2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Being an expansion team is an avenue available to Calgary?

The only way to build a Championship team is through the top of the draft…….
Ridiculous over the top absolutes

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by shutout

No but being ruthless in how you manage assets is available to them.

I definitely don't disagree with their approach (even if it hurts a bit as a fan to see that revolving door), but that wasn't the only reason why they won. That expansion draft was somethin' else.

Originally Posted by gvitaly

From 2011 VGK, STL, BOS.

STL or are you going to argue that Pietrangelo at 4, and Johnson at 1 were the main reason they won the cup?

BOS got Seguin at 2, it did help, but he was far from the reason they won the cup that year.

---

Even LAK did get Doughty at 2, but I would argue that getting Kopitar at 11, Quick at 72, etc was just as important.

Teams that definitely won it thanks to homegrown top 5 picks since 2011: CHI, PIT, WSH, TBL*, COL, FLA

* Stamkos and Hedman couldn't get over the hump until they got Kucherov and Point

St. Louis had Pietrangelo, 4th overall. I don't quite see how you can discount Doughty, or Pietrangelo for that matter - which means, yeah the bare minimum is 1 top 5 draft pick.

You can pick Seguin on Boston as a cheeky choice, but he was there - meaning the minimum still sits at 1.

In most cases, it's more than one - but as a starting point, I'd take just one.

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

The only way to build a Championship team is through the top of the draft…….
Ridiculous over the top absolutes

How is it ridiculous or over the top? Show examples of Champions in recent history that disprove it... It's just a reality. Having homegrown players from the top of the draft guarantees nothing, but not having them does in fact seem to exclude you from that hall of champions. Citing Vegas is a useless point, because the Flames cannot be an expansion team. So if you want to use that one angle to prove my point as ridiculous...sure, but it doesn't actually help show a path for the Flames to a Championship.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Show me another way a Stanley Cup champion was built in recent time that is available to the Flames other than having homegrown impact players selected with the top-5 draft spots on the roster?

Not a Cup winner, but Conroy has repeatedly cited Dallas as the model for what the Flames are trying to build. So no tank, no deep and sustained rebuild.

But I don’t know how much of a ‘strategy’ it is to hit home runs on late 1st and 2nd round picks. Every team in the league is always trying to do that, no?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I definitely don't disagree with their approach (even if it hurts a bit as a fan to see that revolving door), but that wasn't the only reason why they won. That expansion draft was somethin' else.



St. Louis had Pietrangelo, 4th overall. I don't quite see how you can discount Doughty, or Pietrangelo for that matter - which means, yeah the bare minimum is 1 top 5 draft pick.

You can pick Seguin on Boston as a cheeky choice, but he was there - meaning the minimum still sits at 1.

In most cases, it's more than one - but as a starting point, I'd take just one.



How is it ridiculous or over the top? Show examples of Champions in recent history that disprove it... It's just a reality. Having homegrown players from the top of the draft guarantees nothing, but not having them does in fact seem to exclude you from that hall of champions. Citing Vegas is a useless point, because the Flames cannot be an expansion team. So if you want to use that one angle to disprove my point as ridiculous...sure, but it doesn't actually help show a path for the Flames to a Championship.

You do realize that most teams have a top 5 pick. Of course most teams that won have a top 5 pick. How many teams don't have a top 5 pick on their team right now?

You need good players to win a cup, not a 3rd liner Seguin and a middle of the road 1D in Piertrangelo

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Not a Cup winner, but Conroy has repeatedly cited Dallas as the model for what the Flames are trying to build. So no tank, no deep and sustained rebuild.

But I don’t know how much of a ‘strategy’ it is to hit home runs on late 1st and 2nd round picks. Every team in the league is already trying to do that, no?

Yeah, he's definitely cited Dallas and I get the appeal - but it doesn't seem like much of an actionable plan.

Dallas won the lottery and vaulted to 3rd overall from 8th (again, they got a top-5 pick), and then furthered it with the draft of a generation by finding Oettinger and Robertson.

I'd love to see. I hope that's what we get every year at the draft, but it's not really a strategy someone can plan for.

Originally Posted by DJones

You do realize that most teams have a top 5 pick. Of course most teams that won have a top 5 pick. How many teams don't have a top 5 pick on their team right now?

