2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Drafted and developed. Massive doffernce. Getting the Wolf’s, Pastrnak’s later in the draft is a bonus and can alter your course, but isn’t a viable strategy.

On the contrary, it's the only viable strategy. The alternative is (at best) to be Edmonton, rely on your high draft picks exclusively, not develop properly, and win nothing.

[dino7c]

Just pretend the Flames drafted Huberdeau...top 3 pick

[NegativeSpace]

It’s an interesting tension about necessary conditions for success. It seems the argument in the thread focuses on where to acquire first line centres. The ingredients for a championship team require a first line centre. Is it a top tier (whatever that is)? Is it a top five centre? Top ten? Top 16? A team can acquire a top 10 -16 centre outside of the top of the draft. Top 5 - the probability seems less. That is one ingredient. You probably need a good goalie (or at least a hot goalie) and an upper echelon offensive and defensive defencemen. Are those the necessary ingredients or are there more or less? Once you have the necessary ingredients that no winning team doesn’t have then do you have the remaining ingredients to make this team necessary.

When I think back to the last time Roy with the Habs won the cup or the Devils in the 90s - which are different eras so they may be irrelevant - but those teams had outstanding defence and goalies but less impressive forwards. Good forwards but not top of the league. It is interesting that it has been offensive players since Crosby and the lock out. Is that trend changing if the Rangers win with Shesterkin and teams are paying more for goalies and defence?

In other words, the question tends to focus on acquiring a top tier centre. Is that the only way? Could it be done another way? Sports are about finding blind spots, particularly if all the other franchises are doing it one way. It’s the way things are done until some one else does it differently and has success.

It is also interesting to look at the teams that have been historically drafting high for the past 10 years. You do not see a list of the best teams in the league. It’s really a mixed bag. Some teams were able to turn it around. Some teams are still looking for the answer. Drafting high is for bad teams. That sometimes helps those teams get better. Florida is bell of the ball now but it wasn’t looking great for quite a while. They were consistently asking how to beat Tampa until they did. Is the goal to trade your highest point producer and top 3 pick for a top 6 pick that is younger but brings a different dimension? Florida honestly drafted well and took advantage of other teams - Calgary and Buffalo primarily - to get their remaining core players. Is that something that requires absolutely top 10 picks?

[Ba'alzamon]

The thing about wanting to acquire a Zary-aged C is they already have one. His name is Connor Zary.

Frankly I'm not super enthused about the prospect of such a trade. Like I'm not against it per se, but I doubt anyone they'd be able to acquire would be better than Zary or Pospisil.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think Zary will end up being a very good 2nd line C. At some point, I would love to see him get a really long look in the middle.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

The thing about wanting to acquire a Zary-aged C is they already have one. His name is Connor Zary.

That's nice. There are four spots for centres in the lineup, and Kadri and Backlund aren't going to be around forever. Kirkland is no more than a stopgap, and Rooney isn't much more.

Centre is the obvious weakness in the Flames' depth chart.

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's nice. There are four spots for centres in the lineup, and Kadri and Backlund aren't going to be around forever. Kirkland is no more than a stopgap, and Rooney isn't much more.

Centre is the obvious weakness in the Flames' depth chart.

AGREED 1000%! Even if both Pospisil and Zary do become top 9 centers, which is 50/50 at best from an optimist, still need a #1 top line center. This was the one thing that stopped Iginla from winning a cup.

Iginlas center is the GM now, and he would tell you the same.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

It is also interesting to look at the teams that have been historically drafting high for the past 10 years. You do not see a list of the best teams in the league. It’s really a mixed bag. Some teams were able to turn it around. Some teams are still looking for the answer. Drafting high is for bad teams. That sometimes helps those teams get better. Florida is bell of the ball now but it wasn’t looking great for quite a while. They were consistently asking how to beat Tampa until they did. Is the goal to trade your highest point producer and top 3 pick for a top 6 pick that is younger but brings a different dimension? Florida honestly drafted well and took advantage of other teams - Calgary and Buffalo primarily - to get their remaining core players. Is that something that requires absolutely top 10 picks?

Making several top picks is no guarantee of success. But it does increase the odds of putting together an elite core that contends for years, rather than a core good enough to go on a cinderella run.

Compare the Blues the and Avs. The Blues never tanked. They put together a team that was good enough to go win a Cup. And now they’re mediocre again, and look likely to be mediocre for a good long while. The Avs tanked, including a historically awful season. They put together an elite core. And they’ve won one Cup - same as the Blues. So have both franchises had about equal success? I’d argue the Avs have been the more successful team, and may still have another Cup run or two in them if they can manage to get healthy.

