2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[CliffFletcher]

The case for drafting top-4 isn’t that it makes you likely to win the Cup. It’s that it makes you more likely to win the Cup than not drafting in the top-4.

If diving to the bottom of the standings gives you a 40 per cent chance of icing a contender once the rebuild matures, and not picking at the top of the draft gives you a 25 per cent chance of contending in that timeframe, then the tank strategy is the better strategy - even if it’s unlikely to make you a contender.

I’m having flashbacks to the CP Iginla Rebuild Wars (2009-12).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Because it was cited as Chicago having missed the playoffs for 7 years. Chicago also won their play in round.

Chicago barely made the play-in round; they were 12th in the conference. The Flames, if memory serves, were 8th in the conference by winning percentage, and as things stood, would have made the playoffs on their own merit.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The case for drafting top-4 isn’t that it makes you likely to win the Cup. It’s that it makes you more likely to win the Cup than not drafting in the top-4.

If diving to the bottom of the standings gives you a 40 per cent chance of icing a contender once the rebuild matures, and not picking at the top of the draft gives you a 25 per cent chance of contending in that timeframe, then the tank strategy is the better strategy - even if it’s unlikely to make you a contender.

But there is no such strong correlation. Going from memory of the last time I ran these numbers: Nine out of ten Stanley Cup winners have a top-three pick on the winning roster… but so do nine out of ten teams league-wide. Having picked high (or acquired someone else's high pick) doesn't set you apart, and doesn't improve your odds. It's mostly about how you assemble your team after that – and whether you have luck. Nobody ever made it through a 16-team NHL playoff bracket without the benefit of luck.

[Macho0978]

I love how teams that picked in the top 5 of the draft a few times in a 5 year stretch always leads to the assumption they planned it. I posted a few months ago on the Florida Panthers so called tank to win a cup.

They drafted Gudbranson and Huberdeau 3rd overall 2 years in a row, but they had 77 and 72 point seasons. No tanking involved.

They go out a sign quite of few players the summer of Huberdeau's draft. Make the playoffs with a .573 Point %.

They don't sell off a ton of players that summer after losing in the playoffs and fall down the standings. Get Barkov.

Tank to get Ekblad. Maybe 1 year of tanking, not 5.

If the examples are Chicago and Pittsburgh from 2 decades ago, you might want to relook as those examples were in a time with very different rules.

Seems like a lot of recent rebuilds have their ups and downs too. Florida and Colorado had terrible seasons mixed in with good seasons during their stockpiling of their current core.

Seems like getting lucky with the lottery or getting a top pick without being a 40/50 point team helps too.

[Jason14h]

Well obviously being a 70 pt team and winning the lottery is better then being a 50 point team and winning the lottery

I think the Flames need to finish 9th and win the lottery for their best future chance for success ! Easy peazy

[Jiri Hrdina]

The Avs are a great example of lucky failure.

They spend 3 years out of the playoffs from 2011 to 2013, getting Mackinnon first overall in 2013. The next year they rebound to a 112 point season, before falling back to 90 and 82 point seasons. But heading into that next season they have a roster that includes Nathan Mackinnon, Matt Duchene, Mikko Rantanen, and Landeskog. They are supposed to be turning the corner.

Instead they fall all the way down to 48 points. Dead last.
But they have a disaster of a lottery as NJD jumps from 5 to 1, the Flyers jump from 13 to 2nd and the Stars jump from 8th to 3rd.

NJD picks Hiscier, Philly Patrick and Dallas Heiskanen.
That drops Makar to the Avs - and changes their history completely.

Would Colorado have picked Makar 1st overall if they had the pick? No one knows but most had him at #4 including Bob.

So yeah you need some things to go your way.

In this case the Avs needed to have a shockingly bad season, and a horrible draft lottery to have the right guy fall to them.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Well obviously being a 70 pt team and winning the lottery is better then being a 50 point team and winning the lottery

I think the Flames need to finish 9th and win the lottery for their best future chance for success ! Easy peazy

It happens all the time though. 16 teams since 2006 have selected in the top 3 having a 70+ point season. 26% of the total selections. Add 11 more times for 67+.