You need good players to win a cup, not a 3rd liner Seguin and a middle of the road 1D in Piertrangelo

I do know this, and I also know not having those picks excludes you from winning based on history of winners. Like I said, having one of them does not guarantee you anything, but not having one does guarantee you will not win if history is to be used as a guiding light.

The undervaluing of Pietrangelo continues to baffle me. Dude has been the #1 defenceman on two Stanley Cup teams...

I legitimately believe the only thing that holds the Flames back from becoming a top tier team is the lack of drafting opportunity. They do so much else right, but they cannot overcome the lack of opportunity to draft a MacKinnon/McDavid/Barkov/Doughty etc.

Conroy's approach of gaining all the picks and even the pro scouting under his time has been stellar. He just needs the drafting opportunity in the top-5.

[gvitaly]

^ It's not that I'm completely discounting Doughty and Pietrangelo. They were both taken in the 08 draft, their respective teams could've taken Karlsson at #15, Carlson at #27, or Josi at #38 that year. IMO, that 1 pick in a roster of 20 wasn't the main reason those teams won. They won as a team more than anything.

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Always really surprised how people pick up on sound bytes and treat them like gospel when there's plenty of evidence of what the actual plan is.

I guess people attend political rallies and lap up the same stuff.

The main concern for me on the plan wasn't a particular sound bite -- although I do think what a general manager of a team says publicly is often important, but does need to be weighed with context and timeframe. My concern was that Conroy was willing and interested in re-signing Lindholm and Hanifin, if they were willing to re-sign.

If the team had a hot start to last season that carried into November, those two and probably Tanev would have resigned, and there's a near certain chance that Markstrom would have also stayed. To me that would have set the "retool" and necessary culture shift back at least a couple of years.

Ultimately, I'm really happy with where things are at right now, regardless of the start to the season. Conroy's made bank on those trades and he and the coaches and leadership that have remained seem to have started to create the right culture again in the organization.

I'd still prefer if they got a top 5 pick and a couple top 10 picks in the next three years, but I'd honestly take this plucky, upstart, believe-in-each-other hockey like we're seeing now and we saw 10 years ago than tanking.

We'll see where this goes in the next few months, and when they have a run of bad bounces, but I like the "sound bite" from Steinberg that Conroy is looking to stay the course.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

^ It's not that I'm completely discounting Doughty and Pietrangelo. They were both taken in the 08 draft, their respective teams could've taken Karlsson at #15, Carlson at #27, or Josi at #38 that year. IMO, that 1 pick in a roster of 20 wasn't the main reason those teams won. They won as a team more than anything.

I just disagree. Pietrangelo and Doughty both have multiple Stanley Cups as #1 defencemen.

All Champions win as a team, but those teams need to be led by their stars - and if you don't have adequate stars, you don't end up winning the Cup.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

How is it ridiculous or over the top? Show examples of Champions in recent history that disprove it... It's just a reality. Having homegrown players from the top of the draft guarantees nothing, but not having them does in fact seem to exclude you from that hall of champions. Citing Vegas is a useless point, because the Flames cannot be an expansion team. So if you want to use that one angle to prove my point as ridiculous...sure, but it doesn't actually help show a path for the Flames to a Championship.

My point is that it’s ridiculous to say it’s the ONLY way. Yes, I know you’ve wanted to tank for the past number of years.
But, everyone has first round picks, some high ones, that have done nothing to help their team win a cup. You discount that because it doesn’t fit your wants. I bring up Vegas because they didn’t have a high first round pick. It completely discounts your claim, but it doesn’t fit your want to tank so you say it doesn’t count.

I think it’s much more accurate to say, show me a team that doesn’t want a decent young centre that they can acquire via trade and I will show you a beer league team full of the very best of friends.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by DJones

You do realize that most teams have a top 5 pick. Of course most teams that won have a top 5 pick. How many teams don't have a top 5 pick on their team right now?

You need good players to win a cup, not a 3rd liner Seguin and a middle of the road 1D in Piertrangelo

There’s a big difference in the value a top-5 drafted player brings a team in their first 7-8 years under team control, namely cost effectiveness in relation to their production.

Any team can go sign a former top draft pick as an expensive UFA or deplete their asset pool to acquire one, but these are depreciated assets and far less valuable in a cap world.

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Being an expansion team is an avenue available to Calgary?

