2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Groot]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Lol goodness, so reactive.

Are you patting yourself on the back after that?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying -- but what you're showing here is exactly the case against "get in and anything can happen", isn't it?

What this shows is that you need to be a well enough constructed team to have a bunch of shots at contending and some decent level of playoff success over a number of years, in order to get it done, which Tampa absolutely did before getting their cups. They had deep playoff runs, and ultimately they won twice and had the opportunity to win a few more. Isn't this pretty much the best example of what you'd want a team to be? Its as close to dynasty territory you can get in the modern game.

Who cares about the one off seasons they got bounced early.

The Lightning's owners don't care about the one-off seasons. That's why they didn't burn the team to the ground after getting swept by Columbus.

Compare that to the typical attitude around here, which is to call for a total rebuild every off-season. If the Lightning ran their hockey ops the way some fans want the Flames to run theirs, they'd be in the bottom of a rebuild now, cursing their luck because they didn't draft Bedard.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

When did the last David win the Stanley Cup? Was it the 1986 Montreal Canadiens? I cannot think of a David since then that has won the Stanley Cup.

So what? The average NHL team will win the Stanley Cup approximately twice in your lifetime, and every one of them will need luck to do it. Nobody makes a business plan based on a goal they have only a 3% chance of achieving.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by traptor

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but your takeaway from Tampa's history is that playoffs are random and any team that gets in can win it??

No, my takeaway is that playoffs have a big random element and even the best team can fall flat on its face. Winning the Stanley Cup is not a goal, it's a dream. There is no sure-fire way to do it. When big, tough teams win, all the copycat GMs try to make their own teams big and tough, and guess what? They never win. When fast, skilled teams win, the copycats chase that. When a team wins the Cup with a generational player, the really stupid organizations try to fail their way into landing the next one – and end up like Edmonton with McDavid, if they're lucky. (If not, they end up like Buffalo with Eichel.) All the pundits say you have to build a champion through the draft – and then along came Vegas. The only hard and fast rule is that there is no hard and fast rule.

The Lightning got swept in the first round the year they won the Presidents' Trophy – but that did not make them a bad team. They were distinctly worse in each of the regular seasons when they made the Cup finals. This was not by design: they would have finished first overall every year if they could. Losing to Columbus was the kind of bad luck that can happen to any team. Winning the Cup is something that cannot happen to any team without good luck.

(Sometimes the good luck takes the form of some other team knocking off your most dangerous opponent. You can bet the Golden Knights thanked their lucky stars they did not have to face Boston in the finals.)

What I am saying is that you can't judge the quality of a team by playoff success, because winning the Cup requires catching lightning in a bottle and nobody can count on that.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Lightning's owners don't care about the one-off seasons. That's why they didn't burn the team to the ground after getting swept by Columbus.

Compare that to the typical attitude around here, which is to call for a total rebuild every off-season. If the Lightning ran their hockey ops the way some fans want the Flames to run theirs, they'd be in the bottom of a rebuild now, cursing their luck because they didn't draft Bedard.

Uh, no. When did the Flames have any deep playoff runs, I must have missed it. 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. But they were clearly a contender and they had lengthy playoff success to prove it. Let's chat again when the Flames have any evidence of that sort.

Totally different situation.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Sandman

I think Francis was pretty consistent in his claim that JG wasn't going to sign here.....

Recall also that Francis was adamant that Gaudreau wasn’t going to sign his ELC with the Flames, and would use the college loophole.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, my takeaway is that playoffs have a big random element and even the best team can fall flat on its face. Winning the Stanley Cup is not a goal, it's a dream. There is no sure-fire way to do it. When big, tough teams win, all the copycat GMs try to make their own teams big and tough, and guess what? They never win. When fast, skilled teams win, the copycats chase that. When a team wins the Cup with a generational player, the really stupid organizations try to fail their way into landing the next one – and end up like Edmonton with McDavid, if they're lucky. (If not, they end up like Buffalo with Eichel.) All the pundits say you have to build a champion through the draft – and then along came Vegas. The only hard and fast rule is that there is no hard and fast rule.

