Les gars… qu’est-ce que Fitzy faisait… c’est tout ce que nous avons dû abandonner pour Ullmark… ? Mais Fitzy est allé avec Markstrom ???
—
NoFearsNoTears
@Devils du New Jersey
Les gars… qu’est-ce que Fitzy faisait… c’est tout ce que nous avons dû abandonner pour Ullmark… ? Mais Fitzy est allé avec Markstrom ???
—
NoFearsNoTears
35 Comments
He clearly didn’t want him….
no extension attached, sens fleece tho
Its clear that the market is not as intense as people thought it would be. Good goalies are getting traded for scraps.
They traded this for a 1 year rental. If Ullmark was willing to extend they would have waited until 7/1 and done it as a sign and trade. Would you want to make a trade for an “all star” goalie just to have them potentially walk at the end of the year?
Hell for all we know we can get him in free agency next year now if we really wanted him.
Edit: Also keep in mind that was the cost for Ottawa. There’s a chance Fitzy refused to trade unless a sign and trade was coming. Or for all we know Boston’s ask of us was higher than the ask from the Sens. Similar to how for Markstrom Toronto supposedly had a similar offer but because it was Toronto Calgary demanded more from them than us.
Look at it this way, we have two years of marky at 4m and then sens got ullmark for 5m + the retention of korpi which is around 1
1.5m and have to extend ulmark. Fitz clearly values that second year to help our cap situation as luke will need a contract
Markstrom has two years….our first next year will be high
We made the move first and Boston had less options after we did that. Value probably dropped
We did fine
Fitz was only looking at Markstrom. He locked on. I wanted ullmark and I’ll eat my words if markstrom works out. Right now it’s a bad look.
where is everyone that was saying that trading for a 35yr instead of 30yr old was a better move because of how much it would cost us.
We have Markstrom way more cost controlled. They got no extension or retention. He could easily dip afterward. Plus I’m sure the price went down when us and LA got goalies
Didn’t Ullmark have a NTC? It’s possible he didn’t want to come here
See what you have to keep in mind is that the Devils being out of the market dropped the price on Ullmark for Ottawa, because there was one less goalie desperate team for Boston to play their offer against.
If Ullmark wouldn’t agree to an extension then it really wouldn’t be worth the assets for a one and done.
If Ulmark didn’t want to sign long term with the Devs, Markstrom was the best choice.
Also don’t want anything to do with Korpisalo.
Fitz made the right decision.
Just remember this. Ullmark refused to waive his NTC to go to the Devils last season and now he’s a Senator. 🤣
They probably wanted a first this year, and we aren’t giving up 10th for a goalie. Wait until you see an extension as well.
Lots of reasons this couldn’t have worked.
1) we could’ve been on his ntc list
2) Boston wanted a 2024 1st, and 10oa would’ve been a massive overpay
3) Ullmark wants to his UFA next summer and wasn’t willing to talk extension
4) BOS didn’t like our prospects
5) Price went down after we were not part of the market
It’s a little disheartening. I don’t think the Devils got fleeced, but they gave up a younger, probably better player and what is decently likely to be a better pick for an older goalie with one additional year of contract. There’s tons of unknowns here, among them whether Ullmark would even have waived to come here, if he would’ve extended here, for how much and what term. There’s also the fact that the Devils no longer needing a goalie likely affected the market significantly.
But all that said, if this is what the reigning Vezina winner costs, it’s hard not to view our trade less favorably.
Edit: having sat with this a bit, this was a dumb take. Who fuckin cares what Ullmark cost? Fitz went after the goalie he thought was best for us. If it works out, we’ll all be happy. If it doesn’t, we’ll have bigger concerns than what we gave up here. Good for the Sens, though. Seems like a fantastic move for them.
Well done by Staios to get them to take Korpisalo on 25% retained… but Korpisalo is going to look fantastic in Boston, so they don’t care.
I thought Boston was going to go after Shane Pinto… but I guess that wasn’t available. Seems like Boston was forcing the move rather than Ottawa… makes me think they got plans for that pick… like there’s an asset they need it to acquire.
Either way… I said pick between 18-28, ended up pick 25… Kastellic was payment for salary retention, this is an even trade
Yeah Ullmark was my first choice too, but be realistic.
Calgary retained salary. Boston got salary retention from Ottawa. We would have to add.
