2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[ForeverFlameFan]

The answer is simple: Play your young guys, give them opportunity in tough situations. Obviously if they cannot handle it, then the veterans take the bulk of the minutes. But you can't write off a prospect without giving them the opportunity prove themself. If Conroy remains firm in that decision and goes through with it, we are going to see players step up, prospects come out of nowhere and earn their spot instantly, or with great progression for future seasons. It is then we can continue to trim out the fat of those that are either getting paid too much, contract expires, or even trade them for assets so we can allocate the space for extensions for the younger guys. Note that I didn't say overpaying veterans in free agency.

Some may not like this, but with a new GM and new coach we've had to hit the reset button on expectations, but, making sure there is a huge emphasis on working hard and earning your spot in the lineup. It would be a great time to be a Flames prospect with the big door of opportunity right in front of you. Sadly, many prospects pre-Conroy couldn't say that same. Can't declare anything yet though, let's see how it plays out in preseason. Probably one of the biggest preseasons for the Flames with a few forward spots open for whoever is hungry for it.

Draft, draft, draft. We have great scouts, get more picks. It's one of our strengths.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They pretty much did win in 2020 without Stamkos (in the POs).

Detroit - people have to remember that half of TB wasn't built by Yzerman. I thought he did good things, but he's no guaranteed success. He didn't step into a team with Stamkos and Hedman on it. He didn't exactly build TB through a tank either. His only top 5 draft pick was Drouin at 3OA, who is a near bust. His first draft in 2010 was a dud (who knows how much he did). He did very well in 2011, getting Kucherov in round two and Palat in round 7 (!). He found Vasilevsky in late round one in 2012 (after wasting an earlier pick on Koekkoek). And he found Point and Cirelli in mid rounds. That's it.

Just to add to your Detroit and Yzerman thought. Yzerman and the Wings have had a slew of extra picks going back to 2019 when he joined. Napkin math I think he has picked around 51 players in 5 drafts. He has hit on a couple 1st rounders, but that is to be expected when you have drafted high (6,4,6, 8,15, and 9 in the last 5 years. Time will tell on the last couple drafts).

I think the difference is in those extra high picks in the 2nd and 3rd that Detroit picked up over the years. Typically I think you will know a few years removed from a draft if you have hit something. We are now at that point that those 5 extra picks in the 2nd and 3rd from those first couple drafts are something that will move the needle. They haven't graduated much after the first round in his tenure there. Not a sure thing yet, but they are reminiscent of the Oilers back in the day, where they struggled to get players outside of the first round or whiffed on a 1st rounder.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Uh, no. When did the Flames have any deep playoff runs, I must have missed it.

So what? This isn't about the Flames specifically.

The lightning weren't bouncing between first round losses and missing the playoffs each year, if that was the case they very well might have questioned how their build was going.

Actually, they did that for a while before emerging as a contender.

But they were clearly a contender and they had lengthy playoff success to prove it.

Did St. Louis have lengthy playoff success when they went from DFL to the Cup in half a season? Did Vegas? Did Colorado? Not ‘compared to the Flames’, because this is not about the Flames. But was anybody picking those teams as favourites before they won?

Tampa Bay is the most consistent playoff performer out of all recent Cup winners, yet even that team has first-round blowouts and DNQ's mixed in with the successes.

Here is my point, which several of you seem intent on missing:

Building a good team is a necessary condition for playoff success, but it is not a SUFFICIENT condition. No condition is sufficient, because playoff success requires luck as well.

Therefore, you can't simply point at a team and say, ‘These guys are no good because they haven't succeeded in the playoffs.’ People were saying the Capitals could never win a championship – until they did. They said the Blues could never win – until they did. I recall the same kind of talk about the Kings. Conversely, last season's Bruins were an absolute shoo-in to win it all – until they lost in the first round, at which point the usual suspects pretended they were a bad team all along and their regular-season record was smoke and mirrors.

It's not the 82 games that are smoke and mirrors. But seven games often are.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Igottago

6/8 years, the Lightning were either knocking on the door of the finals, in the finals, or they won (twice). So 75% of those years they were in a real contending position. Not sure how he thinks that's lightning in a bottle. He hung himself with his own evidence.

And then he mentioned Vegas, which had a similar arch before winning, lol.

I mentioned Vegas to show that a champion does not have to be built through the draft. No other reason. Are you going to say that Vegas built their team by drafting?

Unreal the mental gymnastics people will continue to play to hang on to the "get in and anything can happen" framework the Flames have sold them.

As long as you think I'm defending the Flames here, you'll completely misunderstand what I am saying.