Yes, some teams that tank stay stuck at the bottom for a long time. High picks do not guarantee an elite core. But lots of teams that never tank remain stuck in mediocrity for a long time. The Wild, Flames, Flyers, and Islanders. Rarely really bad. Rarely a genuine threat to win the President’s trophy or the Cup (and none of them seem likely to turn that around any time soon).

The Athletic recently did a long interview with Craig Leipold, owner of the Wild. He said the team has never tanked or done a sustained rebuild, and that they never would as long as he was owner. Their strategy going forward is to build around Kaprizov, Boldy, and Faber. Which doesn’t seem crazy on the face of it. And no doubt optimistic Wild fans can imagine them winning a Cup around that core. As an outsider, it seems less likely than the Ducks emerging as an elite team in the next 5-6 years. But I guess we’ll see.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Just pretend the Flames drafted Huberdeau...top 3 pick

Can we pretend we traded him for Tkachuk and won the Stanley Cup?

[BrownDrake]

Durzi being another right shot Dman out a long time, Connie's phone must be ringing off the hook for Andersson.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Making several top picks is no guarantee of success. But it does increase the odds of putting together an elite core that contends for years, rather than a core good enough to go on a cinderella run.

Compare the Blues the and Avs. The Blues never tanked. They put together a team that was good enough to go win a Cup. And now they’re mediocre again, and look likely to be mediocre for a good long while. The Avs tanked, including a historically awful season. They put together an elite core. And they’ve won one Cup - same as the Blues. So have both franchises had about equal success? I’d argue the Avs have been the more successful team, and may still have another Cup run or two in them if they can manage to get healthy.

Yes, some teams that tank stay stuck at the bottom for a long time. High picks do not guarantee an elite core. But lots of teams that never tank remain stuck in mediocrity for a long time. The Wild, Flames, Flyers, and Islanders. Rarely really bad. Rarely a genuine threat to win the President’s trophy or the Cup (and none of them seem likely to turn that around any time soon).

The Athletic recently did a long interview with Craig Leipold, owner of the Wild. He said the team has never tanked or done a sustained rebuild, and that they never would as long as he was owner. Their strategy going forward is to build around Kaprizov, Boldy, and Faber. Which doesn’t seem crazy on the face of it. And no doubt optimistic Wild fans can imagine them winning a Cup around that core. As an outsider, it seems less likely than the Ducks emerging as an elite team in the next 5-6 years. But I guess we’ll see.

Depends on your definition of ‘tank’.

I think there’s a bit of selective memory involved when people talk about ‘tanking’. If you look at the 2016/17 Avalanche roster, I bet they went into that season intending to win and compete for a playoff spot. MacKinnon, Duschene, Landeskog, Iginla, Rantenin, Barrie, Zadorov, Varlomov. That doesn’t look like a historically bad line up to me.

Same/similar could be said for the 16/16 Oilers when they win the lottery and were gifted McDavid. They were trying to compete that year.

Intentionally tanking isn’t something that happens too often. NHL teams and players prioritize competitiveness. Guys who are either fighting to solidify their spot on NHL rosters simply wouldn’t accept being told to tank. What type of response do you think you would get from Matt Coronato or Justin Kirkland if you told them to lay off and maybe only give it 60% tonight? They would probably tell you to GFY, they’re competing for their livelihood and, presumably, their dream to play full time in the NHL.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Depends on your definition of ‘tank’.

I think there’s a bit of selective memory involved when people talk about ‘tanking’. If you look at the 2016/17 Avalanche roster, I bet they went into that season intending to win and compete for a playoff spot. MacKinnon, Duschene, Landeskog, Iginla, Rantenin, Barrie, Zadorov, Varlomov. That doesn’t look like a historically bad line up to me.

Same/similar could be said for the 16/16 Oilers when they win the lottery and were gifted McDavid. They were trying to compete that year.

Intentionally tanking isn’t something that happens too often. NHL teams and players prioritize competitiveness. Guys who are either fighting to solidify their spot on NHL rosters simply wouldn’t accept being told to tank. What type of response do you think you would get from Matt Coronato or Justin Kirkland if you told them to lay off and maybe only give it 60% tonight? They would probably tell you to GFY, they’re competing for their livelihood and, presumably, their dream to play full time in the NHL.