The Lightning got swept in the first round the year they won the Presidents' Trophy – but that did not make them a bad team. They were distinctly worse in each of the regular seasons when they made the Cup finals. This was not by design: they would have finished first overall every year if they could. Losing to Columbus was the kind of bad luck that can happen to any team. Winning the Cup is something that cannot happen to any team without good luck.

(Sometimes the good luck takes the form of some other team knocking off your most dangerous opponent. You can bet the Golden Knights thanked their lucky stars they did not have to face Boston in the finals.)

What I am saying is that you can't judge the quality of a team by playoff success, because winning the Cup requires catching lightning in a bottle and nobody can count on that.

I understand your point and generally agree. However, a team has to be good enough to make the playoffs in decent seeding multiple times in a row to get an opportunity to have a run like Tampa did. The Gaudreau Flames teams weren’t that because they have one year in the playoffs and one year out. That feels closer to a bubble team - even if they are high seeds on good years. They cannot play consistently well enough to be an upper echelon team. It was that consistency that was maddening.

They missed several years with just terrible seasons. Except for the last playoffs they really didn’t seem all that dangerous in the playoffs. We will see if this retooled Flames has any success, but it will be hard to track as so many key players may turn over.

I’m not that down on what they are trying to do. If the resign Lindholm then I think they’ll be competitive next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Just my opinion but I know the flames presented a offer around 68Million and he didn't sign it so...

Is that recent? If so they came up a bit as the number I got was 65.4

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Is that recent? If so they came up a bit as the number I got was 65.4

You got a source, Snuffy?

[Nelson]

I don’t know anything about building and re-building. I just want the Flames to stop trading draft picks like they don’t matter. Draft lots and draft well, every year. I’m hoping Conroy does that.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I don’t know anything about building and re-building. I just want the Flames to stop trading draft picks like they don’t matter. Draft lots and draft well, every year. I’m hoping Conroy does that.

I think moving picks only makes sense if they acquire a piece like Hamilton who was 22 and signed for 6 years immediately after the trade. 1st rounders for a year and a half of Toffoli, 3 years of Hamonic, dumping 1 year of Monahan are the deals they need to avoid.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, my takeaway is that playoffs have a big random element and even the best team can fall flat on its face. Winning the Stanley Cup is not a goal, it's a dream. There is no sure-fire way to do it. When big, tough teams win, all the copycat GMs try to make their own teams big and tough, and guess what? They never win. When fast, skilled teams win, the copycats chase that. When a team wins the Cup with a generational player, the really stupid organizations try to fail their way into landing the next one – and end up like Edmonton with McDavid, if they're lucky. (If not, they end up like Buffalo with Eichel.) All the pundits say you have to build a champion through the draft – and then along came Vegas. The only hard and fast rule is that there is no hard and fast rule.

The Lightning got swept in the first round the year they won the Presidents' Trophy – but that did not make them a bad team. They were distinctly worse in each of the regular seasons when they made the Cup finals. This was not by design: they would have finished first overall every year if they could. Losing to Columbus was the kind of bad luck that can happen to any team. Winning the Cup is something that cannot happen to any team without good luck.

(Sometimes the good luck takes the form of some other team knocking off your most dangerous opponent. You can bet the Golden Knights thanked their lucky stars they did not have to face Boston in the finals.)

What I am saying is that you can't judge the quality of a team by playoff success, because winning the Cup requires catching lightning in a bottle and nobody can count on that.

Not really sure how you can compare Tampa. Yeah they lost in the 1st round. They also had multiple deep runs before that winning 7 rounds total in the 3 years before that. If the flames had been doing that over the last 3 years I dont think anyone would be clamoring for a rebuild.

You also bring in vegas. They're one of the most attractive markets that was able to bring in elite players like stone, eichel and pietrangelo. Again they've made multiple deep runs.

The takeaway should be that you need to be consistently around it to win. Consistent playoff appearances and multiple deep runs.
This is not the flames currently..

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I think moving picks only makes sense if they acquire a piece like Hamilton who was 22 and signed for 6 years immediately after the trade. 1st rounders for a year and a half of Toffoli, 3 years of Hamonic, dumping 1 year of Monahan are the deals they need to avoid.

