When the Nashville Predators traded Yaroslav Askarov (11th overall pick in 2020) to the San Jose Sharks two weeks ago it was a rare kind of deal in which a blossoming top goalie prospect — one of the best outside the NHL — was the centrepiece. The transaction got me thinking about how every NHL organization values drafting, developing, trading for, or signing free agent goalies differently.
Goalies, especially starters, aren’t often traded, and so after cherry-picking some examples of how teams have approached the position, I’m honestly no further ahead in identifying consistent league-wide strategies. Some teams aren’t shy about drafting goaltenders early in the draft, while others are reluctant to invest too much draft capital. Some teams overpay for goalies in free agency, while others methodically develop netminders in the minors before exposing them to NHL shooters.
It can be one of the harder positions to project, no matter how you get your goalie.
Here are some examples of strategies NHL teams have taken when making decisions regarding arguably the most important position on the roster. I’ll also take a look at the Askarov and Jacob Markstrom trades, comparing the situations and returns for each.
Yaroslav Askarov vs. Spencer Knight
When I was the director of scouting in Florida, we selected Spencer Knight in the first round (13th overall) at the 2019 draft. Our staff felt he was the best player available and our GM at the time, Dale Tallon, who loves getting out on the road to scout prospects, agreed.
Knight was coming off a fantastic season at the USNTDP and his athleticism stood out as an elite element of his game. He was big in the net (6-foot-3), and displayed superior focus and competitiveness compared to his peers.
Knight went on to play NCAA hockey at Boston College and before he turned pro after the 2020-21 season, he was widely considered one of the top goalie prospects in the world.
Out of necessity, after Knight exited college to turn pro at the end of his season, the Panthers thrust him into duty at the end of the NHL regular season. Knight impressed the Panthers brass (now led by current GM Bill Zito) by posting a 2.32 GAA and .919 save percentage in four starts. He also saw action in the playoffs versus the Tampa Bay Lightning, appearing in two games and posting a 2.07 GAA and .933 save percentage.
Knight has had to overcome some personal challenges since entering the NHL and so his fast start has been followed up with some growing pains. After two seasons as an NHL backup, he spent all of last season in the AHL with the Charlotte Checkers, but has appeared in 57 regular season NHL games so far in his career, posting a 2.76 GAA and .909 save percentage overall.
Zito and his staff thought so highly of Knight coming out of his entry-level contract that they signed him to an extension which runs through the 2025-26 season and carries a cap hit of $4.5 million. He will be a restricted free agent at the end of that contract with a qualifying offer set a $4.5M — interestingly, Sergei Bobrovsky’s contract concludes the very same season.
Conversely, Askarov had been developing in the Nashville Predators’ organization the past couple seasons and his numbers have been solid at the AHL level with the Milwaukee Admirals. Askarov played 92 games for Milwaukee and posted a 2.54 GAA and .911 save percentage, but unlike Knight, his NHL opportunities haven’t been forthcoming.
Askarov wants to play in the NHL, so he asked for a trade out of Nashville and now finds himself in San Jose. I envision Askarov stopping pucks for the Sharks this season, but it’s going to be challenging. The Sharks are rebuilding and it will take time for their core group of prospects to mature.
Knight and Askarov have something in common. Both were considered the top goalies in their draft class and future No. 1s at the NHL level. They also both had entrenched starters ahead of them on the depth chart when they arrived as pros, with Nashville choosing to extend Juuse Saros for eight years this past summer and Florida signing Sergei Bobrovsky as a UFA while Knight was entering his freshman season of college.
But when looking at their compensation, the comparison between the two goes off the rails.
After San Jose acquired Askarov they immediately signed him to a contract extension that kicks in at the beginning of the 2025-26 season with a $2 million cap hit. Askarov will remain on his entry-level contract this season ($925,000).
Both Askarov and Knight can still be sent to the minors without going through waivers, but Askarov’s contract pays him $80,000 in the minors, whereas Knight’s would pay him his full $4.5 million.
It’s interesting to see how strategically different both goalies with bright futures have been handled.
When to walk away from a first-round goalie
At the 2015 draft, the Washington Capitals selected Ilya Samsonov 22nd overall.
By the time Samsonov had completed his fourth pro season in Washington’s organization the team had lost trust in his trajectory to be their starting goalie of the future and, as an RFA, he wasn’t even given a qualifying offer by the team. He instead became a UFA and signed in Toronto. He had flashes with the Leafs but, in the end, couldn’t hold the job there either.
This summer Samsonov, now 27, signed a one-year, $1.8 million contract with the Vegas Golden Knights, where he’ll play behind Adin Hill. The Capitals, after Samsonov, addressed the position with veterans in other ways. First, they signed Darcy Kuemper as a free agent then, after trading him to Los Angeles for Pierre-Luc Dubois two years into the five-year contract, acquired Logan Thompson from Vegas for two third-round picks.
Risk vs. Reward
When Jack Campbell arrived in Toronto via trade from the LA Kings, he was reunited with Leafs GM Kyle Dubas who had previously acquired Campbell from the Windsor Spitfires to suit up with the OHL’s Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds.
Campbell was generally solid in the regular season with the Leafs and his goals-against average and save percentage landed in the top half of the NHL overall. But by the time he had played even half a season’s worth of regular-season NHL games, he was already 30 years old.
