then would have been amazing. That would have been a huge gamble from JR but it could have set us up for the remainder of Sid/Geno/MAFs careers.

we would need to be thinking highly of whats in our pipe line too. imo

 

[Pancakes]

The fear of not being able to replace Murray isn't a justification to overpay him. You can't be making decisions based on the fear that something bad may happen, that's like playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

It really seems like you're making up a strawman here to defend overpaying Murray, with mentioning things like "what if they don't get a replacement" or "you'd get Jack Johnson if you aren't lucky". The argument here is that a tandem like Markstrom-Jarry plus the assets and cap space you'd get by trading Murray help you more than overpaying Murray.

Well you can't guarantee a replacement in FA. You are aware of how free agency works right? Markstrom at $5million in cap space is unlikely to begin with given there is always demand for decent goalies. Look at what Bob got in FA. Markstrom might well get closer to 6-7 anyways. But let's put that aside for a moment and just assume we get Markstrom at 5 and invest that cap space wisely.

In that scenario, you're still looking at having a 29 year old goalie instead of a 25 year old one, and one who has been outperformed by Matt Murray in 2 of the past 3 seasons, and who has a career save percentage that is nearly 10 points below Murray. Markstrom isn't bad, but Murray has been better, so to downgrade in goaltending just to squeeze out a few more cap dollars....it makes no sense to me.

 

[Shady Machine]

I feel like the issue here is that Fleury signed a $7 million AAV deal last off-season (as in off-season of 2018), so it's hard to justify Murray getting a ton more when Fleury's making $7 million. And yes, I think Fleury is the best comparison you can use for Murray. They're very comparable talent-wise, have put up pretty similar numbers in recent years and both have a resume mostly filled with team accomplishments.

For comparison, since the start of the 2016-2017 season, here are their stats:

Fleury: 158 games, 90-47-17 with a .917 save% and a .575 QS%
Murray: 160 games, 90-43-14 with a .917 save% and .532 QS%

Different is Fleury already made a TON of money in his career. I'm sure he could have gotten more had he pushed. Personally I agree the 7-7.5MM is the right number and hope Murray settles around there, but I can see how one can justify higher.

 

[Pancakes]

Although I agreed with keeping MM at the expansion draft, you'd have to think that the return for him then would have been amazing. That would have been a huge gamble from JR but it could have set us up for the remainder of Sid/Geno/MAFs careers.

Eh, teams would have had us over the barrel with any such trade knowing that we would have to give up a goalie or risk losing MM for nothing due to the expansion draft rules.

I'm sure the return would have been good but nothing earthshattering.

 

[Shady Machine]

The good news is we only have like maybe 1 or 2 guys on the roster who will drop the gloves and stick up for teammates. I mean they’d have to be absolutely forced into it and under extreme duress, but still, we should be able to jettison he/them for a speedy non checking 3rd / new nhl 4th liner or 7th/8th/9th defense easily enough.

If we’re scouting the Wild either Mathew, Hunt, or forum darling Zucker should fit the bill.

Lol. Good of you to show up and talk about fighting.

 

[Pancakes]

And how many of those teams have a starter you'd trust?

Sure the "How do you replace him" questions aren't a rebuttal to Murray trade talk in and of themselves. But they are part of the process in terms of whether it's a good idea. Right now, I'm not hearing many answers I like, which means it's still an idea I don't like.

How you replace him is absolutely a valid question, but even if you ignore that train of thought and assume that we can get Markstrom, we're still left with a goalie that is demonstrably worse than Murray over his career. I don't see how the cap savings for that make up for downgrading in goaltending. Markstrom is also nearly 30, whereas Murray is 25.

You pay your good players imo. If you have to pay a little bit more, you deal with it. Doing so might even force JR to lean towards giving younger players like Lafferty roster spots which is a good thing.

 

[Trade]

Not to be a downer, but I shake my head at anyone who thinks ZAR is gonna be going back the other way in any trade for a winger. Other GM's see the shiny new (younger and faster) toys we have in WBS and our lineup and now possibly in the press box (Laff).

Just don't see that happening unless JR is really good at distributing the Kool-Aid.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Well you can't guarantee a replacement in FA. You are aware of how free agency works right? Markstrom at $5million in cap space is unlikely to begin with given there is always demand for decent goalies. Look at what Bob got in FA. Markstrom might well get closer to 6-7 anyways. But let's put that aside for a moment and just assume we get Markstrom at 5 and invest that cap space wisely.

In that scenario, you're still looking at having a 29 year old goalie instead of a 25 year old one, and one who has been outperformed by Matt Murray in 2 of the past 3 seasons, and who has a career save percentage that is nearly 10 points below Murray. Markstrom isn't bad, but Murray has been better, so to downgrade in goaltending just to squeeze out a few more cap dollars....it makes no sense to me.

You're not reading the actual scenario and instead are nitpicking small details. I'm not going to bother reexplaining the comparison if you're just going to ignore it.

