2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Most teams' average would be very close to 92 points because, you know, 92 points is about the average total each year, and if you take each team's average, it will probably be close to the overall average. SHOCKING!

But let's take a look at the numbers...

The Flames have been in Calgary for 43 seasons, in that time, they have finished between 13th and 19th (inclusive), 12 times. Big whoop. Meanwhile, they have finished top 8 13 times, and bottom 8 11 times.

And the only time they had any string of mushy middle seasons was 06/07 through 11/12 where they had 5 of them in 6 years. Besides that string, they have only had 7 other mushy middle seasons in their history.

This is so arbitrary... I mean, you specify the total number of seasons but specifically leave out 7 seasons that don't fall in your abitrary categories (would make them all mushy middle seasons incidentally.) Further, if you eliminate our dominant 80s seasons (as we are all fond of doing for the oilers, for example, because they're literally ancient history), then the numbers get substantially worse.

I don't get why y'all act like i'm ####ting on the kitchen table here. I am far away from the first person to even point out how consistently mediocre/ middling we are. I'm not even trying to be argumentative, but let's be real! We've had one cinderella run over 30 years. It's not like we've got organizational pride to consider here.

https://thehockeywriters.com/flames-...rs-mediocrity/

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I can't see Nashville being this bad over a full season. Only teams I think are definitively worse are CHI, SJ, and ANA. They've built up a small cushion, but I really don't think CGY wins much at all from here on out.

Calgary will continue to work hard, so it will take a while for the losses to erode that.

I keep waiting for NSH to turn it around (I was one of their biggest believers before the season started), but they are fast approaching a throw-in-the-towel sell-off.

As for others, sure the only really bad teams are the 3 you mentioned. But the Flames have to OUTSUCK teams the rest of the way, to fall, and we can't expect all of DET, MTL, BUF and UTA to have decent second halfs. Some of them will continue to struggle.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by looooob

even with those provisos it is interesting (and I agree it doesn't argue against the need to tank/and or pick high) the ratio is possibly lower than someone might guess (although the Oilers skew the data )

If you take out the last 6 (which I think is fair- Hughes is 6th and he's just starting to come into his own in the league) that gives 38 players 12 win cups. So about 30% will win at least 1 cup. But if you count the multiple cups that some win there's probably some better info in there.

[albertGQ]

We're too far into the season for us to finish bottom 5. I think bottom 10 is about 50/50

Unfortunately, I can see us finishing bottom 12-17 and then our pick goes to the Habs. we'll be stuck with the two picks in the late 20's

[dammage79]

In an ideal world the Flames end the season within the bottom ten without sacrificing effort. Just because of the Monahan trade conditions.

In the top ten you get a fantastic shot at a top 6 center. That's all I want as a fan.

Whatever happens will happen but I'd hate to see the Flames suffer at the hands of Treliv8ngs final move as GM.

[Trolleydodger]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Lots of those players won multiple cups too.

20 of them. Almost half.

[Enoch Root]

Yeah, it's pretty crazy actually.

Since 1980, so 45 years, minus the lockout, and drop the last 4, so 40 1st overall picks. and only 13 of them have won a cup, which is 32.5%

At the same time, 18 different teams have won the cup (excluding VGS and FLA because we dropped the most recent 4 years). Ignoring that there were only 21 teams, then 26, and using 31 (dropping SEA for the same 4 year issue), that's 58% of teams have won the cup.

Yes, some players have multiple, but it is still pretty shocking that a 1OA draft pick is only a 32% likelihood of hoisting the cup cup.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This is so arbitrary... I mean, you specify the total number of seasons but specifically leave out 7 seasons that don't fall in your abitrary categories (would make them all mushy middle seasons incidentally.) Further, if you eliminate our dominant 80s seasons (as we are all fond of doing for the oilers, for example, because they're literally ancient history), then the numbers get substantially worse.

I don't get why y'all act like i'm ####ting on the kitchen table here. I am far away from the first person to even point out how consistently mediocre/ middling we are. I'm not even trying to be argumentative, but let's be real! We've had one cinderella run over 30 years. It's not like we've got organizational pride to consider here.

https://thehockeywriters.com/flames-...rs-mediocrity/

To the arbitrary point - I did it again with thirds. The results were the same.

It is also arbitrary (and unfair) to remove the 80s. If we remove the one stretch from 07-13 there are only a handful in the other years. In other words, one great stretch (the 80s) and one mushy middle stretch. We shouldn't eliminate either (or any). The Flames experience should include all seasons.

[Monahammer]

Lemieux - 2
Joe Murphy - 1
Modano - 1
Lecavalier - 1
Fleury - 3
Ovechkin - 1
Crosby - 3 (same ones as Fleury though)
Johnson - 1
Kane - 2
Stamkos - 2
Mackinnon - 1
Ekblad - 1

16 cups total if you don't double count the Crosby/Fleury overlaps. 16/38 Seasons were stanley cups won by 1st round picks since 1980.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This is so arbitrary... I mean, you specify the total number of seasons but specifically leave out 7 seasons that don't fall in your abitrary categories (would make them all mushy middle seasons incidentally.) Further, if you eliminate our dominant 80s seasons (as we are all fond of doing for the oilers, for example, because they're literally ancient history), then the numbers get substantially worse.

I don't get why y'all act like i'm ####ting on the kitchen table here. I am far away from the first person to even point out how consistently mediocre/ middling we are. I'm not even trying to be argumentative, but let's be real! We've had one cinderella run over 30 years. It's not like we've got organizational pride to consider here.

https://thehockeywriters.com/flames-...rs-mediocrity/

Do you consider the Leafs to be in the mushy middle?

Your stance seems to be based on believing that the entire last 30 years is indicative of what the team will do in the future. That ignores the fact that there have been different approaches taken at different times, and that the organization seems to be doing some things differently now, then under the previous management.

