2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If they had Dustin Boyd and Dustin Byfuglien, they would have won dustinfinity number of cups.

That's just baseless, useless speculation on your behalf.

So you think Pittsburgh would have won Cups if they had TJ Oshie rather than Sidney Crosby, because they drafted well in the depth rounds that so long as they got a good player, it wouldn't have materially impacted their results. Top players are irrelevant. Penguins would have won had they drafted Andrew Ladd rather than Evgeni Malkin.

Players don't actually matter, the key to victory is actually the unquantifiable "magic team work"? If that were the case, why did the Flames flounder with Sean Monahan while Colorado won with Nathan MacKinnon? Drafted same year, different spots. Both very good players, one clearly better than the other. I think Colorado drafted reasonably well outside of their top picks, as did the Flames - the Avs had the opportunity to draft MacKinnon, the Flames Monahan. World of difference.

Is that honestly what you think the argument is?

I do think, considering the importance Kucherov, Point, and Vasilevsky that they could have replaced Stamkos with another #1 centre who happens to be an all star, Conn Smythe winner, Selke winner, and Stanley Cup champion and replaced Hedman with another all star, Norris winning defender widely considered to be one of the best defenders of his generation.

You want to trot out names like Oshie and Ladd be my guest, but you look silly.

You’re the one suggesting that draft position matters more than the players themselves. So why don’t you go ahead and convince me that St.Louis was better off with Duchene than O’Reilly.

[GioforPM]

It's just a crap shoot. 2013-16 the Flames selected 6OA, 4OA and 6OA (and got a guy ranked 4th and who would go 2nd at least in a redraft in the latter).None of those guys are even on the Flames any more. In fact, only one guy from 2011 (Gaudreau's year) to 2017 is even still a Flame.

Present favorites to win the cup on Money Puck is Dallas: one top 5 pick (of a Dman).

Present league leaders are Minnie (no top 5 picks) Jets (they had one but it was Laine) and Caps (Ovie 20 years ago, Backstrom and Alzner - both retired but TBF Backstrom was on the team when they won a cup).

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Check how long it was between when MacKinnon was drafted and when Colorado won their cup?

If you think their friggin' Captain wasn't an important piece in getting that team to win a couple cups, I'm not quite sure what to say.

So are you switching from TB to Colorado as your example now?

Originally Posted by traptor

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

A 28 and 29 year old stamkos and hedman had nothing to do with them winning the cup?

I suggest you re-read my posts to figure out what I'm trying to say (hint - I never said "nothing to do with", I said there were other guys who were more key, namely Kucherov, Vasilevsky and Point). I mean, how was Stamkos a factor in their first cup win?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

I hope people are taking all of these stanley cup champion stories to heart and really reflect on the timelines. It's easy for us out-of-market people to say 'yeah they drafted mackinnon and then won' but it was basically a decade after they drafted him. The Tampa Bay timeline was detailed earlier. Mathews was drafted ~8 years ago after Toronto tanked. Arguably Toronto has had a lot of things go their way, and they still haven't broken through.

Also, I think there is value to the mushy middle. The mushy middle is that stage of development where you have to learn to compete so that you can achieve a level of consistency in order to qualify for the playoffs. You can't magically hop over the mushy middle on the way up, and if you don't experience it on the way down then I would argue it's a sign you've lost the team for a good 5-6 years.

The mushy middle complaint is more a fantasy hockey-style view imo. You need to be in the mushy middle in order to be competing. And dropping through it to the bottom of the league is no recipe for success - it's just a recipe for high draft picks.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I thought the right way was for sure getting a generational player like McDavid but Edmonton is sure testing that one. Got to love their crappy management.

True. My challenge with the hope for MacKinnon model (I won’t say McDavid) is it’s not a plan.
Generational talents, by definition, come a couple times a generation. A team could be standing by that bus stop for a looong time. And it still is more likely to fall short than succeed.

[Aarongavey]

I had a whole thing typed out on the Sabres but lost it. Bottom line is they have an embarrassment of riches in the forward ranks that won’t all be able to push through. Have to wonder how long they are committed to sucking for, or do they want to do a trade that could shake up their roster. I would totally take some of their prospects if they wanted to try to compete this decade. Something like

Andersson (50% retained)
Vladar for

Helenius
Rosen
Poltapov

Maybe it is too much for Buffalo but Rasmus allows them to make other moves to actually try to compete now. It is baffling to me why you would accumulate as much talent as they have and have Zucker and Tuch as your only real veteran presence. The Sabres completely need to try to find some vets that can provide some stability to their roster.

[aaronck]

Tampa is great at talent evaluation as well- Drouin was a high pick that wasn't working out, so they flipped him to the Habs for Sergachev which worked out great for them- Drouin never did much with Montreal

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's just a crap shoot. 2013-16 the Flames selected 6OA, 4OA and 6OA (and got a guy ranked 4th and who would go 2nd at least in a redraft in the latter).None of those guys are even on the Flames any more. In fact, only one guy from 2011 (Gaudreau's year) to 2017 is even still a Flame.

Present favorites to win the cup on Money Puck is Dallas: one top 5 pick (of a Dman).

Present league leaders are Minnie (no top 5 picks) Jets (they had one but it was Laine) and Caps (Ovie 20 years ago, Backstrom and Alzner - both retired but TBF Backstrom was on the team when they won a cup).

