2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[stemit14]

I think the timelines that Pittsburgh and Chicago experienced in short order of their rebuilds post-lockout created high expectations for fans in terms of how fast a rebuild should take. I look back to those two rebuilds as being the most direct correlation of being bad enough to get a couple franchise players in the draft and then almost immediately becoming a powerhouse team for 5-10 years.

Crosby was drafted in 2005, they went to the cup final in 2008 and won their first Crosby-era cup in 2009.

Toews was drafted in 2007. Kane was drafted in 2008. They won their first Kane-Toews era cup in 2010.

Those incredibly fast turn arounds of franchises became the expectation for everyone. Media and fans started treating being at the bottom of the league as a virtual guarantee that the team would become a perennial cup contender within 2-3 years. Great example was Edmonton… the trend of the media picking them to be cup contenders every year stretches as far back as 2010 and 2011. They got Hall and RNH and were picked to be the next Chicago that very year. It was laughable as a flames fan back then but it’s even more laughable thinking back to how that turned out for them.

The reality is that Chicago and Pittsburgh are the exception rather than the norm. As others have said… it takes much longer to reach cup contending-status… if it happens at all. Not to mention the fact that the timeline we associate with the Chicago and Pittsburgh rebuilds seem to ignore that those teams were bad for quite a few years before they hit big at the top of the draft.

Ultimately, the best guess you can make to getting out of a rebuild “fast” is getting not just a #1 center or a top pairing defenceman… it’s getting the best center in the league or the most offensively-skilled winger in the league or the most dominant defenceman in the league from that high draft pick. Guys like Crosby, Kane, and Makar are what I’m talking about. Toughest part about that is that it’s pretty much based on luck. 2026 and 2027 are the drafts that look to have those levels of players at the top. If the flames can get one of those, I think the rebuild could be fast. If not, it will likely be slower - not necessarily unsuccessful - just slower (5-10 years instead of 3-5 years).

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Correlation is not necessarily causation. Almost every team in the league will be a playoff contender at least once in a ten year window.

Getting lucky with a draft lottery win when a franchise player is available in the draft definitely helps. But there is absolutely no evidence that teams dedicated to the tank have better overall playoff results than those that take other approaches.

Each of the cup winners of the last decade had atleast one top 4 star player that they drafted around within 10 years of wining, except Vegas.
Vegas couldn't meet this requirement as they didn't exist. They did go out and acquire this star player in Eichel.

2024 - Florida Panthers - barkov
2023 - Vegas Golden Knights
2022 - Colorado Avalanche - mack
2021 - Tampa Bay Lightning - hedman
2020 - Tampa Bay Lightning
2019 - St. Louis Blues - pietrangelo
2018 - Washington Capitals - ovechkin
2017 - Pittsburgh Penguins - crosby
2016 - Pittsburgh Penguins
2015 - Chicago Blackhawks - kane
2014 - Los Angeles Kings - doughty

There were 40 players drafted top 4 between 2004-2014.
18 teams draft top 4. 8/18 of those teams won atleast 1 cup between 2014-2024.
12 teams didn't get a top 4 pick between 2004-2014. None of them went on to win a cup between 2014-2024.

Its definitely not a gurantee or even a requirement but it's a VERY strong trend.

A fully developed star player from the top of the draft helps alot with winning.


You can get these via trade and free agency but it's very rare for a top drafted star player to be available in their prime. The easiest way is to draft them directly.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Based on IMO.

Agreed, its more than a collection of names, but both have what is likely some elite talent which is the start of a potential contending core. Those players are more than just a name.

I don't really know what Calgary's plans are.

I think trading Andersson when his value is high (not sure when that exactly will be) rather than signing him to a long term expensive extension will tells us where Calagry is going. And especially with Kuzmenko this year.

I don’t think Calgary’s plans are that big of a mystery. Conroy’s been pretty transparent on wanting to get younger and, if you don’t want to be here, you will be moved. He’s also on record in saying he will not go past the TDL with pending UFA’s. Now, he did with Kylinton but I think that was a unique scenario that’s a one off.

I’d be surprised if Conroy goes beyond the trade deadline with Kuzmenko, Mantha, Barrie, or Vladar on the team without an extension.

I also think he wants to integrate youth with veterans who want to be here and are still impactful players. In other words guys like Kadri, Backlund, Huberdeau, Weegar, and unless he asks out, Anderson.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I also think he wants to integrate youth with veterans who want to be here and are still impactful players. In other words guys like Kadri, Backlund, Huberdeau, Weegar, and unless he asks out, Anderson.

So, if Andersson wants to stay (presumably on an 8 year contract) , he'll be resigned?

How about if Kuzmenko wants to stay?

I assume its simply more than whether they want to stay, its whether Calgary wants them to stay on terms acceptable to Calgary.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So, if Andersson wants to stay (presumably on an 8 year contract) , he'll be resigned?