IMO going full tank most of the times results in less than 60 points.

47.3% of teams that picked top 3 since 2006 had 67 points or better.

Sorry you can rebuild without going full tank.

Even if we have a great year this year, we could still slide the following year and get our guy then. If we get a top 3 pick with a pretty good team in place already, it could lead to a better situation than the price SJ and Chicago paid to get their elite stars.

Enjoy the success of this team so far and see how it goes. Too many positives so far this season.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But there is no such strong correlation. Going from memory of the last time I ran these numbers: Nine out of ten Stanley Cup winners have a top-three pick on the winning roster… but so do nine out of ten teams league-wide. Having picked high (or acquired someone else's high pick) doesn't set you apart, and doesn't improve your odds. It's mostly about how you assemble your team after that – and whether you have luck. Nobody ever made it through a 16-team NHL playoff bracket without the benefit of luck.

There’s a difference between having a player who was a top pick at some point on your roster and having an elite player who you drafted on your roster. Guys like Gudbranson get moved around a lot. Traptor’s analysis took that into account by considering when they were drafted and by who.

12 teams didn't get a top 4 pick between 2004-2014. None of them went on to win a cup between 2014-2024.

Nobody is denying there’s a huge amount of luck in the draft lottery and winning the Cup. All an NHL team’s braintrust can do is tweak the odds a few percentage points in their favour.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But there is no such strong correlation. Going from memory of the last time I ran these numbers: Nine out of ten Stanley Cup winners have a top-three pick on the winning roster… but so do nine out of ten teams league-wide. Having picked high (or acquired someone else's high pick) doesn't set you apart, and doesn't improve your odds. It's mostly about how you assemble your team after that – and whether you have luck. Nobody ever made it through a 16-team NHL playoff bracket without the benefit of luck.

It's not just having a top 3 pick though.


It's having a top 3 pick that is a star player in their "prime" age range.

9/10 teams league wide don't have that. Almost every current contender does. Canes are one example that comes to mind that don't. They have svechnikov that meets this but I'm not sure you could call him a "star right now.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There’s a difference between having a player who was a top pick at some point on your roster and having an elite player who you drafted on your roster. Guys like Gudbranson get moved around a lot. Traptor’s analysis took that into account by considering when they were drafted and by who.

Sure. But there's no guarantee that having that high pick will get you that elite player, as guys like Gudbranson prove.

Nobody is denying there’s a huge amount of luck in the draft lottery and winning the Cup. All an NHL team’s braintrust can do is tweak the odds a few percentage points in their favour.

The data suggest that scorched-earth rebuilds don't even accomplish that much. Furthermore, contrary to the scorched-earth fans, even if you never do a scorched-earth rebuild, that doesn't reduce your odds to zero.

I honestly wonder if some fans think the Hockey Gods are real and operate a win bank to guarantee that every team comes out exactly .500 in the long run. If that were true, you could deposit losses in your account and withdraw wins later on, and hey presto! Instant Stanley Cup for the only guy in the world smart enough to figure out this blazingly obvious and simple strategy.

Except that there is no such bank, and no such strategy, and the skills needed to run a professional sports franchise are neither obvious nor simple.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by traptor

It's not just having a top 3 pick though.


It's having a top 3 pick that is a star player in their "prime" age range.

9/10 teams league wide don't have that. Almost every current contender does. Canes are one example that comes to mind that don't. They have svechnikov that meets this but I'm not sure you could call him a "star right now.

Well, that's nice. The Oilers had to pick #1 overall four times in six years before they got that player – and they still didn't get a championship out of it. You aren't even allowed to do that since the draft rules were changed.

If you have star players that are in the right age range, it doesn't matter a rat's arse what pick you drafted them with.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The case for drafting top-4 isn’t that it makes you likely to win the Cup. It’s that it makes you more likely to win the Cup than not drafting in the top-4.