If we trade for Ullmark, then both Ullmark and Allen will be up for a contract this offseason. We also have no idea if Ullmark would extend here. The second year Markstrom has is actually important for us. Also, we would all be livid if we paid a 1st+ for a rental goalie and you all know it.
A low first this year always has more value than a low first next year. We would have to add, again.
Korpisalo has four years left on his contract. I assume Boston wanted Korpisalo to be their replacement #2. They are not gonna take Dawes or Schmid, and Allen having 1yr left would require further add from us again. And then we need to go find a new backup for at least this year.
The Devils and Kings had already traded for goalies. This may have lowered the relative price for Ullmark.
For all we know Fitz called Boston about Ullmark only to find we were on his 15 team no trade list and he would not waive, or that Ullmark said he would not extend here. He may have never been an option.
[deleted]
LOL some of you are wild and just can’t comprehend it takes two teams (and in this case two teams AND a players NTC) to make a trade.
No movement clause. Maybe he didn’t want to come to the swamp.
2 years of Markstrom vs 1 year of Ullmark (who is due for a raise)
No extension, and according to Friedman he’s planning on playing it out til free agency to see what happens
A. Our first is #10. B. Ullmark is on his last year so he’s probably going to nope out of there for a big payday to finish his career. C. We didn’t have a backup to give them really – I don’t think we should just ship out Schmid just yet.
I wanted Ullmark over everyone, but from a business perspective, getting Markstrom seems like the better business decision. Markstrom wanted to come to NJ. We don’t know if Ullmark did.
Boston would have demanded our 10 pick + Holtz or Mercer and that’s all for a goalie who is about to be a free agent. We could have gotten burned going for Ullmark.
Should have gone with Ullmark. Crazy we didn’t. The cost is non existent
I’m kinda back and forth on this
I’ve seen stuff on ullmark not being totally healthy / having hip issues
He’s a 1 yr rental
They did get a 1st
He didn’t want to waive his ntc for us earlier this year. Markstrom from what we heard – wanted to be here – and was pissed it didn’t happen
I’m surprised it took so long for this inevitable post of stupidity to occur three hours after the trade.
Getting annoying af seeing people try to shit on fitz with short sightedness and zero insider knowledge.
If it is true that Ullmark was not going to sign an extension and go to free agency, Fitz absolutely made the right move to go with Markstrom based on that alone if we would have had to trade a 1st rounder and literally anything else to the Bruins.
(To be fair, this may just be the case because he had to go to Ottawa for a year…)
But then adding the fact that Markstrom is here for 2 years, at $1m less this upcoming year and almost certainly way way less in year 2… that seriously helps us to bridge the next few years with the contracts we will have to give out (Luke, Nemec…) until some others begin to fall off or are tradeable.
All that before even considering that the Sens have to retain 1m on Korpisalo for the next 4 years, too. And this is not counting that a trade by us would likely have cost even more as I’m doubting the Bruins would have felt as comfortable with Daws or Schmid as the backup. I don’t think I’d want to roll into the playoffs with one of those two backing up Swayman if I wanted to be serious about a deep run, to be honest.
With all that said: I’m wondering where the guy is who said Ullmark would not be leaving Boston because he loves it there, would refuse to waive his NTC this summer, and would do anything to make it work to stay in Boston going forward.
Kahkonen played well for us. I hope we keep him.
Because he didn’t want to come to Jersey. Which means even if he agreed to come for a year he most likely wouldn’t have resigned. Now we have Markström for two years.
Hopefully 25’-26 Schmid can be back up to him and learn how to effectively use that 6’6” body of his.
Too many unknowns here to make a judgement now. This all smells like Ullmark didn’t want to negotiate a long term deal with whoever Boston was moving him to.
I’m guessing Boston shot themselves in the foot playing hardball and then NJ and LA moved on
People really didn’t pay any attention did they?
I’m not sure what the ask earlier in the season was but the deadline ask from Nashville for Saros and Carrier was the the 2024 first, Mercer, a second round pick and Casey. Which was too much to give up
Ullmark refused to waive his NTC last season
The first ask for Markstrom was similar to Nashville’s and too much, whatever the second deal was had been agreed by both GMs but Calgary’s ownership veto’d the deal
And I don’t think that Vancouver or Anaheim ever went past the initial ask for Gibson and Demko.
Giving up next year’s first, Bahl and Calgary retaining 30% of Markstroms deal is as close to a slam dunk as this team is going to get. Very low risk from the Devil’s side of it and we have a legit 50-60 game starter who should be reliably league average for goaltending.