How about if Kuzmenko wants to stay?

I assume its simply more than whether they want to stay, its whether Calgary wants them to stay on terms acceptable to Calgary.

It's probably similar to the last batch of UFAs. They have a number and term they're willing to do. If they can't them at that term, they ship em.

I'm just throwing out numbers but:
Rasmus 7x8 they probably do. 9x8 not so sure.

Kuzmenko 6x4 maybe they do. 6.5x6 probably not.

At some point they have to draw the line though.
You can't keep both manth and kuzmenko even if they both want to stay at reasonable deals.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So, if Andersson wants to stay (presumably on an 8 year contract) , he'll be resigned?

How about if Kuzmenko wants to stay?

I assume its simply more than whether they want to stay, its whether Calgary wants them to stay on terms acceptable to Calgary.

Don’t know.

I’m not in the room and I’m not negotiating. If Anderson wants to stay I’m sure Conroy would have the conversation. Term and dollars will dictate, obviously. That’s why I mention Anderson specifically as the exception. I do think there’s a chance, albeit less than 50%, he extends. I think Anderson, ultimately, will want to be playing on a competitive team sooner rather than later but I’m just a fan from 30,000ft. I have no idea what he’s said to Conroy or if he’s said anything at all other than ‘let’s see how this goes’. It was basically a year ago he was being talked about as a potential captain for this team. Is it a forgone conclusion they are going to trade him? I’m not so sure.

Again, Conroy said he wants to make room for young players, so I don’t see a long term fit for Kuzmenko. Nor Mantha.

To be clear, I think Conroy wants to have room so young players to earn their spots. He’s not going yo give it to them. If Pelletier, for example, has a strong year in the AHL. Conroy will make room for him.

[camm13]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Ottawa and Detroit rebuilds are taking forever because they haven't had enough picks at the very top of the draft.
Anaheim is similar, but at least they had a few top 3 picks.

While they haven't had a top 3 pick, Detroit has picked from the top 10, 7 out of the last 8 seasons. Some of their picks were questionable, they'd look a lot different for example if they didn't pick Zadina (6th) when guys like Hughes, Dobson, Farabee etc were available).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Toews was drafted in 2007. Kane was drafted in 2008. They won their first Kane-Toews era cup in 2010.

Chicago had Seabrook and Keith already in the system by the time they drafted Toews and Kane. Plus Bolland, Brouwer, Hjammersson, Byfuglein, Crawford were already in the system. They just needed the two elite players. That's why their rebuild seemed fast, but in reality, the Toews, Kane additions were at the end of the rebuild.

Then they got Sharp in a trade and added Campbell and Hossa as UFA's.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Chicago had Seabrook and Keith already in the system by the time they drafted Toews and Kane. Plus Bolland, Brouwer, Hjammersson, Byfuglein, Crawford were already in the system. They just needed the two elite players. That's why their rebuild seemed fast, but in reality, the Toews, Kane additions were at the end of the rebuild.

Then they got Sharp in a trade and added Campbell and Hossa as UFA's.

Man is it crazy to think the flames could do something similar?
I feel like all were missing is that elite center talent up front.


D core has good foundations with weegar, rasmus and bahl. Some solid D prospects getting really close.

Goaltending seems solid. Wolf is shapping up to be the real thing.

Then we have lots of solid vets up front and some solid prospects.


If we somehow snagged like a Hagens or McKenna over the next couple years, I think this process would go very quickly.

[PepsiFree]

Pittsburgh and Chicago are pretty irrelevant at this point. They won cups almost ten years ago on the backs of teams they started building almost 15 years ago.

In that time many teams have tried and failed to do the same thing. Hell, no team since Pittsburgh has successfully replicated the same approach. They’ve all done it completely different or started similar and had to significantly retool to push themselves over the top.

I’m confident the next 5 years of winners are going to look quite different than the last 5-10. When the Flames are next ready to compete, it might be a very different conversation around what it takes to build a championship calibre team. So there’s limited value in reaching as far back as 15 years ago to try to figure out what the Flames need to do to be a winner 20-25 years after those data points.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pittsburgh and Chicago are pretty irrelevant at this point. They won cups almost ten years ago on the backs of teams they started building almost 15 years ago.

In that time many teams have tried and failed to do the same thing. Hell, no team since Pittsburgh has successfully replicated the same approach. They’ve all done it completely different or started similar and had to significantly retool to push themselves over the top.

I’m confident the next 5 years of winners are going to look quite different than the last 5-10. When the Flames are next ready to compete, it might be a very different conversation around what it takes to build a championship calibre team. So there’s limited value in reaching as far back as 15 years ago to try to figure out what the Flames need to do to be a winner 20-25 years after those data points.

