2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm honestly shocked at how many fans see this retool decision as a binary on/off switch.

Teams have 50 contracts, 23 rosters players and 18 going every night. They can make decisions with each and every one of them.

If a team feels the value that Chris Tanev signs at makes more sense than the value of trading him, you do it.

Yes and you can group those players based on a variety of their attributes as you develop an organizational strategy.
One way is by their contract status and role.
The flames have 3 top roster pending UFA's.

Re-signing one of these UFA's on a .477 team, that missed playoffs last season and already has a ton of vet players signed is a half-measure retool.

To me these half measures are a great way to stay on your current trajectory, which for the flames has been the 25-50 percentile team.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Power just turned 21 and Cozen 22

They are Pelletier and Zary age

You already count off their development?

Not counting off their development. Just speculating that if Buffalo wants to truly shake things up, some pieces that most would consider untradable may be available. Again just speculating to start a block buster Buffalo discussion.

Interested to here what others suggest outside of the one to ones already discussed. We need change and they need change.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Assuming Buffalo needs to do something as they are moving in the wrong direction.

I am wondering about a block buster.

To Buffalo: Lindholm, Hanafin, Tanev

To Calgary: Cozens, Power

At first it seems like something Buffalo turns down, but both are only 0.5 pt/g players, with Cozens having a career year last year. On the hook for $7.1 for 6 more years.

It may be crazy, but a good block buster might be what they need

So three guys they can have for free in the summer for 2 young studs that are locked up long term?

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Tre traded a 3rd round pick for 7 games+10 playoffs of Erik Gustafsson. Love to see what would be on the table for 50 games+playoffs of Chris Tanev.

Every GM has trades they lose. My argument is he wins the vast majority of his deals. Do you disagree?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Every GM has trades they lose. My argument is he wins the vast majority of his deals. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree. He does kind of seem to lose his mind a bit at the deadline when it comes to acquiring depth pieces for draft picks.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by traptor

Yes and you can group those players based on a variety of their attributes as you develop an organizational strategy.
One way is by their contract status and role.
The flames have 3 top roster pending UFA's.

Re-signing one of these UFA's on a .477 team, that missed playoffs last season and already has a ton of vet players signed is a half-measure retool.

To me these half measures are a great way to stay on your current trajectory, which for the flames has been the 25-50 percentile team.

Given how the team talks about Tanev, I'd put him pretty high in the intangibles that keep a team from completely sewering when it comes to culture.

If he wants to get paid and / or wants term I don't do it.

If he does a hometown discount and only two years I look at it very closely.

It's a player by player thing in my mind.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Every GM has trades they lose. My argument is he wins the vast majority of his deals. Do you disagree?

Trades? Tree?

He's had 2 bangers and 1 mega bad trade. The rest were mid.

A sneaky one was Sven for a 2nd which ended up being Razz. Other than that I can recall anything making waves outside of the Hamiltom trade tree (acquiring him and then trading him) and the Hamonic trade.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by butterfly

We just voted on it in 2022 and it failed 83-17. I doubt it.

Good stuff but California not approving sports betting is not really relevant to the Utah discussion due to hopefully obvious reasons.

The league isn't going to move the Kings, Sharks and Ducks because you voted against sports betting, but they will consider where to relocate and expand with the current environment.

Gambling itself is legal in California, which means Sportsbooks in casinos and possibly sports complexes is just a matter of time, as one simple step over. Sure you'll maybe be near the last ones to allow it, but it'll come. Utah doesn't even have a casino.

Originally Posted by butterfly

I didn't know that about Canada, what's all the complaining about the gambling ads for then if it's legal? The articles I've seen say it's only allowed in Ontario.

Um, well there's ads because it's legal. They wouldn't advertise if it wasn't which is why I've read they can't advertise sports betting or any gambling in Utah. I'm sure there's grey area when it comes to that with national and regional broadcasts.

Do you get sports betting ads in California even though it's illegal?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Good stuff but California not approving sports betting is not really relevant to the Utah discussion due to hopefully obvious reasons.

The league isn't going to move the Kings, Sharks and Ducks because you voted against sports betting, but they will consider where to relocate and expand with the current environment.

Gambling itself is legal in California, which means Sportsbooks in casinos and possibly sports complexes is just a matter of time, as one simple step over. Sure you'll maybe be near the last ones to allow it, but it'll come. Utah doesn't even have a casino.



Um, well there's ads because it's legal. They wouldn't advertise if it wasn't which is why I've read they can't advertise sports betting or any gambling in Utah. I'm sure there's grey area when it comes to that with national and regional broadcasts.

Do you get sports betting ads in California even though it's illegal?