Tanking is a strategy employed by owners and GMs. Not coaches and players - they’re always trying to win. And yes, sometimes rebuilding teams land those top picks in a season when they planned to be pulling out of the bottom of the standings. There’s a lot of variance and unpredictability in hockey.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Tanking is a strategy employed by owners and GMs. Not coaches and players - they’re always trying to win. And yes, sometimes rebuilding teams land those top picks in a season when they planned to be pulling out of the bottom of the standings. There’s a lot of variance and unpredictability in hockey.

So, who does tank? Buffalo did in 15/16 and it’s crushed that franchise ever since. Chicago did for Bedard. Rangers publicly acknowledged they were rebuilding, but that was relatively short lived. Did Detroit ever tank? LA? LA got multiple top 5 picks and they look to be headed on a downward trajectory again. They also held on to some vets during that process, again, depends what you consider ‘tanking’. The definition of tanking is pretty loose. If the Flames sell off Mantha, Kuzmenko, Vladar at the deadline, is that considered a 30% tank? If they trade Anderson too, 50%? Is it not considered a tank at all if they don’t get any lottery luck and end up picking 9OA?

Agreed that this is a decision/direction established by ownership, first and foremost, and then management. I doubt, very much, it will happen here. If the Flames do end up picking in the top 3 I bet it will be because A) they get lucky and win the lottery B) several key injuries derail a season.

[Badgers Nose]

With the team doing well, and the question of short term chemistry, it will be interesting to see how ruthless Conroy gets while chasing his vision for this team.

Trading heart and soul Anderson right now for a haul including a young NHL ready centre (when you already have 2-3 young aspirants in Shark, Popsicle and Zary) is one heck of a chemistry experiment. As likely to explode as it is smell like roses.

But ling term it's probably the right thing to do.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

AGREED 1000%! Even if both Pospisil and Zary do become top 9 centers, which is 50/50 at best from an optimist, still need a #1 top line center. This was the one thing that stopped Iginla from winning a cup.

Iginlas center is the GM now, and he would tell you the same.

I mean Iginla won a cup...or if you must he was a milimeter away

[indes]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

AGREED 1000%! Even if both Pospisil and Zary do become top 9 centers, which is 50/50 at best from an optimist, still need a #1 top line center. This was the one thing that stopped Iginla from winning a cup.

Iginlas center is the GM now, and he would tell you the same.

Damn you Button, damn you. It causes me immense pain to think about what could've been between Iginla and Savard.

[Enoch Root]

The whole 'never won a cup' argument just doesn't apply, when talking about 04. If you watch that series, as a neutral observer, the Flames were the better team over the first 6 games, and were fully deserving of winning the series. The Lightning were the better team in game 7, because the Flames ran out of gas - and full credit to them, for it. But until game 7, the Flames were at least 50% deserving of the series, IMO, and I would argue more than 50. And if that goal counts, in game 6, there is little question that they close the deal from there.

Is what it is, and they lost it. But to imply they didn't have a cup-worthy team is disingenuous, IMO.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

On the contrary, it's the only viable strategy. The alternative is (at best) to be Edmonton, rely on your high draft picks exclusively, not develop properly, and win nothing.

Why does a rebuild have to mean "relying on high draft picks exclusively" and "not developing properly"? That’s a false equivalency. Mismanagement and a rebuild are two entirely separate issues.

Conroy's strategy as deployed can work, it just needs a nucleus of prospects to build off of, which is where we seem to disagree. I don’t believe that consistently drafting in the late teens or twenties, hoping for the next Pastrnak or Wolf every year, is a sustainable strategy. It's a gamble, not a plan, to expect to out-draft teams and out-transaction them over the long run from that position.

Teams like Edmonton and Buffalo have been notorious for mismanaging their assets, but that doesn’t mean a rebuild is inherently flawed. Too many people write off rebuilds because of these tired examples.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Prioritizing scouting and development so you stand a better chance of hitting on later picks is absolutely a viable strategy.

Not what I'm suggesting isn't viable. I contend that relying on this to form the nucleus of your team is a low percentage strategy that doesn't have much historical precedent for cup winning teams, especially in small/unappealing markets.

[dammage79]

So what do the Flames do with Sharangovich, he's yet to make his debut and they're ticking along. Who am I kidding, he'll be dressed and playing the second he is cleared. That's an exciting thing for me, we haven't even seen the teams leading goal scorer play yet.