The back-diving contracts alone make it a whole different world back then in terms of building a championship team.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pittsburgh and Chicago are pretty irrelevant at this point. They won cups almost ten years ago on the backs of teams they started building almost 15 years ago.

In that time many teams have tried and failed to do the same thing. Hell, no team since Pittsburgh has successfully replicated the same approach. They’ve all done it completely different or started similar and had to significantly retool to push themselves over the top.

I’m confident the next 5 years of winners are going to look quite different than the last 5-10. When the Flames are next ready to compete, it might be a very different conversation around what it takes to build a championship calibre team. So there’s limited value in reaching as far back as 15 years ago to try to figure out what the Flames need to do to be a winner 20-25 years after those data points.

Agreed.

There seems to be this belief that you can look back, identify teams (usually cup winning teams) and say ‘that’s how you do it’.

It’s probably more accurate, and worth while, to understand the uniques circumstances that each faced. You’ll probably find it goes beyond’pick in the top 5’.

Also, what about the successful teams that didn’t win? What about SJ or Vancouver, or more recently, Carolina? Each of these teams put themselves into cup contention for periods of time that certainly is worth looking at.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Chicago had Seabrook and Keith already in the system by the time they drafted Toews and Kane. Plus Bolland, Brouwer, Hjammersson, Byfuglein, Crawford were already in the system. They just needed the two elite players. That's why their rebuild seemed fast, but in reality, the Toews, Kane additions were at the end of the rebuild.

Then they got Sharp in a trade and added Campbell and Hossa as UFA's.

Pittsburgh wasn't that dissimilar either. They made the Conference Finals with Jagr in 2001, then the "re-build" started when they traded him to Washington.

They had Crosby in 2005 but they had picked top 5 in each of 2004/2003/2002 as well.

So if you go 2002 as the start of the rebuild (they picked Ryan Whitney 5th overall) then it was 6-7 years until they won the cup with Crosby in 2009.

So generally the best case scenario for a bottomed out rebuild is 5-7 years (Pittsburgh/Chicago) and the more likely is like 9-10 years (Colorado, Tampa Bay).

The one consistent though is you need a guy who is a top 10 center in the NHL to win. And you generally need to draft that guy. And generally you draft them in the top 5. But it's not impossible to get them in other ways, but you just need to have that guy to have any chance at winning a cup.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Pittsburgh wasn't that dissimilar either. They made the Conference Finals with Jagr in 2001, then the "re-build" started when they traded him to Washington.

They had Crosby in 2005 but they had picked top 5 in each of 2004/2003/2002 as well.

So if you go 2002 as the start of the rebuild (they picked Ryan Whitney 5th overall) then it was 6-7 years until they won the cup with Crosby in 2009.

So generally the best case scenario for a bottomed out rebuild is 5-7 years (Pittsburgh/Chicago) and the more likely is like 9-10 years (Colorado, Tampa Bay).

The one consistent though is you need a guy who is a top 10 center in the NHL to win. And you generally need to draft that guy. And generally you draft them in the top 5. But it's not impossible to get them in other ways, but you just need to have that guy to have any chance at winning a cup.

One thing worth acknowledging about Pittsburgh during this time is their issues with ownership. They went bankrupt, I believe. So their collection of top 5 picks likely had more to do with their financial situation opposed to a plan to ‘tank’.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by traptor

Each of the cup winners of the last decade had atleast one top 4 star player that they drafted around within 10 years of wining, except Vegas.
Vegas couldn't meet this requirement as they didn't exist. They did go out and acquire this star player in Eichel.

2024 - Florida Panthers - barkov
2023 - Vegas Golden Knights
2022 - Colorado Avalanche - mack
2021 - Tampa Bay Lightning - hedman
2020 - Tampa Bay Lightning
2019 - St. Louis Blues - pietrangelo
2018 - Washington Capitals - ovechkin
2017 - Pittsburgh Penguins - crosby
2016 - Pittsburgh Penguins
2015 - Chicago Blackhawks - kane
2014 - Los Angeles Kings - doughty

There were 40 players drafted top 4 between 2004-2014.
18 teams draft top 4. 8/18 of those teams won atleast 1 cup between 2014-2024.
12 teams didn't get a top 4 pick between 2004-2014. None of them went on to win a cup between 2014-2024.

Its definitely not a gurantee or even a requirement but it's a VERY strong trend.

A fully developed star player from the top of the draft helps alot with winning.


You can get these via trade and free agency but it's very rare for a top drafted star player to be available in their prime. The easiest way is to draft them directly.