Everyone knows this is not a successful franchise for the most part. But I don't know how relevant that is to what they are doing right now or what they will do in the future.

[The Fonz]

Only 1 team in the modern era (last 20 years) has won the Stanley Cup without atleast 1 top 3 pick on their roster. Detroit in 2008.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Only 1 team in the modern era (last 20 years) has won the Stanley Cup without atleast 1 top 3 pick on their roster. Detroit in 2008.

This again.

How many teams do not have at least 1 top 3 pick on their roster?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Do you consider the Leafs to be in the mushy middle?

Your stance seems to be based on believing that the entire last 30 years is indicative of what the team will do in the future. That ignores the fact that there have been different approaches taken at different times, and that the organization seems to be doing some things differently now, then under the previous management.

Everyone knows this is not a successful franchise for the most part. But I don't know how relevant that is to what they are doing right now or what they will do in the future.

Thank you- Yes, for the record, I feel like the leafs have been mostly in the middle through those years. Maybe slightly more competitive overall but obviously collapses in the playoffs have to come into play.

I disagree that is my stance, but I can understand and appreciate why it may seem like that. Please allow me to clarify.

I disagree that everyone knows it's not a successful franchise. Why?
Well, it is primarily because there is a lot of talk about building a winner, and team culture, and ensuring success, etc. But my reply is, what would anyone who is part of the flames right now actually know about this? I'm not trying to be mean, or rude, but honestly, what? We have Coleman and Kadri who have won cups recently and been part of clubs with success. So maybe, you argue that those are guys to keep around to impart those wisdoms. But in management? In ownership? In Coaching?

We need to build NEW culture. We don't have history we need to hang on to, or pride we need to hold up, or anything like that. We can start from scratch. Vegas is a great example. We don't need to be an expansion franchise to throw out the old book and start from scratch, we just need to admit the old book is dumb. No one seems to want to do that.

The old book i'm talking about is being overly loyal to players. It's putting feelings and desires ahead of raw statistics and data. It's holding on to players with the outside hope of them being "internal deadline rentals" and sneaking into the playoffs or whatever instead of trading at max value and putting yourselves in a better position. It's this fear of losing enough to have high draft picks!

We have been that way through multiple management teams. It's deeper than that. It's a core philosophy. And i see it emerging again. There's talk about holding Rasmus into next year... People asking why we should trade Vladar... etc. It's all just an endless loop!

We need to throw away that book. It doesnt work. We've been doing it for a long time. We got obscenely lucky drafting Gaudreau and then having Tkachuk slip to us, and that was the closest we got.

So my stance is that we need to throw away this talk of history, winning culture, etc. We don't know about that. The flames havent had that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Only 1 team in the modern era (last 20 years) has won the Stanley Cup without atleast 1 top 3 pick on their roster. Detroit in 2008.

Good thing Calgary has one already.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I already see more signs that they have changed approaches. I don't think they are doing things by the old book, at least referring to the pervious management.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I already see more signs that they have changed approaches. I don't think they are doing things by the old book, at least referring to the pervious management.

Perhaps- I hope that is the case. I am definitely being a pessimist and willing to admit that, but I have not yet seen enough to show that.

[Enoch Root]

Team winning percentage since 1980 (excluding VGS, UTA and SEA):

1 BOS: .592 (insane)
2 WSH: .567
10: CGY .544
14: EDM .532
26: TOR .508
30: ARI: .479

TOR is a lot closer to ARI than they are to CGY

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Perhaps- I hope that is the case. I am definitely being a pessimist and willing to admit that, but I have not yet seen enough to show that.

Hard to show that in less than 2 seasons....this thing is going to take years.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

But think of the winning culture we are creating . It will pay off down the road when the culture will make up for the lack of stars , because winning culture (from guys who really haven’t won much in their careers) is what wins championships

Or something like that

Was this a shot at Conroy? Because he's one guy who's been preaching about the importance of not putting the prospects into a group that is constantly losing and not competitive.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Only 1 team in the modern era (last 20 years) has won the Stanley Cup without atleast 1 top 3 pick on their roster. Detroit in 2008.

This was discussed a couple pages back but it's mostly because in that same period (since the Ovechkin draft in 2004), the only team that didn't draft top 5 at least 1 time was Vegas, and they traded for a couple of top 5 picks (Pietrangelo and Eichel).

So you're stat is correct, but because pretty much every team qualifies for it over the course of a 20 year period.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

To follow up on SuperMatt18's post, not only does every team except Vegas have top 5 picks, but also, the teams with the most are not necessarily the teams winning the most cups. (Team, top 5 picks, cups - post lockout)

CBJ: 7, 0
CHI: 6, 3
EDM: 6, 0
MTL: 6, 0
CAR: 5, 1
PHX: 5, 0
LAK: 5, 2
NYI: 5, 0
COL: 5, 1
NJD: 5, 0
ANA: 4, 1
FLA: 4, 1
BUF: 4, 0
TOR: 4, 0
WSH: 3, 1
PIT: 3, 3
TBL: 3, 2
PHI: 3, 0
WPG: 3, 0
OTT: 3, 0
STL: 2, 1
BOS: 2, 1
NYR: 2, 0
SEA: 2, 0
SJS: 2, 0
VAN: 2, 0
CGY: 1, 0
DAL: 1, 0
NSH: 1, 0
DET: 1, 1
MIN: 1, 0
VGS: 0, 1

There were 14 teams that drafted at least 4 times in the top 5 over that period. Those 14 teams won 9 of the last 19 cups.

There were 18 teams that had 3 or fewer top 5 picks, and those teams have won 10 of the 19 cups. And that includes SEA and VGS who haven't been in the league long.

No correlation whatsoever.