2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The key now is sticking to a long term vision regardless of the results.

The results are a nice benefit but don't start changing the vision because if it and moving futures for win now assets or trying to accelerate your timeline.

That's what they did after 14-15.

Winning is fine as long as they don't go crazy and make a bunch of win now trades or sign over priced free agents.

One issue was that the team really did not accumulate that many draft picks in the seasons leading up to the Hamilton trade or after. The 2013 selling of Iginla and Bouwmesster netted pucks that ultimately were wasted.

The Hamilton trade itself is actually an adequate result. The placement of the picks traded was known and Hamilton was an ascending productive player the right age. Even moving him out to get two players who were 23 and under was a good result.

So moving picks to take a chance on a player or players 23 and under is not terrible. Moreso if the pick placement is known. But you can't make a habit of it or you end up deficient in assets.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Two Fivenagame

They also have terrifying hurricanes. I think that event things out a bit.

Plus a fan base almost entirely made up of Floridians; Cali Panthers Fan being the lone exception.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Vladar has a 2.63 GAA and a .890 save percentage.

A 2nd round pick would be paying up.

But again, Calgary needs Vladar as much as any team.

Good thing you’re not GM. Vladar should fetch more based on the demand around the league. And his cap hit can fit with ANY team.

[keenan87]

Tom Wilson for Jonathan Huberdeau

Who says no?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Tom Wilson for Jonathan Huberdeau

Who says no?

Washington. They love him.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Tom Wilson for Jonathan Huberdeau

Who says no?

Both.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

One issue was that the team really did not accumulate that many draft picks in the seasons leading up to the Hamilton trade or after. The 2013 selling of Iginla and Bouwmesster netted pucks that ultimately were wasted.

The Hamilton trade itself is actually an adequate result. The placement of the picks traded was known and Hamilton was an ascending productive player the right age. Even moving him out to get two players who were 23 and under was a good result.

So moving picks to take a chance on a player or players 23 and under is not terrible. Moreso if the pick placement is known. But you can't make a habit of it or you end up deficient in assets.

Yeah, the coaching was definitely one factor, on the prior core, but this is another - after Tkachuk, they didn't add anyone else to the team, via the draft. It's a rebuild, but you literally don't add a single player, via the draft, for the next 5 years.

In 2014, you've got Gaudreau, Monahan and Bennett
2015: Andersson, Mangiapane - very good
2016: Tkachuk, Dube - very good

Great, you've drafted the early makings of a core - now what?

2017: nothing
2018: nothing (Pospisil didn't join the team until 2023)
2019: nothing (Pelletier coming)
2020: nothing (Zary in 2023)
2021: nothing (Coronato in 23-24)

A lack of picks, combined with no hits from the small pool of them, left Treliving searching in the UFA waters (which only further weakened the draft pool).

Yes, they also added Lindholm and Hanifin via trade, but they tried to come out of the rebuild much, much too early.

Hopefully Conroy will have more patience (I think he will)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'm not disagreeing broadly with the premise that having high picks is the best way to get elite players but the logical fallacy that continues to be made in this thread is with regards to the above. The reason for the above is primarily because MOST teams overall have top 5 picks. So the presence of them on a roster doesn't really mean anything.

The Flames already technically qualify as “one of those teams” thanks to Huberdeau. That’s pretty good evidence the condition doesn’t actually mean anything.

A poster earlier argued that finding guys like Wolf or Pastrnak in later rounds wasn’t a viable strategy. But “picking top 5” isn’t a viable strategy either, it’s not even a strategy. It’s a result of poor play and a lot of luck after the season ends. Not a strategy.

The strategy is focusing on scouting and development. Having high picks makes it easier to maximize the success of that strategy because that’s where it’s harder to miss, but picking high isn’t a strategy itself.

People focus way too much on successful results and really simple metrics and try to suggest that should be the strategy, but it’s the same as saying the strategy should be to “win the Stanley Cup.” It’s great that there are top 5 picks on every team that wins, but what does that actually mean? Probably not what people think, as Washington, Florida, and Vegas are very, very different teams than Pittsburgh or Chicago.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A poster earlier argued that finding guys like Wolf or Pastrnak in later rounds wasn’t a viable strategy. But “picking top 5” isn’t a viable strategy either, it’s not even a strategy. It’s a result of poor play and a lot of luck after the season ends. Not a strategy.

The strategy is focusing on scouting and development. Having high picks makes it easier to maximize the success of that strategy because that’s where it’s harder to miss, but picking high isn’t a strategy itself.

It can most definitely be a strategy, I don’t see how you could argue otherwise. ‘Scorched earth’ rebuild isn’t a new concept, it’s just not a popular one for owners or around here for that matter.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

It can most definitely be a strategy, I don’t see how you could argue otherwise. ‘Scorched earth’ rebuild isn’t a new concept, it’s just not a popular one for owners or around here for that matter.

