2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Flames1217]

Originally Posted by Spurs

What play-off success did they have?

How could a team who finished where they did not be considered a contender?

I know you are just trying to be controversial but there are limits.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

This is literally Conroy's job

yes, it is Conroy's job. It is not my job, nor is it Spurs. Water is wet.

Not too sure what you're trying to get at.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Flames1217

How could a team who finished where they did not be considered a contender?

I know you are just trying to be controversial but there are limits.

I am not being controversial, I am saying that a team that in a 5 year span has 1 play-off round victory is not what I would consider a contender.

A team with a good regular season that went 7 games in round one and lost to a mediocre Oilers team in 5 games in round 2 is not a contender.

There is nothing controversial about that statement, you might disagree but you can't argue with what happened in that season and the results on the ice. When you look at the team before and after its shows that the regular season success was the outlier not that this was a contending team with one bad play-off run.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by TOfan

yes, it is Conroy's job. It is not my job, nor is it Spurs. Water is wet.

Not too sure what you're trying to get at.

That we aren’t real GMs? Lol

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Spurs

I am not being controversial, I am saying that a team that in a 5 year span has 1 play-off round victory is not what I would consider a contender.

A team with a good regular season that went 7 games in round one and lost to a mediocre Oilers team in 5 games in round 2 is not a contender.

There is nothing controversial about that statement, you might disagree but you can't argue with what happened in that season and the results on the ice. When you look at the team before and after its shows that the regular season success was the outlier not that this was a contending team with one bad play-off run.

Do you consider the Leafs, with the current core a contender? Because most of the hockey world does and they have a similar level of playoff success.



to be fair, i don't think a core with Hanifin/Andersson is sufficient to be a true contender. I think they are lacking a clear top guy. I think they can get that guy in this draft.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by TOfan

yes, it is Conroy's job. It is not my job, nor is it Spurs. Water is wet.

Not too sure what you're trying to get at.

Are you saying that on a message board you don't think we can or should speculate about what the team should do going forward?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here so asking you to clarify because it seems crazy to say that we shouldn't do that.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Do you consider the Leafs, with the current core a contender? Because most of the hockey world does and they have a similar level of playoff success.



to be fair, i don't think a core with Hanifin/Andersson is sufficient to be a true contender. I think they are lacking a clear top guy. I think they can get that guy in this draft.

I think they have shown that they have major weaknesses in their team- mainly goaltending and defense, that I would not have them on the top level of contenders.

I don't think a team like the Leafs is likely to get the goaltending needed to win multiple round to win a Cup so while I think they are a very good team no I do not consider them a contender.

[Pekkerhead]

It’s silly to say the Flames were not contenders the year we lost to the Coilers. We were one of the top teams in the league all season. A bit of luck (Coleman) and a bit of goal tending and who knows what could have happened. It’s also silly to say we’re absolutely not going to be contenders for many years to come. I’m sure lots of Canucks and Jets fans would have said the same thing last year. You never know year to year what can happen if a team gets hot and a bit lucky. Contenders doesn’t mean guaranteed to win, it means you are one of the top 5-8 teams.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Are you saying that on a message board you don't think we can or should speculate about what the team should do going forward?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here so asking you to clarify because it seems crazy to say that we shouldn't do that.

I'm all for speculation, and enjoy it.

I will say, though, that you seem to have a very narrow view of what speculation is. You speak as though you know how or what will play out but really, you don't. You don't have any better idea of what can/will happen than anyone else, aside from maybe 2-3 of us who have actual inside knowledge.

Your tone comes across as rather blowhardy, and I don't think I am alone in that assessment.

It's okay to acknowledge you can't read the future.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Pekkerhead

It’s silly to say the Flames were not contenders the year we lost to the Coilers. We were one of the top teams in the league all season. A bit of luck (Coleman) and a bit of goal tending and who knows what could have happened. It’s also silly to say we’re absolutely not going to be contenders for many years to come. I’m sure lots of Canucks and Jets fans would have said the same thing last year. You never know year to year what can happen if a team gets hot and a bit lucky. Contenders doesn’t mean guaranteed to win, it means you are one of the top 5-8 teams.