Again, correlation is not causation. I was only able to find 5 teams who did not have a top 4 pick between 2004-2014: Dallas, Detroit, the Rangers, San Jose, and Vancouver. I might add that although Dallas, the Rangers, and the Sharks did not win the Cup in the following 10 years, they were all Stanley Cup finalists. Every one of those teams believed that they were Cup contenders in that period of time, and every one of them traded away at least one first round pick during their window of contention, and the majority of them traded away multiple 1st and 2nd round picks (in 2010, Vancouver didn't pick until the 4th round). They were all in or entering their competitive windows between 2004-2014. Then, due to the cyclic nature of competitive windows, especially if i team is tanking to draft high, and if the time needed to build a Cup contender is 10 years as you suggest, they would have all been rebuilding between 2014-2024. There certainly seems to be a negative correlation between trading away 1st round draft picks and winning the Cup 10 years later.

Maybe the lesson is to hold onto your 1st round picks, even if you think you are a competitor to win the Cup, because it may improve your overall chances of winning in the long run. That, and of course, Vancouver is No Good.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pittsburgh and Chicago are pretty irrelevant at this point. They won cups almost ten years ago on the backs of teams they started building almost 15 years ago.

In that time many teams have tried and failed to do the same thing. Hell, no team since Pittsburgh has successfully replicated the same approach. They’ve all done it completely different or started similar and had to significantly retool to push themselves over the top.

I’m confident the next 5 years of winners are going to look quite different than the last 5-10. When the Flames are next ready to compete, it might be a very different conversation around what it takes to build a championship calibre team. So there’s limited value in reaching as far back as 15 years ago to try to figure out what the Flames need to do to be a winner 20-25 years after those data points.

Exactly. I agree that they should not be the standard we hold rebuilds to anymore because it’s such a rarity for them to go that way and because it was more than a decade ago. I just think that their success made every one think that would work for pretty much every team that picks 1st overall - and people still think that today in a lot of cases. When two dynasty teams emerged back to back in seemingly quick order after drafting their superstar players… media and fans thought that should happen for every team finishing at the bottom of the standings. I remember people thinking something was wrong with Stamkos in his first year because he didn’t look as good as Crosby/Kane his first few months. It was like the bar for young players entering the league was set super high.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The one consistent though is you need a guy who is a top 10 center in the NHL to win. And you generally need to draft that guy. And generally you draft them in the top 5. But it's not impossible to get them in other ways, but you just need to have that guy to have any chance at winning a cup.

I think it’s more accurate to say that most teams who have won have had a centre playing like one of the top 10 centres in the league. If you look at all the teams who have made the finals in the last decade (which I would qualify as “having a chance to win”) in addition to the teams that won, it’s a little less definitive. Top 10 centre, top 10 defenceman, and top 5 goaltender. Oh, and a great coach.

I’d argue that a hot goaltender is a much more crucial “must have.” But any team that doesn’t check all of these boxes is going to struggle to have a chance. And none of them really require a specific pedigree, they just need to hit an elite level, together, at the right time.

Part of the problem in just looking at winners is that some guys get that winner “bump” in reputation, despite it being a team game. The same thing that happens to middle six wingers happens to top centres and goaltenders, but the difference is that we kind of make a joke about middling guys earning that reputation. Chicago didn’t win because of Toews alone, but Toews’ reputation certainly benefited from winning. Not saying he was a whole lot worse than his reputation, but there’s no denying the revisionist history than happens (look at O’Reilly and Ovechkin, for clearer examples).

[Ped]

And remember, Pittsburgh getting Crosby was purely a lottery win (unless you believe the NHL rigged it).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by traptor

Man is it crazy to think the flames could do something similar?
I feel like all were missing is that elite center talent up front.


D core has good foundations with weegar, rasmus and bahl. Some solid D prospects getting really close.

Goaltending seems solid. Wolf is shapping up to be the real thing.

Then we have lots of solid vets up front and some solid prospects.


If we somehow snagged like a Hagens or McKenna over the next couple years, I think this process would go very quickly.

Likely a bit crazy.

Keith was young and a furture HOFer.

Seabrook was young and a near future HOFer.

The fact is, all those Hawks players were just reaching their prime.

Weegar and Andersson will be in their 30's even if Calgary snags a Mckenna.

Kadri/Huberdeau, same story.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Part of the problem in just looking at winners is that some guys get that winner “bump” in reputation, despite it being a team game. The same thing that happens to middle six wingers happens to top centres and goaltenders, but the difference is that we kind of make a joke about middling guys earning that reputation. Chicago didn’t win because of Toews alone, but Toews’ reputation certainly benefited from winning. Not saying he was a whole lot worse than his reputation, but there’s no denying the revisionist history than happens (look at O’Reilly and Ovechkin, for clearer examples).

You are right about Toews, but Chicago's core players always lifted their game in the playoffs. Pretty much all of them. No one talked about Keith being the best dman in the league (he did win the Norris once), but come playoff time, no one was better. Bolland was an absolute beast in the playoffs, shutting down the other teams best players.

I think all those players reputations benefited from their playoff performances. Kane's first 2 hattricks were in game clinching wins, the first against Vancouver and a hapless Luongo.