2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[blankall]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Matthews got a 4 year deal. They are getting all his best years and can let someone else pay the “look what he did” sucker’s deal.

Sooner or later GMs will figure out why players are so desperate for 8-year deals at the end of RFA or slightly later (they know they’re at their peak and the decline is about to start) and stop giving them out.

Some team would always give the 7/8 year deal for a star. It's acknowledged that you are paying for 2-4 years of garbage on the back end. If you don't pay it out, another team, who is desperate for star power now, will.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by blankall

Some team would always give the 7/8 year deal for a star. It's acknowledged that you are paying for 2-4 years of garbage on the back end. If you don't pay it out, another team, who is desperate for star power now, will.

Let them. The only decision you have to make at that point is to trade the pending UFA for premium assets or take a run at the playoffs.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

In what sense is the NHL a zero sum game? If one team wants to spend their cap space on a declining player then that means you aren’t?

I don’t think that’s what you meant, but I suppose it’s true.

The only goal is to win the Stanley cup. It isn’t to manage the cap most efficiently or maximize every single asset. There are definitely different philosophies on how to win a cup but that is still the ultimate goal. If you looked at the stats on deadline trades then basically no GM would ever trade for players at the deadline if they were focused on maximizing assets because they basically never work. UFAs are free assets that can improve teams and most GMs only really care about the two-three years unless they are the start of a rebuild.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Fourteen FTW

Read this one one first thing this AM, didn’t completely hate it… NHL trade rumors suggest that the Rangers are in talks to send forward Kaapo Kakko, defenseman Braden Schneider, and a 2024 second-round pick to Calgary.

In return, the Flames are considering trading defenseman Chris Tanev, with 50% of his $4,500,000 AAV retained, and forward Adam Ruzicka

Would make more sense if it was Lindgren and 1st for Hanifin, if I was Drury. Hanifin and Miller on the left side with fox and Trouba on the left would be ridiculous

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Would make more sense if it was Lindgren and 1st for Hanifin, if I was Drury. Hanifin and Miller on the left side with fox and Trouba on the left would be ridiculous

But then you have to figure out how to re-sign Hanifin at big bucks that the rags don't have. Tanev comes cheaper and might be more of what they need for the playoffs.

The deal is too stacked for us though. Two top prospects and a 2nd for a rental (really good) stay at home dman and a middling prospect? It's too much in our favor.

The NJ one was way more realistic value wise. I think unlikely as our management is generally allergic to trading prospects, but IMO interesting.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The only goal is to win the Stanley cup. It isn’t to manage the cap most efficiently or maximize every single asset. There are definitely different philosophies on how to win a cup but that is still the ultimate goal. If you looked at the stats on deadline trades then basically no GM would ever trade for players at the deadline if they were focused on maximizing assets because they basically never work. UFAs are free assets that can improve teams and most GMs only really care about the two-three years unless they are the start of a rebuild.

They’re not free, they’re costing you money, which is a scarce resource because of the cap. We see that cap space has value with how much teams are willing to trade away to get it.

I can’t really argue with you on whether or not that’s the time frame GMs think about. You may very well be right. That’s why privately held companies are often much better run than publicly traded companies. They do what’s best for the business, as opposed to what’s best for whatever they’re going to announce next quarter and they’ll be retiring or moving on in 3 years anyway.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

They’re not free, they’re costing you money, which is a scarce resource because of the cap. We see that cap space has value with how much teams are willing to trade away to get it.

I can’t really argue with you on whether or not that’s the time frame GMs think about. You may very well be right. That’s why privately held companies are often much better run than publicly traded companies. They do what’s best for the business, as opposed to what’s best for whatever they’re going to announce next quarter and they’ll be retiring or moving on in 3 years anyway.

Yeah, but to replace a player like Nylander they will be spending assets and cap space anyways. That’s if there is even a comparable player to trade for. A GM can keep their picks and prospects to trade for another player and sign Nylander.

[Jacks]

Posted by stemit14
I can’t remember the last time a goalie trade returned a first round pick… but there are some good teams that are desperate for goaltending this year so who knows.

Probably Cory Schneider getting the 9th overall pick in 2013. That's a huge return, and Schneider also had 2 years left, but he was also significantly younger. Funny enough it was NJ paying that price though, hopefully history repeats itself.

[Tbull8]

Not sure if it’s been posted somewhere else but Vegas claims Bjornfot

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Not sure if it’s been posted somewhere else but Vegas claims Bjornfot

Kind of surprised the Flames didn't take a swing

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Probably Cory Schneider getting the 9th overall pick in 2013. That's a huge return, and Schneider also had 2 years left, but he was also significantly younger. Funny enough it was NJ paying that price though, hopefully history repeats itself.

Martin Jones was traded in 2015 for first a 1st and a prospect.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Yeah, but to replace a player like Nylander they will be spending assets and cap space anyways. That’s if there is even a comparable player to trade for. A GM can keep their picks and prospects to trade for another player and sign Nylander.

There is no replacing 27 year old Nylander. You are signing up for 28-to-35 year old Nylander if you choose to. And each iteration is projected to be worse than the last. That’s not the same player.

If you use draft picks to create a perpetual pipeline of possible future 18-to-27 year old Nylanders, you capitalize on their artificially suppressed ELC salary years and make other teams pay for the sucker’s contracts.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by butterfly

There is no replacing 27 year old Nylander. You are signing up for 28-to-35 year old Nylander if you choose to. And each iteration is projected to be worse than the last. That’s not the same player.