Silly is putting it kindly.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I'm all for speculation, and enjoy it.

I will say, though, that you seem to have a very narrow view of what speculation is. You speak as though you know how or what will play out but really, you don't. You don't have any better idea of what can/will happen than anyone else, aside from maybe 2-3 of us who have actual inside knowledge.

Your tone comes across as rather blowhardy, and I don't think I am alone in that assessment.

It's okay to acknowledge you can't read the future.

When have I ever said that I can read the future? You seem to do a lot of projecting on me rather than just read what I said. And don't think that people with insider knowledge have an idea of how things will turn out either.

Nobody said they can read the future, but it is ok to say that looking at what has happened in the past makes it unlikely things will magically change in the future. It is ok to want to have actual reasons to think things will change.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Something to consider with all of these projected trades is the potential for retention. Does anyone know how many trade the Flames have retained salary on? ONE. When they traded Rittich to the Leafs they retained $1.35M in cap hit, which is around $400K in real money. That's it. If retention is used, and that is a big if at this point, they are going to use it with minimal impact in real money. I find it very hard to believe they would retain on Markstrom as he has multiple years left on his contract and Edwards would not be happy paying a guy to play for an other team. It just isn't who he is. If retention is used it will be on expiring contracts where the real money is minimal and helps get a player under the other team's cap for the remainder of this season. That will be it. That is consistent with the business practices of the club and until they retain significant amount in any deal, even that seems unlikely. Retention is a great thing to think about, but to date, this team has not been willing to use the mechanism. I expect they will take back equal contracts rather than flat out retain. It's what they have done in the past and is their expected behavior.

Which is why there was no retention on the Zadarov deal...it left all 3 slots availabe for the upcoming TDL. They will use it if it closes a deal.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Pekkerhead

It’s silly to say the Flames were not contenders the year we lost to the Coilers. We were one of the top teams in the league all season. A bit of luck (Coleman) and a bit of goal tending and who knows what could have happened. It’s also silly to say we’re absolutely not going to be contenders for many years to come. I’m sure lots of Canucks and Jets fans would have said the same thing last year. You never know year to year what can happen if a team gets hot and a bit lucky. Contenders doesn’t mean guaranteed to win, it means you are one of the top 5-8 teams.

It isn't silly it is factual, what did we contend for? A 2nd round loss? What did we contend for the next year? No play-offs.

If you standard for a contender is that a team has one good regular season and nothing else, fair enough, but it isn't silly for others to have higher standards than that.

As for us going forward, feel free to point out how that happens in a realistic way?

Canucks and Jets have won nothing, but with those teams you can see that the Canucks for example had three young players- Petterson, Hughes, Demko- that are growing into elite players that we do not have. The level of player you need to have success in this league.

If we get that level of player on our team we can certainly revisit the outlook going forward but until then there is nothing wrong or silly saying we will not be contenders going forward.

[Calgary4LIfe]

The whole "the Flames will never trade a player with retention" is absolute nonsense to me and should be put to bed.


I guess Feaster was lying when he announced "Open for business" on that front? I guess Conroy was lying that the Flames considered retention, but the returns were not there - and then he goes on to say: "The cap space can be weaponized to work as a middle-man in trades between two teams"..


Plus, all the buyouts on the books over all of these years??


Flames owners may or may not be too heavily involved in the day-to-day operations, but they certainly haven't shown themselves to be cheap so far to me. Not since the 90's / early 2000's anyway.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Spurs

It isn't silly it is factual, what did we contend for? A 2nd round loss? What did we contend for the next year? No play-offs.

If you standard for a contender is that a team has one good regular season and nothing else, fair enough, but it isn't silly for others to have higher standards than that.

As for us going forward, feel free to point out how that happens in a realistic way?