Again, here is the comparison:

1. You overpay Murray
2. You trade Murray, make Jarry the "goalie of the future" and you bring in a short term stop gap starter to platoon with Jarry until he's ready to be the full time starter

Why are you ignoring that you're going to get a great return for Murray by trading him? We're not just letting Murray walk as a free agent. Why are you pretending that they're going to try to replace Murray in free agency, instead of giving the reins over to Jarry and just giving Jarry a platoon goalie to ease him into the role?

Different is Fleury already made a TON of money in his career. I'm sure he could have gotten more had he pushed. Personally I agree the 7-7.5MM is the right number and hope Murray settles around there, but I can see how one can justify higher.

I really don't think this has any relevance, plus I can just as fairly point out that Murray is a RFA while Fleury was a UFA and Fleury had a way longer track record of success than Murray does.

 

[SEALBound]

Not to be a downer, but I shake my head at anyone who thinks ZAR is gonna be going back the other way in any trade for a winger. Other GM's see the shiny new (younger and faster) toys we have in WBS and our lineup and now possibly in the press box (Laff).

Just don't see that happening unless JR is really good at distributing the Kool-Aid.

Disagree. I think if ZAR was put on the block, there would be interest. Maybe not a 1st or 2nd but a 4th or 5th or swap for similar, yes.

 

[heysmilinstrange]

My god is Murray underappreciated. Sure, let's replace him with Jacob Markstrom and Jarry, who has played well in about 5 NHL games. Maybe we'll get a pick back, too, and we can use it to draft a goaltender in the 3rd round who might one day break AHL goaltending records and then win 2 Cups in his first two years.

 

[Empoleon8771]

By the way, people are really overrating Murray if they think there's a massive difference between him and Markstrom. Since Murray came into the NHL, here are their stats:

Markstrom: 189 games, .913 save% and .550 QS%
Murray: 173 games, .917 save% and .551 QS%

The difference between the 10th best goalie, which is around what Murray is, and the 15th best goalie, which is around what Markstrom is, really isn't significant. Once you get beyond the group of the elite goalies, there really isn't a big difference between goalies.

My god is Murray underappreciated. Sure, let's replace him with Jacob Markstrom and Jarry, who has played well in about 5 NHL games. Maybe we'll get a pick back, too, and we can use it to draft a goaltender in the 3rd round who might one day break AHL goaltending records and then win 2 Cups in his first two years.

This is just nonsencial fanboy talk. This doesn't have to do with your opinion, it has to do with it offering literally nothing to the discussion.

Honestly, what do you think this adds to the conversation? Everyone knows who Murray is, everyone knows he's a good goalie who won 2 cups in his first 2 years. To me, this is just you trying to silence a conversation you don't like. If you don't like the conversation, why don't you just ignore it?

 

[EightyOne]

I think Andy Chiodo would have won a third of the games Murray did in the Cup runs.

I'm not saying Chiodo was a third of skill of Murray.

I'm saying these teams were special. And it wasn't just Murray winning the games.

15-16 may never be seen again in our lives. The mix of play style, chemistry, effort, strategy, luck, and skill. From April on, it was the Pens to lose.

16-17 was a bit more sketchy but Murray didn't steal the first two series, either.

 

[heysmilinstrange]

This is just nonsencial fanboy talk. This doesn't have to do with your opinion, it has to do with it offering literally nothing to the discussion.

This entire discussion is just people 1) worrying about something that might not happen (i.e., Murray asking for or getting paid an amount of money on his next contract that would cripple our cap; Murray having another injury-plagued season), 2) having intense emotions about it, and then 3) using "logic" and recency bias to pretend that replacing a goalie who's young and performing well for your team is easy.

Regarding point 3, I think people overestimate Jarry's potential. He has played well this season, but he was pretty poor last season and at one point had been passed by both Matt Murray and Casey DeSmith on the organizational depth chart. Expecting him to one day be a starter based on his draft position and his good play this season, and then feeling confident that he could one day replace Murray or whoever our starter is, is really making a lot of leaps.

Also regarding my point about recency bias, I think people are not thinking clearly when they suggest that any random goaltender can win the Cup just because Binnington and Murray happened to without being established goaltenders first. Two doesn't make a pattern. Sure, there are really good and well-paid goalies in the league who have never won a Cup, like Lundqvist and Luongo, but there are also teams who always think that the next best goaltender is around the corner (namely, Philadelphia) and they haven't won shit either.

Finally, I see a lot of reason to be optimistic about Murray's upcoming contract being team-friendly. All of our best players have taken team-friendly deals, Murray has shown himself to be a team-focused player throughout his career, and Rutherford has been signing RFAs to very reasonable deals for as long as he's been the GM here.

I'm sorry you found my previous post "nonsencial [sic] fanboy talk," but I was responding in kind to the overall tenor of the discussion.