A team can certainly pick its opportunities to trade draft picks while also drafting lots and drafting well.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Nelson

A team can certainly pick its opportunities to trade draft picks while also drafting lots and drafting well.

That’s true and so far with only 1 of the 7 pending UFA’s dealt with and only a single 3rd round pick returned in trade it remains to be seen if Conroy will be able to execute the plan you hope for.

[bigpete]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

When did the last David win the Stanley Cup? Was it the 1986 Montreal Canadiens? I cannot think of a David since then that has won the Stanley Cup.

David Krejci, David Bolland, David Andreychuk...and that's just off the top of my head.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

When it comes to Lindy, and any UFA really - why would they sign prior to this season? Lindy didn’t have a banger of a season last year (few did on the team), and the salary cap is projected/expected to go up a decent clip next year.

Easy answer is security. All comes down to how much they want to bet on themselves. If the Flames are in the 8.5-9 range on an eight year contract, he is looking at 68-72 million dollars.

If he has another stinker of a season then maybe he is looking at 7-8 million dollar deal on a 7 year contract, looking at 49-56 million.

If Lindholm gets back to a ppg is someone going to pay him 10 million on an 8 year contract? I kind of doubt it. I think he has more downside risk with the Flames in flux even in the context of a rising cap.

[TheIronMaiden]

How often does a team truly come out of nowhere to win a cup?

The 2019 Blues and 2012 Kings come to mind. Otherwise it has been teams with a pedigree.

You could even argue that the Blues didn't come from nowhere, they had made the playoffs 6/7 years before winning the cup ( granted the one year they missed was the year before they won the cup)


With the kings they had already made the playoffs twice in a row before winning, and though it was a surprise it was not "luck" they had three future hall of famers in three power positions, Centre, Defence and Goal.


I agree that there is not a clear formula, but it is also clear that teams are going to the playoffs consistently before they hit pay dirt. The Flames have only made the playoffs twice in a row once since 2009. They have a long ways to go before there is a legitimate chance at contenting.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

How often does a team truly come out of nowhere to win a cup?

The 2019 Blues and 2012 Kings come to mind. Otherwise it has been teams with a pedigree.

You could even argue that the Blues didn't come from nowhere, they had made the playoffs 6/7 years before winning the cup ( granted the one year they missed was the year before they won the cup)


With the kings they had already made the playoffs twice in a row before winning, and though it was a surprise it was not "luck" they had three future hall of famers in three power positions, Centre, Defence and Goal.


I agree that there is not a clear formula, but it is also clear that teams are going to the playoffs consistently before they hit pay dirt. The Flames have only made the playoffs twice in a row once since 2009. They have a long ways to go before there is a legitimate chance at contenting.

Blues were very solid depth, good team defence, and a goalie on a hot streak. It is pretty much the model the current version of the Flames have to hope to emulate.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by bigpete

David Krejci, David Bolland, David Andreychuk...and that's just off the top of my head.

I mean, does Dave Andreychuk count as a "David" for this stat?


(I'm kidding, don't shoot the entertainment. I'm here all week. Try the tuna.)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, my takeaway is that playoffs have a big random element and even the best team can fall flat on its face. Winning the Stanley Cup is not a goal, it's a dream. There is no sure-fire way to do it.

Has anyone here suggested there’s a surefire way to win the Cup? You’re tilting at strawmen. What people have argued is that having an elite core seems to be necessary for a team to make multiple deep playoff runs in the span of 6 or 7 seasons. And history bears that out.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What I am saying is that you can't judge the quality of a team by playoff success, because winning the Cup requires catching lightning in a bottle and nobody can count on that.

Then what can you judge teams by? Do you think Tampa and Winnipeg fans should be equally happy with what their teams have achieved in the last decade? Winnipeg has made the playoffs more often than not. Is that all fans can expect, and the rest is all a matter of luck?

Winning the Cup in a 32 team league is difficult. It’s unfair to make it the only measure of success. However, winning playoff rounds and getting closer to the Cup is not a matter of pure chance. Fans are not out of line to expect their team to win a couple rounds every few years, and to play in the conference finals a couple times when their franchise is at the top of its development cycle.