2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

The Flames have bought out contracts and spent to the cap. It's not that different from retaining on a contract.

Then let's seem them do it. Simple as that. Do it. They've done it once, to a tune of less than $400K. Let's see them do it to a significant amount before we confidently say this mechanism is in play.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

How many teams have had top 5 selections and not won the Stanley Cup? I'm betting it's a larger number than the ones who have had top 5 selections and won the cup.

Last season? 29.


Every team except the Islanders and the Sharks, from what a quick look told me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

In the cap era?

The Wings and Ducks, whose foundations were laid well before the salary cap.

Well, also the Oilers, Sabres, Rangers, Devils, Habs, Coyotes, Flyers, Canucks, Blue Jackets, Flames, Leafs, Jets, Panthers, Islanders, Predators...

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, also the Oilers, Sabres, Rangers, Devils, Habs, Coyotes, Flyers, Canucks, Blue Jackets, Flames, Leafs, Jets, Panthers, Islanders, Predators...

Misread his post - thought he meant how many had won without top-5 picks

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Okay boys, as soon as the Flames engage in a retention situation, I will believe they will retain on contracts. It's like saying you can #### a super model and then claiming that because it hasn't happened the potential is there for it to happen. No. You HOPE it could happen. You TRY to make it happen. You would love FOR it to happen. But until it happens, it is a pipe dream. I will believe the Flames will retain on a contract when it happens more than once in team history. The potential should be there, but until Conroy gets permission to do so and it happens, its all speculative bull####.

Stienberg and others who are close to the team have said they will. Burke/Feaster also said they would in 2013 but the cap constraints weren’t as tight as they are today.

Also, how do you reconcile your view while also taking the fact the Flames are paying Sutter ~$4M for this year and next to not coach? A lot of people here, yourself included I believe, think Edwards hired Sutter and not Treliving. Why wouldn’t the Flames retain on their UFA’s and/or potentially a player with term (Markstrom)?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ped

Last season? 29.


Every team except the Islanders and the Sharks, from what a quick look told me.

Islanders have top 5 picks: Dal Colle, Reinhart, Neidereitter, Strome, Tavares.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Misread his post - thought he meant how many had won without top-5 picks

I mean, since pretty much every team has had top 5 picks it's not a very good question to start with either way.

[topfiverecords]

Are there any teams that have never drafted five or higher?

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Are there any teams that have never drafted five or higher?

Vegas and Calgary are the only to never draft top 3

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Are there any teams that have never drafted five or higher?

Last year was the first for the Sharks in the cap era. Prior to that they had 5.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

What’s your point?

Vegas, Colorado, Tampa, St Louis, Washington, Pittsburgh, LA, and Carolina all had them.

Even Boston drafted Kessel, and Anaheim was anchored by Pronger (2nd overall) Niedermayer (4th overall).

You can’t win it all without top-5 draft picks in the cap era. It’s impossible.

Because you need a control group to see if your theory actually pans out.

Lots of teams have had top 5 picks and not won. That’s your comparison to see if your theory holds water or if it’s just true-true-and-unrelated.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Vegas and Calgary are the only to never draft top 3

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Last year was the first for the Sharks in the cap era. Prior to that they had 5.

Good answers.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Islanders have top 5 picks: Dal Colle, Reinhart, Neidereitter, Strome, Tavares.

I meant on the roster at the time, which I assumed what was meant.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Vegas and Calgary are the only to never draft top 3

Until the Rangers selected Kakko 2OA, you could have had them on the list too.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I mean, since pretty much every team has had top 5 picks it's not a very good question to start with either way.

My point is that these 'you win with X and Y' are just one-sided scans where people try to cobble together some type of if-this-then-that causation scenario.

But you have to test it with a control group. Otherwise, it's just your favourite anecdote and it's no more special than any other anecdote that hasn't been empirically tested.

This is especially true since earlier in the thread a poster showed that your chance of getting a depth player is within ~10% (cumulative) of getting a franchise player when you have a top 4 pick. So what's the relationship here? That depth players picked in the top 5 are just as likely to help you win a cup as franchise players picked in the top 5?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Last year was the first for the Sharks in the cap era. Prior to that they had 5.

Wasn't Michalek #6?

If you're only doing cap era then the Canucks only had 2 x #5 picks in Pettersson and Joulevi. Obviously, they drafted the Sedins at #2, and #3 before that.

---

Minnesota only had #4 in the cap era in Pouliot, but had #3 in Gaborik before that.

Nashville had #4 in the cap era in S. Jones, but had #2 in Legwand before that.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Because you need a control group to see if your theory actually pans out.

Lots of teams have had top 5 picks and not won. That’s your comparison to see if your theory holds water or if it’s just true-true-and-unrelated.

My control group is every team to win the Stanley Cup in the cap era.

The Detroit Red Wings, who were built in a time with no salary cap and $90M teams playing $18M ones, are the only exception.

It’s not just because of the players you get at the top, but because of the supplementary selections and acquisitions you make while you’re not pushing all your chips to the table.

Drafting four top-64 players for three years in a row does a lot.

Trading Matt Duchene for the pick that becomes Bowen Byram, both for the young player, and the salary it frees up.

Keep some of your good players. Sell some that have higher value, because what this team needs is only found in the draft.

Trading for it is counterproductive unless you’re in a Vegas situation where doing so won’t cripple your franchise.

Draft it, develop it, and do this the right way.

Order of operations matters.

[GioforPM]

Every SC winning team has had a top 5 pick. Therefore you need a top 5 pick to win a cup.

They have also had a Canadian. Therefore you absolutely need a Canadian on the team to win a cup.

Every SC winning team has also had at least one left handed defenceman. Therefore you need one to win a cup.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

My point is that these 'you win with X and Y' are just one-sided scans where people try to cobble together some type of if-this-then-that causation scenario.

Yup, for a long time, people kept saying you had to draft your starting goalie if you wanted to win the Cup because Tim Thomas was the last SC winning goalie who wasn't drafted by his team, and Osgood in 2008 was the last SC winning goalie who wasn't playing for his only NHL team.

Then, Kuemper and Hill won the last 2 Cups, so no one brings that up anymore.




My favourite one is the fact that since lace-up collars became trendy in the late 90s, the 2011 Bruins are the only team with a lace-up collar on their primary jerseys to win the Cup (a couple teams have had laces on alternate jerseys, but not the jerseys they were wearing when they won).

If that sounds silly, remember that most seasons, there are more teams with lace-up collars in the league than there are teams without a top-3 pick on their roster.

[Hackey]

This isn't that complicated. You need elite players to win a Cup. The easiest way to find elite players for a small market Canadian team would be drafting them. The most probable way to draft elite players is with higher picks.

Of course it's not a guarantee but if you have a 25% chance of finding an elite player in the top 5, I'll take those odds over a 0.1% chance of finding one later in the draft.