It can be part of a strategy, but it isn’t a strategy any more than finding gems in later rounds is a strategy.

Hell, I would argue “scorched earth” isn’t even a strategy by itself, and I would say teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, and even Colorado at the beginning went “scorched earth” without an actual strategy on how to build the team back up, which is why all three of those teams had extended or additional rebuilds after the initial “scorched earth.”

Easy to tear it all down. Takes a little more to build it back up.

San Jose’s success is going to depend a lot more on what their strategy for rebuilding is than where they drafted the past few years. Same with Chicago. Draft position will contribute to the their potential for success, but it isn’t a strategy.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Flames already technically qualify as “one of those teams” thanks to Huberdeau. That’s pretty good evidence the condition doesn’t actually mean anything.

A poster earlier argued that finding guys like Wolf or Pastrnak in later rounds wasn’t a viable strategy. But “picking top 5” isn’t a viable strategy either, it’s not even a strategy. It’s a result of poor play and a lot of luck after the season ends. Not a strategy.

The strategy is focusing on scouting and development. Having high picks makes it easier to maximize the success of that strategy because that’s where it’s harder to miss, but picking high isn’t a strategy itself.

People focus way too much on successful results and really simple metrics and try to suggest that should be the strategy, but it’s the same as saying the strategy should be to “win the Stanley Cup.” It’s great that there are top 5 picks on every team that wins, but what does that actually mean? Probably not what people think, as Washington, Florida, and Vegas are very, very different teams than Pittsburgh or Chicago.

It’s not a strategy.

And if it were a strategy, how many do you need? Just one? Two? Three? Further, I’d say that there are equally as important players, or even more so, on most cup winning team tgat were drafted outside of the top 5 picks.

[FlamesAddiction]

Scorched earth rebuilds are more reliable when it is in a market that can also attract quality free agents to lead the recently draft young core because player development also relies on kids having good veterans to help them improve their skills and show them how to be good professionals. Those teams can trade all their veterans for picks, but then easily replace them.

If the Flames traded away all of their good veterans and just relied on prosepcts, it would be hard to dig out of that. I don't think any players like Andersson, Weegar, Kadri, Backlund, etc... would be lining up to join a team like that. You would end up like Buffalo or Edmonton before they lucked out and won the McDavid lottery.

[Poster]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

With a number of teams having their seasons derailed in net (Avalanche, Oilers, Canucks, others?), could we see Vladar becoming a valuable asset? He is a UFA next year.

What is his value? (A 2nd?)
Would the Flames be willing to trade him despite their hot start??

Canucks having problems in net?

Lankinen is currently top 3 for both GAA & Save %.

Doesn’t mean it will last but no reason for VAN to even think about adding another G especially if you think you will get a premium for Vladar (you won’t).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Good thing you’re not GM. Vladar should fetch more based on the demand around the league. And his cap hit can fit with ANY team.

Vladar is coming off two terrible years, and it’s not like he’s been a Venzina winner this year.

But he’s suddenly worth a first round pick?

He’ll been a much bigger sample size of very good play to be worth much at all.

And he’ll get his chance here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TOfan

It’s not a strategy.

And if it were a strategy, how many do you need? Just one? Two? Three? Further, I’d say that there are equally as important players, or even more so, on most cup winning team tgat were drafted outside of the top 5 picks.

Exactly.

And there are a lot of ho-hum players drafted in the top five.

Ten years ago you go in with the “strategy” that you’re going to draft top 5 for three years in a row. You draft Dal Colle (5), Strome(3), and Puljujarvi(4).

Another team is just going to prioritize scouting and development. In the same three drafts, they take Larkin(15), Rantanen(10), and McAvoy(14).

Which team do people look at as having the better “strategy”? Which team has the better base to build a cup winner?

Draft position isn’t a strategy. It’s what you do with the positions you have that matters.

[SuperMatt18]

He's had a good start to the season but right now even his stats are only a .890

[Kipper_3434]

If Conroy could get a 2nd for Vladar and didn't trade him, I would be shocked. Shocked! I tell ya.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

If Conroy could get a 2nd for Vladar and didn't trade him, I would be shocked. Shocked! I tell ya.

Except that you'd never find out about it, because we mostly hear about the trades that actually did happen, and seldom have reliable info about the woulda-shoulda-couldas.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

He's had a good start to the season but right now even his stats are only a .890

Wolf has played 6 periods, he's given up 4 goals and boasts a 2.02 GAA and .944 S%

Vladar has played 9 periods and 2 OTs. The 1st period of the season sucked, and he gave up 4 goals.

Since then, in 8 periods and 2 OTs, he has given up 4 goals and boasts a 1.48 GAA and a .931 save percentage, all on the road.

Stats are fun.

[Jay Random]

It's almost like the team tried tanking for the first 20 minutes of the season, then looked at each other and said: ‘You know what? This is no fun. Screw tanking, and let's play some real hockey!’