2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

One problem with a rebuild is our goaltending situation. Wolf is ready, and he’s insanely good. I think that, even if you decide to move a bunch of guys, we’re going to find ourselves in one of two situations:

1. Wolf is good enough that we stay afloat in the 8-12 range of draft picks
2. Wolf somehow doesn’t pan out, which leaves us with absolutely nothing in net for when we’re trying to come out of a rebuild

Basically, if we do end up in the 1-4 range a couple times, it means our younger guys are significantly worse than we thought and we have significantly further to go.

The other thing against any rebuild is the age of the defensemen:

Kylington 25
Andersson 26
Hanifin 26
Zadorov 27
Weegar 29

When you have a D core like that, right in their prime, you don't rebuild. And then you add Wolf to that. IMO, that means you look for a quick and ongoing retooling with the forwards

[Remember1989]

Re: rebuild conversation: should an organization look at the teams within the division as another indicator as whether a rebuild is worth pursuing? In the Flames case does management look at Edmonton and think that they just can’t sink too low in the same timeframe during which Edmonton is living off the spoils of their lotto riches? I can see both ways, one where you want to keep market share and another where you decide you don’t have the weaponry and need to regroup.

[Burning Beard]

Yeah Wolf is a wildcard right now. If he pans out and you have a great goalie are you really wanting to tank?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

But why? A 3OA is a 3OA. And the two top 5s were obtained pretty early in their careers.

A drafted 3OA is a ‘free’ add to the team, but trading for a 3OA requires subtraction of good players, prospects, and/or future picks. They are also more likely to be cost-effective during their RFA years. Lindholm and Hanifan are rare examples of high picks traded during their RFA years and signing decent deals.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

Yeah Wolf is a wildcard right now. If he pans out and you have a great goalie are you really wanting to tank?

Yes!!!!!
He’s done almost everything else in his career he can possibly hope for, so, let’s tank and teach him how to lose!!!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by edslunch

A drafted 3OA is a ‘free’ add to the team, but trading for a 3OA requires subtraction of good players, prospects, and/or future picks. They are also more likely to be cost-effective during their RFA years. Lindholm and Hanifan are rare examples of high picks traded during their RFA years and signing decent deals.

They didn’t subtract anyone that was going to be on the team going forward for this one. And they got a Dman, first round pick and a prospect.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They didn’t subtract anyone that was going to be on the team going forward for this one. And they got a Dman, first round pick and a prospect.

The comparison is drafting a top three vs trading for one and why is drafting one better. It would like adding a 3OA to a team that still had Tkachuk vs. trading him for a former 3OA+.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The comparison is drafting a top three vs trading for one and why is drafting one better. It would like adding a 3OA to a team that still had Tkachuk vs. trading him for a former 3OA+.

Well, in order to draft a 3OA, you have to remove good players from your team. Nothing is free.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well, in order to draft a 3OA, you have to remove good players from your team. Nothing is free.

Yeah, isn’t the idea of tanking that you sell the good players?

[NegativeSpace]

Thank you for this discussion. It adds some nuance to the more common complaint of tanking just because ...

[Ashasx]

I don't really understand this "it takes 8-10 years to do a full rebuild" talk.

Yeah, Colorado didn't win until year 9 of Mackinnon, but they had made it to the 2nd round three times before that, won the President's Trophy, and have had a few good regular seasons sprinkled in.

They've had extreme ups and downs throughout that period but nobody is arguing against that.

The Lightning have followed a similar but more successful (and consistent) path. Yes, they didn't win in year 3 of their rebuild, but they had been building something competitive long before they attained the goal.

I don't think many rebuilds will result in you winning the Cup when your young stars are still on their ELCs (Chicago, Pittsburgh) and I don't think it's the only path to success (St. Louis), but it is unquestionably the easiest when you are located in an undesirable market.

[Enoch Root]

What rebuilds have taken any less? (someone came up with one, last time this was asked)

Colorado won in year 9 of MacKinnon, but when did they start the rebuild?

Tampa is hard to rectify, because they went up and down for a few years - but they won 12 years after drafting Stamkos

You say that a rebuild is "unquestionably the easiest" path to the cup, but what evidence do you have of that? Most teams that rebuild don't win the cup from it.

Winning the cup requires a lot of things going right for the franchise - probably the #1 thing is lucking out on getting some star players out of nowhere (fourth round or whatever)

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think the standard for a "successful" rebuild should be the Stanley Cup or nothing.

[Ashasx]

If you're saying a rebuild is only complete when they win the Cup, then the Flames have been floating in purgatory for over 30 years.

If your measure of "complete" is only when you win the big trophy, then you already limit the available paths you have to success.

These teams were competitive years before they won the Cup.

Truly, how long would it take for the Flames to go from a rebuild simply to where they are right now? I'd still rather be a bubble playoff team with 22 and 23 year old playing big roles than a bubble playoff team where your best player is 29.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think the standard for a "successful" rebuild should be the Stanley Cup or nothing.

Why not? It seems to be the only standard for the Flames, for the fans that are constantly clambering for one..

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If you're saying a rebuild is only complete when they win the Cup, then the Flames have been floating in purgatory for over 30 years.

If your measure of "complete" is only when you win the big trophy, then you already limit the available paths you have to success.

These teams were competitive years before they won the Cup.

Truly, how long would it take for the Flames to go from a rebuild simply to where they are right now? I'd still rather be a bubble playoff team with 22 and 23 year old playing big roles than a bubble playoff team where your best player is 29.

Again, the Flames have had some playoff success too, without rebuilding.

Pick a goalpost and stick with it.

What would the purpose of sucking for 8-10 years be, if there weren't a grail at the end of the journey?

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think the standard for a "successful" rebuild should be the Stanley Cup or nothing.

Perhaps some consistent playoff wins?

[bluejays]

There is no quick way to rebuild. Look what Burke did in Toronto unnecessarily going for Kessel. You gotta take your two or three seasons of pain to draft a couple home runs. It’s a necessary pill to swallow. Ownership is going to get a lot of pissed off season ticket holders if they keep being mediocre and not resorting to a rebuild. The time was yesterday but they keep putting it off. So aggravating.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again, the Flames have had some playoff success too, without rebuilding.

Pick a goalpost and stick with it.

What would the purpose of sucking for 8-10 years be, if there weren't a grail at the end of the journey?

The Flames have had some playoff success? Come on.

My argument is that the best way to win the championship in the NHL is to position your team for many years of success (i.e., runs at the Cup) because luck plays such a large role in the playoffs that the best teams don't always win it every year.

The best way to be competitive over several years is by building through the draft where you have cost controlled players on ELCs and during their RFA years. You should obviously be looking for efficiencies via trade and free agency, but true gamebreakers are rarely acquired this way.

Regardless of whether the team wins the Cup, it's still more entertaining for fans to see their team build towards something, build relationships with players, even if it's not a linear or guaranteed path to success.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by bluejays

There is no quick way to rebuild. Look what Burke did in Toronto unnecessarily going for Kessel. You gotta take your two or three seasons of pain to draft a couple home runs. It’s a necessary pill to swallow. Ownership is going to get a lot of pissed off season ticket holders if they keep being mediocre and not resorting to a rebuild. The time was yesterday but they keep putting it off. So aggravating.

It is not a given that two or three years on the bottom will lead to a good team. Teams like Edmonton, Arizona, Buffalo have been there more than a decade. That is probably just as common as the Pittsburg and Chicago stories.