2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I believe the cost to get the Markstrom ball rolling will be a 1st, an A prospect or young player equivalent, and a B prospect.

So more than any goalie has returned in a trade in 15 years?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So more than any goalie has returned in a trade in 15 years?

I am not sure if the history there but regardless it is irrelevant. If a GM is desperate enough to try and make a run this year they will pay it. If nobody wants to pay that which as I said is what I am guessing then they can revisit it in the offseason when the player is probably open to a move.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Many weren't even happy when the Flames signed Tanev for free...now they want a big return after 4 years of great service

To be fair, he, until arriving at the Flames was made of glass. There was a huge risk that long-term nagging injuries would force his play to regress quickly. Didn't turn out that way. Now we want assets.

If anything, it's a change in circumstances resulting in a change in opinion. Fans worried about singing an aging vet to a multi year contract. Then fans want a solid return when that aging vet doesn't regress. I don't see the problem.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm thinking Zary gets a good long look at C before he tries that.

Huberdeau Zary Kuzmenko

Huberdeau Sharangovich Kuzmenko

Zary Kadri Kuzmenko

Pospisil Kadri Kuzmenko which would lead to a Huberdeau Zary Sharangovich


Some options on how the top six fill out

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

1st (top 10 protected)
Holtz
Whoever or a 3rd/4th

Get it done Connie

2024 1st
Seamus Casey
Vanacek

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So more than any goalie has returned in a trade in 15 years?

I guess a return like that is overdue then.

[Calgary4LIfe]

If the Flames were looking like a bona fide contender, but were entering the playoffs with very questionable goaltending, I would want my GM to pay the price to fill what is probably the biggest hole a team could have. If my starter is average, I don't make the move. If my team is really good, but my starter is below average, I make that move every time if I can.



A bad trade is a bad trade, but who has a chance of making a better impact in a series - Jacob Markstrom, or Ben Chiarot? If I have a big hole on defence, and a big hole in goaltending, and I only have one first, where do I spend it?


Complete cherry-picking example and position, I know. Every market is different. When was the last time that this number of really good teams are approaching the deadline having the goaltending position be somewhere between questionable and outright bad? I think that Markstrom could move, and only teams desperate enough need apply.


Aside from Markstrom, this could be quite the draft. In 2013, the Flames entered the draft with 3 1st round picks. They may eclipse that this time around. They hold 3, with one going to Montreal. Conroy is looking for a 1st for Tanev, with 12 teams supposedly on the hunt there. Hanifin will return a 1st as part of his trade if he ends up moving. If Markstrom does move, why move him for a 2nd? I would rather move Vladar for a 3rd instead, and use Markstrom to mentor Wolf.


I doubt that Flames walk into the draft with five first round picks, but there is an outside shot of that happening, plus more picks expected, and whatever prospects. That will be quite the injection into the prospect pool. You start entering the territory of the Iginla - Conroy conversation when Iginla asked how many prospects was too many.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Sofa GM

2024 1st
Seamus Casey
Vanacek

Works for me as long as Casey has agreed to sign an ELC with the Flames the minute the trade is finalized.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by stemit14

i know we are less than 24 hours into a blockbuster trade that conroy did a great job on… but i can’t help it now that one is done...




sent from my iphone using tapatalk

https://twitter.com/user/status/1753208200357347763

[1_Flames_Fan]

I think Montreal should give us back our first round pick for helping them create a bidding war for Monahan. No Lindy means Monny is #1 Centre available the deadline.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

https://twitter.com/user/status/1753208200357347763

Taj will make #### up. Don't trust Taj.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Taj will make #### up. Don't trust Taj.

Should be trivially easy to check if Steinberg actually said those things or not.

[CFO]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

https://twitter.com/user/status/1753208200357347763

Good chance flames end up trading both players and get another 1st and couple second round players.



Go into next year draft with 3 first round picks and 2-3 second round picks.

[Naitix]

I would rather keep Kuzmenko for next year and retain 50% at the deadline. If he looks good now, he will look good next year. Plus the team is more exciting to watch with Kuzy on it

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Taj will make #### up. Don't trust Taj.

I’m listening to the interview.

Steinberg does say the Kuzmenko thing. Haven’t got to the Tanev part yet.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Should be trivially easy to check if Steinberg actually said those things or not.

It is. It does not stop taj.

[Mr.Coffee]

Since Kuzmenko waived on the NTC to Calgary, does anyone know if it voids the clause for trades elsewhere and beyond or does that clause remain in play if Calgary tries to now trade him?

Like does the waiver imply a permanent waiver?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Since Kuzmenko waived on the NTC to Calgary, does anyone know if it voids the clause for trades elsewhere and beyond or does that clause remain in play if Calgary tries to now trade him?

Like does the waiver imply a permanent waiver?

He would need to be asked again, like Lucic

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Since Kuzmenko waived on the NTC to Calgary, does anyone know if it voids the clause for trades elsewhere and beyond or does that clause remain in play if Calgary tries to now trade him?

Like does the waiver imply a permanent waiver?

I'd be interested to know why he waived for Calgary, as Calgary is clearly rebuilding. I guess without Lindholm, he's likely guaranteed some time in the top 6 and the PP? Does he know Sharangovich?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It is. It does not stop taj.

Well, we already have independent confirmation that Steinberg said the bit about Kuzmenko. Apparently Taj didn't make that part up. So some of the things Taj says are true, even if only by accident.

In a case like this, we can ignore Taj and go straight to the horse's mouth.