Before I get into the latest round of Murrmania, a thought I've had on this -
You can't guarantee getting full value for him because you can't guarantee an open market for him. Just like Kessel - or Trouba, to pick a more like for like example - Murray is in a position to say "Nope" to a trade to a team he doesn't like. That's because just like Trouba, all he has to do is say "I will not sign a long term contract with you" and the team's bid most likely disappears. In the unlikely and hypothetical scenario of Murray being difficult enough that he'd get traded, I can't see him not being difficult about this as well. So there's some added fun.
I want to add that I don't think adding uncertainty regarding trading Murray counts as a rebuttal to the idea of trading him. The idea is independent on its own, it's whether it's smarter to overpay Murray or trade Murray, run with Jarry as the "goalie of the future" and save a good chunk of cap space by running with a Jarry-Veteran tandem. I don't think saying "what if you can't get a veteran goalie?" or "who's going to trade for Murray?" is a rebuttal to the idea of trading Murray, it's not relevant to the actual idea being discussed.
It's like saying "what if Murray regresses back to 2017-2018 form after he gets his extension?" to argue against the idea of overpaying Murray. Like that's entirely possible, but that's not an argument against overpaying Murray.
But if expressed as "how likely is Murray to regress back to 17-18 form after he gets his extension?" an argument against giving Murray money though - with the more money you're willing to give Murray meaning the more okay you are to see Murray achieve consensus-overpaid. Pretty much everything about Murray's future performance is an argument either for or against.
And so is uncertainty about the trade and the replacement. It's been part of every RFA/UFA argument I've witnessed here. There's about 10 players in the NHL where it doesn't make sense to trade them if everything falls into place in the trade return/players pushing through. The number where it doesn't make sense to trade them because there'll probably be things that don't fall into place is a lot bigger. That's why the probability of things not working out or being more difficult than anticipated is relevant.
A bunch of them? There are a lot of good goalies in the NHL today. I think you're just so against the idea that you're refusing to even consider it an option.
Let me add some more specifics to make it an easier question to answer:
1. Overpay Murray at like $8.5 million a year or more
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.
Its not that I'm just refusing to consider it per se so much as what most of the ideas are making me consider is "How often does that happen though?" and "What are some examples of that which are feasible" and so on. I mean, when was the last time two clubs traded okay goaltender for good goaltender? I honestly can't think of one at all. And if it doesn't happen that often, how likely is it to happen this time?
Although in this case, yes, I am very reluctant to consider entrusting a year or maybe more of the last few years of the window to David Rittich. If that's the standard of goaltender you're willing to trust a contender's fate to, then it makes sense why you're so reluctant to pay Murray a large sum. I'm not. My main priority here is to minimise the risk of goaltending just selling a season down the river. I'm willing to consider that there's other ways of doing it than Murray but Rittich isn't one of them. You can do a lot with 6m, a 1st and good prospect, but it's not necessarily enough to overcome a goaltender just crapping the bed.
Dubnyk (33, 4.33x1) would be my number 1 target. 6'6" goalie who's averaged 64 games a year on a mediocre Wild club putting up respectable numbers. You'd only get one year out of his current contract, but that would allow the expected salary cap bump to hit in the 21-22 season before giving him a raise in his final contract (if we stuck with him). The Wild would have to consider based on the ages of the two goalies and the 'rebuild' plan they surely have in place going forward.
If you believe in Dubnyk that's a solid shout, although I'm not sure why Minnesota would be looking to pay the price for a Murray while trying to rebuild if that's their plan, and if they're still trying to contend, why they wouldn't make high end forwards their main target.
But I'm not a Dubnyk fan. I think he's a system goalie. Minnesota's top 4 has been very formidable.
Outside of him - I'd consider some of the older guys on a short deal or expiring deal hoping that Jarry is ready to take the reins. Those types of deals would either be via offer sheet to Murray (at the cap hit we'd rake in some nice draft picks), or by trading him for X and then signing those guys or trading a cheaper offensive piece to those teams looking to get out of them. One thing is for sure this Summer - there is no shortage of teams (both younger and older) who are in need of a #1 goalie.
Like who? Jimmy Howard? Cam Talbot? Because most of the older guys look pretty darn bad right now.
And if there's a lot of teams looking for a #1 goalie, doesn't that make it difficult for us to get one if we trade ours?
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?
I think you'd be doing very well to get Brodie to sign 5x5 at a new org when he's that close to FA and as for Lindholm, I don't know.
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.
Que? What about this team makes you think it can't put a solid roster in front of a well paid goaltender? I mean, as things stand, assuming you're getting a 2m salary cap raise, you could hand Murray an extra 5m next summer without touching the rest of the roster (thanks to the money saved from Guddy). I know we've got a lot of other new contracts to hand out, but managing that by money in, money out shouldn't be impossible. Not that I want to do that of course...
Also... once you've handed out the number 8 for anything, why baulk at adding more term to it?