 

[EightyOne]

8 for 3, 7 for 5 or 6 for 6

That's what I'd put on the table for him and his agent. Anything else is too damn much money for too long for THIS team to ice a solid roster in front of whoever is in goal.

Otherwise I'm renewing the contract on my Jitterbug and staying past closing at PF Chang's calling everyone in the league.

 

[heysmilinstrange]

8 for 3, 7 for 5 or 6 for 6

That's what I'd put on the table for him and his agent. Anything else is too damn much money for THIS team to field a solid roster in front of whoever is in goal.

Otherwise I'm renewing the contract on my Jitterbug and staying past closing at PF Chang's calling everyone in the league.

I think it's extremely likely he signs for one of these figures. Don't worry, I'll make an obnoxious John Titor-esque post bragging about it when I'm inevitably right.

 

[Trade]

Murray asking for 8.5 basically implies he's as important to the team as Sid.

I can see him wanting to stay part of this team for however many runs we have left and he, like Jake will take a more friendly deal. I'd say 6.25-7mil or so max.

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

2. Trade Murray to Calgary for Rittich, a prospect and a 1st, make Jarry the "goalie of the future" and run with a Jarry-Rittich tandem until Jarry's fully ready to be the starter.

I'd do this, and I think I like Murray more than most.

 

[ownal]

I'd do this, and I think I like Murray more than most.

Murray/Schultz for Brodie/Rittich/1st.

 

[Pancakes]

You're not reading the actual scenario and instead are nitpicking small details. I'm not going to bother reexplaining the comparison if you're just going to ignore it.

Again, here is the comparison:

1. You overpay Murray
2. You trade Murray, make Jarry the "goalie of the future" and you bring in a short term stop gap starter to platoon with Jarry until he's ready to be the full time starter

Why are you ignoring that you're going to get a great return for Murray by trading him? We're not just letting Murray walk as a free agent. Why are you pretending that they're going to try to replace Murray in free agency, instead of giving the reins over to Jarry and just giving Jarry a platoon goalie to ease him into the role?



I really don't think this has any relevance, plus I can just as fairly point out that Murray is a RFA while Fleury was a UFA and Fleury had a way longer track record of success than Murray does.

None of what I brought up are small details. Being able to acquire Markstrom is a big ask that relies on many things going our way. Being able to get a good trade for Murray is a big ask that requires a team having both the cap space and willingness to make that move. Turning over the reins to a goalie in Jarry with no history of junior or AHL dominance and with only 33 NHL starts to his name is a big ask.

But like I said in my previous post (which you ignored) put all that aside and assume we get a good trade for Murray and get Markstrom at the price you want. How are we better off with a goalie that is demonstrably worse than Murray? Why is that worth saving three million in cap space? It's not, and fortunately JR isn't stupid enough to do it.

 

[Peat]

Murray/Schultz for Brodie/Rittich/1st.

That trade only works in-season due to the two impending UFAs and its an absolutely horrendous idea in-season because we're giving up the two better/more valuable players while trying to contend just to get a 1st.

 

[ownal]

That trade only works in-season due to the two impending UFAs and its an absolutely horrendous idea in-season because we're giving up the two better/more valuable players while trying to contend just to get a 1st.

You are right. It would depend on the deal we can get done with Brodie like 5 x 5. Would there be anything we could send to get Lindholm in the deal as well?

 

[Empoleon8771]

None of what I brought up are small details. Being able to acquire Markstrom is a big ask that relies on many things going our way. Being able to get a good trade for Murray is a big ask that requires a team having both the cap space and willingness to make that move. Turning over the reins to a goalie in Jarry with no history of junior or AHL dominance and with only 33 NHL starts to his name is a big ask.

But like I said in my previous post (which you ignored) put all that aside and assume we get a good trade for Murray and get Markstrom at the price you want. How are we better off with a goalie that is demonstrably worse than Murray? Why is that worth saving three million in cap space? It's not, and fortunately JR isn't stupid enough to do it.

You keep making up scenarios that aren't a part of the question I'm asking, so I'm not going to respond anymore. If you're going to reply to me, actually reply to the discussion.

 

[Pancakes]

You keep making up scenarios that aren't a part of the question I'm asking, so I'm not going to respond anymore. If you're going to reply to me, actually reply to the discussion.

Lol. You literally just conveniently ignored me bringing up how demonstrably worse Markstrom is than Murray. I also did put aside all of the obvious flaws with what you want to do and settled on the fantasy scenario where we get Markstrom, a good trade for Murray, and use the cap space wisely. Even in that scenario we're still downgrading at the goaltender position. You're just ignoring that fact.

But feel free to take your ball and go home or whatever.

 

[heysmilinstrange]

edit: on second thought, my post was rude.

 

[Goalie_Bob]

John Gibson is a good comparable, imo. Gibson got 8 years and 51 million, aka 6.4 mil a season.

I would offer Murray something similar. If he requests anything greater I would move on from him.