I don't think sports betting ads will be around long. England has some pretty bad statistical data thats making them go back to change their laws.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I don't think sports betting ads will be around long. England has some pretty bad statistical data thats making them go back to change their laws.

I hope you're right, but if it's a Federal law, the UCP will fight it.

[GioforPM]

Most trades are "meh" at the end of the day but for bigger ones:

losses

Monahan
Huberdeau
Jarnkrok
Bennett
Hamonic
Elliott

wins

Hamilton in
Hamilton out
Baertschi
picks for Kylington pick
Lucic
dumps like Frolik and Glencross
moving down in the draft for extra picks
Zadorov in
Toffoli in

[Buff]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I really hope Conroy doesn't make a deal with Tre. Tre wins the vast majority of his trades and I don't want to see that happen here.

I think we're due for a reversal of the Gilmour trade.

The protege must rob the mentor!

[Flamesfan05]

I don’t know if Toffoli was really a win. Toffoli had a career year but before that he was a disappointment and the wizard paid a chunk of changes for him.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Good stuff but California not approving sports betting is not really relevant to the Utah discussion due to hopefully obvious reasons.

The league isn't going to move the Kings, Sharks and Ducks because you voted against sports betting, but they will consider where to relocate and expand with the current environment.

Gambling itself is legal in California, which means Sportsbooks in casinos and possibly sports complexes is just a matter of time, as one simple step over. Sure you'll maybe be near the last ones to allow it, but it'll come. Utah doesn't even have a casino.



Um, well there's ads because it's legal. They wouldn't advertise if it wasn't which is why I've read they can't advertise sports betting or any gambling in Utah. I'm sure there's grey area when it comes to that with national and regional broadcasts.

Do you get sports betting ads in California even though it's illegal?

Gambling is not legal here unless you count the CA lottery or go to a reservation. Half the tourists in Nevada casinos at any given time are from here. The biggest casino in the world is on the OK/TX border because you can drive there in an hour from the northern Dallas-Ft. Worth suburbs.

I suppose that the legality of gambling is something the league would think about but I doubt it makes a big difference. If the team goes to Houston or Salt Lake City, where in both cases there is no gambling, and they have a big league arena and a crowd that will actually show up to support them, it would look a lot better than it does now.

With respect to Canada I think competitive betting is only legal in Ontario. The other places have the government set the odds or people have to use offshore accounts. https://www.cbc.ca/sports/the-buzzer...ario-1.6408139

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Most trades are "meh" at the end of the day but for bigger ones:

losses

Monahan
Huberdeau
Jarnkrok
Bennett
Hamonic
Elliott

wins

Hamilton in
Hamilton out
Baertschi
picks for Kylington pick
Lucic
dumps like Frolik and Glencross
moving down in the draft for extra picks
Zadorov in
Toffoli in

Don’t forget to include losing Johnny for nothing and the whole having to dump Frolik in the win column? It’s a big part of why Tkachuk is gone. I’m all for trading with Treliving and it would be nice to be on the other side of one of his trades.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Not counting off their development. Just speculating that if Buffalo wants to truly shake things up, some pieces that most would consider untradable may be available. Again just speculating to start a block buster Buffalo discussion.

Interested to here what others suggest outside of the one to ones already discussed. We need change and they need change.

I think your premise that they need change is flawed.
They need to add the right pieces to the core they have built, so they can succeed.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Assuming Buffalo needs to do something as they are moving in the wrong direction.

I am wondering about a block buster.

To Buffalo: Lindholm, Hanafin, Tanev

To Calgary: Cozens, Power

At first it seems like something Buffalo turns down, but both are only 0.5 pt/g players, with Cozens having a career year last year. On the hook for $7.1 for 6 more years.

It may be crazy, but a good block buster might be what they need

Would be one of the worse trades ever.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Given how the team talks about Tanev, I'd put him pretty high in the intangibles that keep a team from completely sewering when it comes to culture.

If he wants to get paid and / or wants term I don't do it.

If he does a hometown discount and only two years I look at it very closely.

It's a player by player thing in my mind.

Can't disagree with any of that.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Not counting off their development. Just speculating that if Buffalo wants to truly shake things up, some pieces that most would consider untradable may be available. Again just speculating to start a block buster Buffalo discussion.

Interested to here what others suggest outside of the one to ones already discussed. We need change and they need change.

But you don’t trade your young, good cost controlled players for 3 older players on expiring contracts

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Just a guy

Not counting off their development. Just speculating that if Buffalo wants to truly shake things up, some pieces that most would consider untradable may be available. Again just speculating to start a block buster Buffalo discussion.

Interested to here what others suggest outside of the one to ones already discussed. We need change and they need change.

They have plenty of good prospects and picks

I would think Cozen and Power are part of their core. You don’t trade your core when they are 21