If you use draft picks to create a perpetual pipeline of possible future 18-to-27 year old Nylanders, you capitalize on their artificially suppressed ELC salary years and make other teams pay for the sucker’s contracts.

Those ELC years are only 3 years now if the player is any good.

And it's not like every high draft pick pans out. It's actually the exception.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Those ELC years are only 3 years now if the player is any good.

And it's not like every high draft pick pans out. It's actually the exception.

Using ELC players is a great way to be able to afford extensions for 21-22 year olds.

And, yes, scouting is vitally important. If you’re trading away one end of life pending UFA a year, you should be able to get 2 picks a year in the first round.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Martin Jones was traded in 2015 for first a 1st and a prospect.

Those are some good examples for goalies returning really good picks in a trade. At the time, those were younger goaltenders that looked ready to be high quality starters. Markstrom is a different asset due to his age. He likely only has two years left (at most) after this one where he is considered a legit NHL #1 goalie. And that’s if he keeps playing like he has this year. Goalies are voodoo though. So many of them fluctuate year-to-year between Vezina-quality and absolute liability. There may be only 3-4 goalies in the league that are consistently good year after year - and even they struggle to do that.

Hopefully if they do trade Markstrom it’s for a great return. I doubt management/ownership would do it but I think you could get a great return on Markstrom right now if you were to retain a decent amount of his salary. Say 30-40%. That’s a lot of money to play a player not to play for you but Markstrom at a cap hit of around $3.5 or $4 million is a pretty good contract. At that point, I would expect to get a first round pick at least.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

There is no replacing 27 year old Nylander. You are signing up for 28-to-35 year old Nylander if you choose to. And each iteration is projected to be worse than the last. That’s not the same player.

If you use draft picks to create a perpetual pipeline of possible future 18-to-27 year old Nylanders, you capitalize on their artificially suppressed ELC salary years and make other teams pay for the sucker’s contracts.

Barely any draft pick turns into a Nylander though and most of them are high picks, not late 1sts teams get back in rental trades. Also a 28-32 year old Nylander is still going to better than most NHL players, and most teams don’t have a UFA year that will fetch them 1sts every deadline.
In an ideal world you have a young Nylander to replace old Nylander but that’s damn near impossible to pull off when a team has been in playoff contention let alone doing it for every single guy over 28.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Barely any draft pick turns into a Nylander though and most of them are high picks, not late 1sts teams get back in rental trades. Also a 28-32 year old Nylander is still going to better than most NHL players, and most teams don’t have a UFA year that will fetch them 1sts every deadline.
In an ideal world you have a young Nylander to replace old Nylander but that’s damn near impossible to pull off when a team has been in playoff contention let alone doing it for every single guy over 28.

It’s fine to spend complementary money on someone like Danault or Lehkonen or Tanev or Adam Lowry, etc. I’m not saying never use older players, but don’t revolve your team around them.

This is my philosophy. We would never get stuck with a Benn, Seguin, Huberdeau, Lucic, Loui Eriksson, Josh Anderson, etc. Very few turn out like Kopitar and Crosby.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by stemit14

For example, I think Lindholm will be a trade that is fairly easy to get done because it’s clear he is going to free agency. That makes him a rental and the cost for acquiring a player like him as a rental is fairly established IMO based on similar players traded in recent years (O’Reilly and Horvat should be close templates to follow). Basically, it should be a first round pick + a second round pick + a B-level prospect. Complications can come up from teams trying to “take advantage” of Conroy being a new GM by trying to low-ball him.

I don't believe that will be an issue as all three of these UFA's will have multiple teams vying for them. Having more than a single trade partner guarantees you get "a" market value, whatever that turns out to be. The greater the number of suitors, the greater the market value. ETA: TBF, if there's only one suitor that still means you get market value but that one suitor can offer low-balls to the point where it's just not worth it for the Flames.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Those are some good examples for goalies returning really good picks in a trade. At the time, those were younger goaltenders that looked ready to be high quality starters. Markstrom is a different asset due to his age. He likely only has two years left (at most) after this one where he is considered a legit NHL #1 goalie. And that’s if he keeps playing like he has this year. Goalies are voodoo though. So many of them fluctuate year-to-year between Vezina-quality and absolute liability. There may be only 3-4 goalies in the league that are consistently good year after year - and even they struggle to do that.

Hopefully if they do trade Markstrom it’s for a great return. I doubt management/ownership would do it but I think you could get a great return on Markstrom right now if you were to retain a decent amount of his salary. Say 30-40%. That’s a lot of money to play a player not to play for you but Markstrom at a cap hit of around $3.5 or $4 million is a pretty good contract. At that point, I would expect to get a first round pick at least.

Louongo was traded at 34 and returned a high-end prospect.
He had a 9 years left on his $5.33/year contract too.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It’s fine to spend complementary money on someone like Danault or Lehkonen or Tanev or Adam Lowry, etc. I’m not saying never use older players, but don’t revolve your team around them.

This is my philosophy. We would never get stuck with a Benn, Seguin, Huberdeau, Lucic, Loui Eriksson, Josh Anderson, etc. Very few turn out like Kopitar and Crosby.

How do you know which ones are Danault and which ones are Anderson when you are signing UFAs though. I’m the opposite, pay the stars and avoid filler UFas like Neal, Brouwer etc. The issue with the Flames cap management was that it was tied up in mediocre UFAs which led to Tkachuk’s bridge and the implosion.
Much higher chance of internally replacing a Neal level guy than a Nylander level guy.