Canucks and Jets have won nothing, but with those teams you can see that the Canucks for example had three young players- Petterson, Hughes, Demko- that are growing into elite players that we do not have. The level of player you need to have success in this league.

If we get that level of player on our team we can certainly revisit the outlook going forward but until then there is nothing wrong or silly saying we will not be contenders going forward.

Were the Boston Bruins contenders last year?

[dissentowner]

Omg I thought Bingo had finally pulled the plug on that clown, instead he is still bogging down every thread with his crap.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Were the Boston Bruins contenders last year?

Yes I think they were and they are a good example of the difference between a team having one good regular season and nothing else and a team that had a bad play-off performance.

Looking at the Flames seasons before the supposed contending year they had:

Lost in First Round 4-1
Lost in the First Round 4-2
No Play-offs

Bruins:

Lost in Second Round to SC Champions
Lost in the Second Round
Lost in first Round 4-3

To me you can see the Bruins had more seasons where they were closer to the top, not amazing but the success they had last year wasn't a one off they had more sustained success. Where the Flames had been ok or bad in the 3 seasons before the great regular season.

After the season the Flames followed it up missing the play-offs and the Bruins followed it up by leading the East. So again more reason to think that the success they had was sustainable not just a good regular season.

If the Bruins go out in the first round or even second again I think it is fair to ask questions likely around if their forward group is good enough to get it done in the play-offs or maybe if the goaltending as good as it is has the mentality of the play-offs depending on what happens, but you can clearly see the two teams have much different results when looking at them.

[Pekkerhead]

Originally Posted by Spurs

It isn't silly it is factual, what did we contend for? A 2nd round loss? What did we contend for the next year? No play-offs.

If you standard for a contender is that a team has one good regular season and nothing else, fair enough, but it isn't silly for others to have higher standards than that.

As for us going forward, feel free to point out how that happens in a realistic way?

Canucks and Jets have won nothing, but with those teams you can see that the Canucks for example had three young players- Petterson, Hughes, Demko- that are growing into elite players that we do not have. The level of player you need to have success in this league.

If we get that level of player on our team we can certainly revisit the outlook going forward but until then there is nothing wrong or silly saying we will not be contenders going forward.

My opinion is that being a contender isn’t something that can be assessed in hindsight. The Flames have had terrible playoff success. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been contenders during some of those years. You’re right about the Canucks top 3 but markstrom and Huberdeau have the ability to get to that level and then we just need to get lucky with a top d-man. Not saying it’s guaranteed to happen but it’s also not impossible. I’m pretty sure our roster competes with Winnipeg as I don’t see any superstars over there.

[sureLoss]

Top KHL player's NHL rights are available. Because Chmelevski already has signed a NHL contract previously with the Sharks, he is not limited to the ELC system.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1746235617829126505

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Pekkerhead

My opinion is that being a contender isn’t something that can be assessed in hindsight. The Flames have had terrible playoff success. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been contenders during some of those years. You’re right about the Canucks top 3 but markstrom and Huberdeau have the ability to get to that level and then we just need to get lucky with a top d-man. Not saying it’s guaranteed to happen but it’s also not impossible. I’m pretty sure our roster competes with Winnipeg as I don’t see any superstars over there.

But even at the time the results showed that they weren't a contender. The hindsight just helps to show us that is clear.

I think you are being very hopeful with Markstrom and Hubredeau being at that level. Especially going forward as this season we clearly are not contenders.

I think it is very early to consider to be contenders, but if you do I would say Winnipeg has Hellybuyck who has shown to be more consistent and arguably better at his peak that Markstrom. They have Scheifle and Connors producing at a PPG we do not have anyone close, they have Ehlers who would be tied for top scorer on our team, Perfetti who would be near the top for us as well. Morrisey as a defenseman is likely better than what we have. Not necessarily a massive gap between the two sides but I also don't expect that Winnipeg will threaten much in the play-offs.