When the Edmonton Oilers signed him as a free agent, Campbell had only played 135 NHL games and hadn’t won a playoff round. The contract didn’t work out, the team bought out the remaining two years of it, and now he’ll count against their cap through 2027-28.
Another example of risk not adding up to a reward happened in Ottawa last season when the Senators signed Joonas Korpisalo to a five-year contract carrying an AAV of $4 million. Korpisalo wasn’t the answer and was dealt to the Boston Bruins for Linus Ullmark this off-season.
The Senators are better off with Ullmark between the posts, but the trickle-down effect of signing Korpisalo in the first place has been costly for Ottawa. The Sens retained $1 million per year of Korpisalo’s contract (through 2027-28) and gave the Bruins a first-round pick at the most recently completed draft (Dean Letourneau, 25th overall) as well as depth forward Mark Kastelic.
Edmonton and Ottawa thought they were solving their starting goalie problem with these signings, but both turned into examples of how short-term success for veteran goalies don’t necessarily mean they can handle that workload over the long term.
Markstrom trade vs. Askarov trade
As rare as trades are for starting goalies, two were made this summer. Prior to the Sharks picking up Askarov — who, again, projects to play right away — the New Jersey Devils acquired Markstrom from Calgary before the draft in June. The Flames got defenceman Kevin Bahl and a 2025 first-round pick in return for Markstrom, who has two years with a cap hit of $6 million remaining on his contract. He also had a no-movement clause in that contract, so had to approve a move to New Jersey.
The Devils were desperate to upgrade their goaltending this off-season, after using five different goalies in 2023-24. Outside of Kaapo Kahkonen, who only played six games, the other four netminders (Vitek Vanecek, Nico Daws, Akira Schmid and Jake Allen) combined for a goals-against average of 3.15 and save percentage of .895. As a result, the Devils dropped back from being a 112-point team on the rise, to one that missed the playoffs. Markstrom’s stat line wasn’t outstanding last year, but his 2.78 GAA and .905 save percentage are certainly an upgrade for the Devils, who should improve as a team in front of him this season.
What’s interesting to me is looking at the return Calgary received in the trade compared to what the Predators got for Askarov.
Bahl, 24, is a mostly defensive defenceman. He’s a big body (6-foot-6, 230 pounds) who played all 82 games last season. He plays with a physical presence and gets in the lane to block shots.
I’m assuming New Jersey will be much improved this year, so the 2025 first-round pick the Flames received will likely land in the bottom third of the first-round. It’s top 10 protected anyway, so if the Devils do struggle that much again, it will convert to a 2026 first-rounder.
Which brings me back to the San Jose/Nashville transaction involving Askarov.
Askarov was the centrepiece of the deal, and a potential No. 1 NHL puck stopper who the Sharks can build around — but his NHL experience is limited. San Jose sent back a package that includes Vegas’ 2025 first-rounder and prospect David Edstrom, a first-round pick himself (32nd overall) from 2023. So, did Nashville get more in their trade for Askarov than Calgary did for Markstrom — and should they have?
I actually believe both goalies offer the same kind of value to the teams that acquired them, but for different reasons:
• Askarov fits the rebuild model in San Jose, while Markstrom fits the “win now” mode the Devils believe they are entering as an organization.
• Markstrom should give the Devils a better chance to win more games right away.
• Askarov will endure more losing than he has ever had to deal with in San Jose, but he immediately becomes their goalie of the future and part of their process.
Which brings me to my conclusion when comparing these trades:
• Edstrom is a potential top six centre and the Predators improved their forward depth by acquiring the 6-foot-3, 190-pound forward. Edstrom, at worst, will provide secondary scoring. He can be deployed in all situations.
• The pick Nashville acquired has some stipulations, but the most likely outcome is that they’ll be picking somewhere in the 20s with Vegas’ selection in 2025. I’m projecting Vegas to finish with a record similar to New Jersey’s.
• Calgary ends up with a serviceable bottom pairing, shut-down, defender in Bahl and a 2025 first-round pick that is likely to land in the 20s. It’s also important to remember Markstrom will turn 35 years old halfway through this season.
• In my opinion, San Jose paid more for Askarov than New Jersey paid for Markstrom. But this speaks to a couple things: the value these teams placed on a veteran goalie compared to a potential young — albeit still developing — starting goalie with a bright future, and the timeline the two buyers see themselves on.
Markstrom in San Jose wouldn’t have made a lot of sense. And if you’re New Jersey, would a more expensive package for a promising, yet unproven in the NHL, Askarov have guaranteed enough of a forward push in the short-term?
Closing thoughts
As I said at the outset of my analysis, predicting the strategies NHL clubs will take for goalies is a difficult task.
When possible, teams will prefer to value homegrown prospects and veterans between the pipes (Thatcher Demko in Vancouver, Ilya Sorokin with the New York Islanders), but sometimes team have to turn over their goaltending more frequently (Vegas Golden Knights from Marc Andre Fleury Robin Lehner, to Logan Thompson, Adin Hill).
But one thing remains consistent: When an NHL club is fortunate to have an elite No. 1 goalie, they hold on to them as long as they possibly can. The likes of Andrei Vasilevskiy (TB), Igor Shesterkin (NYR) and Connor Hellebuyck (WPG) are worth their weight in gold.
Outside of being lucky to draft someone like that, teams can often whiff on the free agent market or, on a rare occasion, dip into an ill-defined trade market.