If diving to the bottom of the standings gives you a 40 per cent chance of icing a contender once the rebuild matures, and not picking at the top of the draft gives you a 25 per cent chance of contending in that timeframe, then the tank strategy is the better strategy - even if it’s unlikely to make you a contender.

I’m having flashbacks to the CP Iginla Rebuild Wars (2009-12).

Citation(s)?

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Well, that's nice. The Oilers had to pick #1 overall four times in six years before they got that player – and they still didn't get a championship out of it. You aren't even allowed to do that since the draft rules were changed.

If you have star players that are in the right age range, it doesn't matter a rat's arse what pick you drafted them with.

Yeah i agree and I've mentioned that.

It's definitely not a gurantee. It's not a hard requirement. But it's a strong trend.

No it doesn't matter how you get them. You can draft star players anywhere. You can trade for them and sign them too.

But by far the highest chance of getting a star player in their prime is to draft them in the top of the draft and develop them.

And you need star players in their prime to win.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by traptor

But by far the highest chance of getting a star player in their prime is to draft them in the top of the draft and develop them.

The chance of a pick developing into a star player is highest for the earliest picks in the draft, obviously.

But what percentage of those star players come from the first three picks, as opposed to the remaining 200-odd? And what percentage of those first three picks don't, in fact, develop into the kind of star you're looking for?

At this point, it's pretty clear that some fans just want a scorched-earth rebuild no matter what, and will cherry-pick any evidence that seems at first sight to support it – whether the numbers actually check out or not.

[Burning Beard]

You can nitpick about what exact position you need to pick but that doesn't really matter at the end of the day IMO.

What matters is having a bunch of picks and being lucky with those picks. The rest is splitting hairs I feel.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

You can nitpick about what exact position you need to pick but that doesn't really matter at the end of the day IMO.

What matters is having a bunch of picks and being lucky with those picks. The rest is splitting hairs I feel.

Exactly. But some people will never be happy unless their team destroys itself to pick in the top three of the draft, and those picks only.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by traptor

it's not just having a top 3 pick though.


It's having a top 3 pick that is a star player in their "prime" age range.

9/10 teams league wide don't have that. Almost every current contender does. Canes are one example that comes to mind that don't. They have svechnikov that meets this but i'm not sure you could call him a "star right now.

100%

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The chance of a pick developing into a star player is highest for the earliest picks in the draft, obviously.

But what percentage of those star players come from the first three picks, as opposed to the remaining 200-odd? And what percentage of those first three picks don't, in fact, develop into the kind of star you're looking for?

At this point, it's pretty clear that some fans just want a scorched-earth rebuild no matter what, and will cherry-pick any evidence that seems at first sight to support it – whether the numbers actually check out or not.

It seems like it's your biases are bleeding through.

I'm actually not wanting scorched earth.

I'm not convinced that the Flames could get through it. I think we'd end up like Buffalo unless we hit a truly generational player.
We don't have certain market advantages that places like Chicago have.

I'm fine if they decide to re-sign Rasmus or trade for a young center.

But they need some star power.
It can come from anywhere but o know where it's most likely.

[Sandman]

We have the best prospect pool right now that this organization has seen in at least the last 30 years. We are STACKED on the wing, and our D is one of the best in the league. We have some goalies in the pipeline, but there isn't a huge hurry as it looks like we have one of the best young netminders in the league in Dustin Wolf. All we need now is to build down the middle.

It's a real shame that some teams finish bottom-5 in years where the BPA isn't necessarily a franchise player, or a prototypical #1 C. As good as he is, if my team had the 4th-overall pick and got 5'10" Lucas Raymond out of it, I would be disappointed (though they made up for it more or less by getting Moritz Seider). It looks like we have multiple firsts in consecutive years where top-tier centers will be available, and it is my hope we take advantage and grab a few of them. If we do, we could be serious contenders in years to come, as you don't win a cup without serious strength down the middle.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by traptor

It seems like it's your biases are bleeding through.

I'm actually not wanting scorched earth.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. When I said ‘some fans’, I did really mean some fans and wasn't referring to you. My apologies for the misunderstanding.