The thing about sports management is that nobody knows what they are doing. The one thing I have observed in fifty years of watching the NHL is that nobody ever built a championship team by trying to copy the last one – but GMs keep trying it all the same. And fans, by and large, are worse. In some cases, their recency bias amounts to idolatry.

[Jason14h]

Flames could start by building a good team, in any manner

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Flames could start by building a good team, in any manner

They had one before Tkachuk and Gaudreau walked

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Bonded

They had one before Tkachuk and Gaudreau walked

You could certainly argue that they weren't good enough at that stage. The results were inconsistent and ultimately they didn't accomplish much of anything. When you're in and out of the playoffs as often as that team was, the team itself still isn't good enough.

...but yeah, we were a lot closer with Tkachuk and Gaudreau than we are today.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

You could certainly argue that they weren't good enough at that stage. The results were inconsistent and ultimately they didn't accomplish much of anything. When you're in and out of the playoffs as often as that team was, the team itself still isn't good enough.

...but yeah, we were a lot closer with Tkachuk and Gaudreau than we are today.

Yeah, but I think they would have gone on a few more runs and actually had the talent to go on a deep playoff run. Team as is will need a God mode goaltender to go deep and that isn't looking promising unless Wolf steps in and dominates.

[Bingo]

You don't win a conference and then a division in three years without building something damn competitive.

Some act like they've finished 8th place one year, 9th the next and nothing else for the last dozen years.

It didn't work out, but that doesn't mean they weren't close or that it could have.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I mentioned Vegas to show that a champion does not have to be built through the draft. No other reason. Are you going to say that Vegas built their team by drafting?



As long as you think I'm defending the Flames here, you'll completely misunderstand what I am saying.

The thing about sports management is that nobody knows what they are doing. The one thing I have observed in fifty years of watching the NHL is that nobody ever built a championship team by trying to copy the last one – but GMs keep trying it all the same. And fans, by and large, are worse. In some cases, their recency bias amounts to idolatry.

I tend to agree. There are as many GM’s who fall ass backwards into landing their elite/franchise players as there are GM’s who get them through tanking. Look no further than the boneheads up north. They didn’t want to draft 1OA in 2015. They entered the season trying to win. Columbus sure as hell didn’t sign Gaudreau and extend Liane thinking they were going to draft 3OA.

The game is too random on the ice and you could argue the league is too random off the ice. I think teams chart an overall direction and operate within that definition. Obviously, for the Flames, it is to be competitive and try to make the playoffs. Agree with it or not, the evidence seems pretty conclusive that is how they define success.

Honestly, I think the best we can hope for, short of an injury filled season, is the Flames have a fortunate draft similar to the Stars in 2017. They got lucky and won the lottery. They left that draft with Hiskenin, Ottenger, and Robertson. They finished 10th in the western conference the year before.

[Enoch Root]

It is a common argument that teams need to pick top 4 (or top 3, or whatever) in order to win the cup. And it is often quoted that almost every cup winner has top 4 picks on the roster (well yeah, because almost every team has top 4 picks on their roster), so I thought I would run some numbers.

In order to try and minimize bias, I chose a 20-year drafting period (1999-2018), with a 5-year lag for cup winners (2004-2023). First, I summed the total number of top 4 picks during the first period, then correlated that against the cup winners from the second period. Some findings:

Average number of picks: 2.58
Correlation: 0.036 -no correlation whatsoever
Most picks: FLA:7, WIN: 7, EDM: 6, CBJ: 6 - zero cups between them!
Fewest picks: DET: 0, SJS: 0, VGS: 0 - two cups between them
There were 6 more teams with 1 pick, 2 cups (ANA and BOS), so 20% of the cups were won by teams with 1 or 0 top 4 picks

CHI (3 picks, 3 cups), PIT (4 and 3) and TBL (4 and 3) are the examples that support the argument, but I think what we're really seeing here are the 3 examples where teams managed to acquire significant elite talent. And it isn't about the number of picks, it's about the good fortune of having several elite talents gel together, because the counter-argument is that the 4 teams with the most picks have had no success at all.

I then decided to weight the picks (because a 1OA is worth more than a 4OA) giving 4 pts to a 1OA, 3 to a 2OA, 2 for a 3OA and 1 for a 4th, and re-ran the correlation. This time there was some correlation, at 0.125 - but still not very significant, but at least something. The teams with the most pts were as follows:

WIN (and ATL): 20, 0 cups
EDM: 19, 0
FLA: 16, 0
PIT: 14, 3
CBJ: 12, 0
TBL, 11, 3
COL: 10, 1
BUF: 10, 0

And at the other end:
DET: 0, 1
SJS: 0, 0
VGS: 0, 1
CGY: 1, 0
NAS: 2, 0
NYR: 1, 0
DAL: 2, 0

This all begged the question: what if I use the top 3 picks? And the correlations were as follows (first with the number of picks, then valuing the top picks more): 0.168 and 0.167, so they were a little higher. Not sure if that tells us anything new, however.