Lol... No but I'd prefer Calgary's current roster to this one in 2017:

https://vegashockeyknight.com/2017/0...r-predictions/

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by shutout

No but being ruthless in how you manage assets is available to them.

I am not sure a market like Calgary which would be on the low end of desirability can be ruthless like Vegas which is a top tier destination for players due to the climate, tax situation, facilities, and vibrant city.

[Vinny01]

I think if the Flames really leaned into the tank they would have a much likelier chance of being the next Buffalo or Columbus than they would being the Penguins or Blackhawks.

As long as this team keeps acquiring and actually making picks they will be in a great spot to build a contender as long as the drafting remains strong. Keep it up with the multiple first round picks in 25, 26, and maybe 27 this team can have a strong foundation of homegrown talent.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I would try to pry Filip Bystedt(drafted 27th overall 22') out of San Jose. They already have Smith and Celebrini, and his biggest knock against him is skating, while we have a miracle worker in Danielle Fujita.

Here is his prospect profile from the Athletic:

Love this. Bystedt was a favourite of mine in his draft year, and a target I wanted for our team.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

My point is that it’s ridiculous to say it’s the ONLY way. Yes, I know you’ve wanted to tank for the past number of years.
But, everyone has first round picks, some high ones, that have done nothing to help their team win a cup. You discount that because it doesn’t fit your wants. I bring up Vegas because they didn’t have a high first round pick. It completely discounts your claim, but it doesn’t fit your want to tank so you say it doesn’t count.

I think it’s much more accurate to say, show me a team that doesn’t want a decent young centre that they can acquire via trade and I will show you a beer league team full of the very best of friends.

Last years winners had high draft picks. 10 years before they got the cup. And a whole retool later.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I am not sure a market like Calgary which would be on the low end of desirability can be ruthless like Vegas which is a top tier destination for players due to the climate, tax situation, facilities, and vibrant city.

Not sure how ruthless relates to attracting free agents.
I am talking about asset management.
No contracts for players over 32.
No contracts for over 30 with full NMC.
Which might mean that you are having to trade players before giving them third or fourth contracts.
Selling players high when you can get the best returns
Making sure that you are always looking to stockpile draft picks in the first three rounds.
Ruthless means trading a player like Iginla when you could have gotten a Carter as a prospect instead of keeping him too long when the majority of your fanbase will be angry about it.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah, he's definitely cited Dallas and I get the appeal - but it doesn't seem like much of an actionable plan.

Dallas won the lottery and vaulted to 3rd overall from 8th (again, they got a top-5 pick), and then furthered it with the draft of a generation by finding Oettinger and Robertson.

I'd love to see. I hope that's what we get every year at the draft, but it's not really a strategy someone can plan for.

No strategy includes the specific outcomes you listed. A strategy isn't about creating a plan to create events before they exist or happen at that level of detail. You're thinking prescience and, yes, that isn't something someone can plan for.

Dallas had/has a strategy that doesn't appear that it was to burn it all down. I'm guessing part of their strategy included drafting well, though.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

All Champions win as a team, but those teams need to be led by their stars - and if you don't have adequate stars, you don't end up winning the Cup.

I agree with this, but will say the obsession over draft position and where you “have” to have drafted is silly. It doesn’t matter how you get those stars, you just need them. And yes, it’s easier to get them at the top yourself, but “history says you need a top 5 pick” is just too overly simplified.

If Wolf stays on track and hits his potential (and damn he looks on his way)? Who cares where he was drafted.

Huberdeau is a top 5 pick. Doesn’t that move the needle for anyone? No? Then who cares where he was drafted.

If the Flames win the cup without a player they drafted in the top 5 while Huberdeau is still on the team, people can still use them as a reference point for “you have to pick top 5,” and that’s silly to me.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Last years winners had high draft picks. 10 years before they got the cup. And a whole retool later.

Exactly!

[traptor]

It's just a way higher likelihood of finding stars at the top of the draft.

Take your own top 10 players in the NHL. How many are drafted in the top 5 if the draft? Probably over half. And the rest are probably russian...

I've come around thiugh that a burn it down rebuild isn't in the stars for the Flames.
As others have said, we're more likely to end up as the Sabres then the blackhawks.

The best case is they walk the line. Keep the team hungry but suck enough to get lottery odds over the next couple years.
Keep a small but solid group of vets to lead the way.

Layered approach on the age ranges in the group and skew it younger.