2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by butterfly

How far in the future are you allowed to trade picks?

They have their 2027 one. Winnipeg just traded a 2027 pick for Monahan.

I don’t think there is a set rule on how far in the future you can trade picks… it’s just kind of unheard of for a team to commit to not having any first round picks for the next four years. Not saying it can’t or won’t ever happen… it’s just really rare.

[Badgers Nose]

I wonder if the team getting creative to win the Tanev sweeps is building a package around a recent first rounder. The Vancouver radio guys were lamenting that the Canucks probably would not be able to get Tanev and that another team was getting creative.

A kid that is a year or two older probably makes Conroy happy as he gets someone that maybe cracks our lineup or is at least further along in their development.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by stemit14

I don’t think there is a set rule on how far in the future you can trade picks… it’s just kind of unheard of for a team to commit to not having any first round picks for the next four years. Not saying it can’t or won’t ever happen… it’s just really rare.

Could be a smart idea to get unconditional picks like that far in the future, when many of the good teams of today will be bad. And the GM who trades them to us will probably be gone by then.

[Southside403]

Would Coleman be a target to anyone plays fantastic having his best year with 3 more years left after this season. Also doesn't backlund Wana have a chance to win what would he fetch? Going to be interesting times coming up.

[bluejays]

I thought it's 5 years out you can trade a first. Could be wrong, someone correct me.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

I wonder if the team getting creative to win the Tanev sweeps is building a package around a recent first rounder. The Vancouver radio guys were lamenting that the Canucks probably would not be able to get Tanev and that another team was getting creative.

A kid that is a year or two older probably makes Conroy happy as he gets someone that maybe cracks our lineup or is at least further along in their development.

Yeah, I think if there's an notion or assumption that the Flames are going to be tanking the next year or two with the movement of these UFAs this year, they're misguided. As much as the Flames and Conroy can, they'll be getting NHL or near NHL ready players for some of these assets in this offseason, as opposed to some magic beans to plan in soil for the next 2-3 years.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Southside403

Would Coleman be a target to anyone plays fantastic having his best year with 3 more years left after this season. Also doesn't backlund Wana have a chance to win what would he fetch? Going to be interesting times coming up.

Flames are consistently saying they are not rebuilding.

Therefore why would they sign Backlund and trade Coleman.

[Pekkerhead]

Originally Posted by browna

Yeah, I think if there's an notion or assumption that the Flames are going to be tanking the next year or two with the movement of these UFAs this year, they're misguided. As much as the Flames and Conroy can, they'll be getting NHL or near NHL ready players for some of these assets in this offseason, as opposed to some magic beans to plan in soil for the next 2-3 years.

Totally agree with this comment and I think it’s the right strategy.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Southside403

Would Coleman be a target to anyone plays fantastic having his best year with 3 more years left after this season. Also doesn't backlund Wana have a chance to win what would he fetch? Going to be interesting times coming up.

Lots of smoke around the rumour that ownership won't allowed retained salary. That likely makes moving Coleman a non-starter, if true.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

Lots of smoke around the rumour that ownership won't allowed retained salary. That likely makes moving Coleman a non-starter, if true.

That’s not what Conroy has been saying

It’s fake news from Treliving fans

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

That’s not what Conroy has been saying

It’s fake news from Treliving fans

It’s one thing on retention on ufas and a whole other ball game on retention with guys that have term. I don’t see ownership retaining on anybody that has term left.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

It’s one thing on retention on ufas and a whole other ball game on retention with guys that have term. I don’t see ownership retaining on anybody that has term left.

Not sure they will trade anyone that has term left....

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

It’s one thing on retention on ufas and a whole other ball game on retention with guys that have term. I don’t see ownership retaining on anybody that has term left.

Ok, that’s possible

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

That’s not what Conroy has been saying

It’s fake news from Treliving fans

How is it fakes new from Treliving fans?

Your obsession with Tree, months after he has gone, is sad.
At what point do you look to the future instead of wallowing in the muck of the past?

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

How is it fakes new from Treliving fans?

Your obsession with Tree, months after he has gone, is sad.
At what point do you look to the future instead of wallowing in the muck of the past?

I can do both, no worries

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

That’s not what Conroy has been saying

It’s fake news from Treliving fans

That’s a strange take. Lanny’s the first guy who will point out the Flames won’t retain salary and his distaste for Treliving is as petty and juvenile as yours.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

I mean, we have retained salary only once, and we know that the Zadorov move to Vancouver happened because they could take the entire salary and the Leafs wanted retention. I believe not retaining salary is part of why Lindholm went to Vancouver as well.

It's not indisputable but there is some evidence to show they are reluctant to retain in deals.

[dammage79]

I can see retention on players with a year left after this one. Mangiapane, Markstrom.

If you think the Flames would retain on someone like, Kadri, yeah no, ownership won't fly that.

I think we can chuck that into the common sense barrel.

[Heavy Jack]

Conroy stated after trading Zad that he was happy he didn’t have to retain because that’s a valuable approach around the deadline. Teams like to maximize their deadline cap as much as possible and the flames still have 3 contracts they could retain on to maximize those returns. I fully believe Conroy will retain on at least 1 if not 2 contracts and if he ended up using the 3 allowed retention slots I wouldn’t be shocked.

[Heavy Jack]

With the Pachal claim you have to think the Tanev situation is turning from a simmer to a boil; really intrigued to see what the return will end up being and I’m hoping he goes to a solid contender.