Then I did the top 2 picks: 0.171 and 0.152

Then just the 1OAs: 0.105

All of this suggests that there is only the weakest of cases that more high draft picks will increase your odds of winning the cup (almost no evidence at all). Certainly not enough to make a tear-down a very enticing argument, either for the fans or the organization.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

... so 20% of the cups were won by teams with 1 or 0 top 4 picks

So, 80% of the Cups were won by teams with 2 or more top 4 picks.

And 90% of the Cups were won by teams with at least 1 top 4 pick.

And multiple Cup winners (3 or more) had 3-4 picks.

I know what side of the odds I want to be on.

So, while rebuilding hard does not guarantee you a Cup, rebuilding hard is about the only chance you have of being a repeat winner.

[Moneyhands23]

God, we are going to be in a playoff spot in January with lindy and hanifin still on the team with expiring contracts.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So, 80% of the Cups were won by teams with 2 or more top 4 picks.

And 90% of the Cups were won by teams with at least 1 top 4 pick. And 90% of teams HAVE at least 1 top 4 pick

And multiple Cup winners (3 or more) had 3-4 picks. and most teams with 3 or more picks didn't win any cups

I know what side of the odds I want to be on. what these numbers showed is that the odds aren't really changed by having more picks

So, while rebuilding hard does not guarantee you a Cup, rebuilding hard is about the only chance you have of being a repeat winner. actually it didn't show that at all

...

[Monahammer]

Enoch I appreciate this because no one has previously (that I have seen) actually statistically refuted the top 5 draft pick point over the last 15 years we've all been discussing it. Ok probably more like 11-12 or whenever Iggy got traded.

However, I would say that you should remove the worst outliers on either side for better results. Edmonton shouldn't even enter the statistical field, and probably should discount the vegas' and seattles' of the league for lack of time. Detroit can be the opposite statistical example to Edmonton. Re run the numbers without those.

[Monahammer]

Edmonton's failure to convert talent into wins is legendary and absolutely a massive statistical outlier. I don't think any club will ever match this legacy of utter failure. As pointed out earlier, they failed so hard at this that the league literally changed the rules because of it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Enoch I appreciate this because no one has previously (that I have seen) actually statistically refuted the top 5 draft pick point over the last 15 years we've all been discussing it. Ok probably more like 11-12 or whenever Iggy got traded.

However, I would say that you should remove the worst outliers on either side for better results. Edmonton shouldn't even enter the statistical field, and probably should discount the vegas' and seattles' of the league for lack of time. Detroit can be the opposite statistical example to Edmonton. Re run the numbers without those.

The sample size is already tiny. Removing the high and low teams would pretty much make it useless. Also, EDM wasn't the only team with 7, and DET wasn't the only team with 0, so they aren't outliers. Seattle was excluded, but VGS was left in because they won a cup and have been in the league for more than 5 years.

[Enoch Root]

Some more info from the numbers above...

Avg number of picks: 2.58
Avg from cup winners: 2.25

Avg points (ranking the picks): 6.45
Avg from the cup winners: 6.00

If anything, it's PIT and TBL that are the outliers

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So, 80% of the Cups were won by teams with 2 or more top 4 picks.

And 90% of the Cups were won by teams with at least 1 top 4 pick.

And multiple Cup winners (3 or more) had 3-4 picks.

I know what side of the odds I want to be on.

So, while rebuilding hard does not guarantee you a Cup, rebuilding hard is about the only chance you have of being a repeat winner.

Been a while since you took a statistics course?

[Spurs]

I don't think anyone thinks that getting a top pick is an automatic future Cup, or that a tear it down rebuild is a guaranteed Cup. All that has been shown here is that there is no surefire way to win a Cup.

However, the biggest thing needed to win a Cup seems to be have elite talent, and the easiest way to get that elite talent in through top 3 picks in the draft. Especially for a team like Calgary that is unlikely to get players like Eichel, Stone or Pietrangelo to come in FA or trades.

That is why the tear down rebuild is appealing, not because it is a guarantee but because it is by far the most likely way Calgary gets the elite talent they need to compete for a Cup.

We can hope to fluke out with late round picks, hope that some prospect takes a major jump from junior to NHL but that seems very unlikely and hoping for luck is a terrible way to build a team.