A lot of the "You NeEd to DraFT a tOP CenTRE" crowd are too focused on the post-Crosby results. Firstly, the odds of drafting a Crosby are very very low, even if you tank. He's generational plus has leadership qualities. Even then, the new draft rules prevent you from doing what Pittsburgh did. Pittsburgh didn't just draft Crosby, they drafted two 1st overall, and two 2nd overall picks in four years. Without also drafting Fleury and Malkin, the Pens aren't winning as many cups.

You pull out the Pens from the list of Stanley Cup winners, and the narrative that you need to draft a bunch of franchise players falls apart. The majority of the rest of the teams have a couple of former top picks (some they didn't draft but acquired via trade) with the rest of the team being built through good depth drafting and asset management.

Relating it back to the Flames, the Flames had the draft picks. Tkachuk and Bennett are currently the top line of a Stanley Cup winning team. Those two plus a healthy Monahan and prime Gaudreau are the forward core you need to win a cup. The Flames just F-ed up Bennett's development and Monahan got injured. Bad luck/management. That's what separates the champions from the rest. And we've still got posters in here stating that the problem with the last rebuild was that it didn't go on for long enough.

[Nelson]

Yes, the trick with really high picks is they have to be in the right years. So, lots of rebuilds based on drafting high fail, but it’s also quite clear that the franchises that win multiple Stanley Cups were able to draft high in the right years. Some of them also nailed later picks. It’s just not that simple. But really, I think all of this just goes to the fact there’s a lot of luck involved in becoming successful in professional sports. That said, it’s also quite clear that the Flames’ way of doing things has not worked, as they’ve won very few playoff rounds since 1989.

Regardless of how it’s accomplished, I think we can all agree on this. In order to be successful, the Flames must have star players in the key positions down the middle of the ice. And the best way to do that in a market like Calgary, is through the draft. Let’s get lots of picks, and let’s use them well.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by aaronck

Tampa is great at talent evaluation as well- Drouin was a high pick that wasn't working out, so they flipped him to the Habs for Sergachev which worked out great for them- Drouin never did much with Montreal

Given that lots of teams start with high picks it's clear the difference is success in depth drafting (Point/Kucherov/Vasilevsky/Cirelli/Killorn/Palat) and adaptation (Drouin becomes Sergachev, picking up Coleman, etc).

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by aaronck

Tampa is great at talent evaluation as well- Drouin was a high pick that wasn't working out, so they flipped him to the Habs for Sergachev which worked out great for them- Drouin never did much with Montreal

This is the #1 factor in developing a Stanley Cup winner.

[SuperMatt18]

The thing that is a little flawed in the "teams need to pick top 5 to have success" argument, is that in the last 20 years (going back to the Ovechkin/Malkin draft), most teams have had at least one top 5 pick.

Washington - 3
Pittsburgh - 3
Chicago - 6
Anaheim - 4
Carolina - 5
St.Louis - 2
Philadelphia - 3
Phoenix / Arizona / Utah - 5
Tampa Bay - 3
Los Angeles - 5
Atlanta / Winnipeg - 3
Islanders - 5
Colorado - 5
Edmonton - 6
Boston - 2
Florida - 4
Columbus - 7
Montreal - 6
Buffalo - 4
Toronto - 4
Dallas - 1
New Jersey - 5
Rangers - 2
Ottawa - 3
Seattle - 2
San Jose - 2
Calgary - 1
Nashville - 1
Vancouver - 2
Detroit - 1
Minnesota - 1

So in the last 20 years 31 different teams have has at least one top 5 pick - the only teams that hasn't is:

Vegas (6)

And they won a cup (although with somebody else's #2 overall pick leading the way).

In the end you have to draft well and build a well rounded winner, and picking earlier in the draft, and more frequently in the early picks helps you do that, but in the end you have to just be patient and draft well to build a winner, rushing it or closing your window early (this is what happened to the Flames with Gaudreau/Tkachuk/Bennett/Monahan decisions) is where you run into trouble.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Given that lots of teams start with high picks it's clear the difference is success in depth drafting (Point/Kucherov/Vasilevsky/Cirelli/Killorn/Palat) and adaptation (Drouin becomes Sergachev, picking up Coleman, etc).

This - over the course of a 10 or 20 year period everyone is going to pick top 5 eventually...the key though is how you draft throughout the draft when it comes to building a winner.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by blankall

A lot of the "You NeEd to DraFT a tOP CenTRE" crowd are too focused on the post-Crosby results. Firstly, the odds of drafting a Crosby are very very low, even if you tank. He's generational plus has leadership qualities. Even then, the new draft rules prevent you from doing what Pittsburgh did. Pittsburgh didn't just draft Crosby, they drafted two 1st overall, and two 2nd overall picks in four years. Without also drafting Fleury and Malkin, the Pens aren't winning as many cups.

You pull out the Pens from the list of Stanley Cup winners, and the narrative that you need to draft a bunch of franchise players falls apart. The majority of the rest of the teams have a couple of former top picks (some they didn't draft but acquired via trade) with the rest of the team being built through good depth drafting and asset management.

Relating it back to the Flames, the Flames had the draft picks. Tkachuk and Bennett are currently the top line of a Stanley Cup winning team. Those two plus a healthy Monahan and prime Gaudreau are the forward core you need to win a cup. The Flames just F-ed up Bennett's development and Monahan got injured. Bad luck/management. That's what separates the champions from the rest. And we've still got posters in here stating that the problem with the last rebuild was that it didn't go on for long enough.

Calgary also had a Norris calibre Dman, plus Hamilton/Hanifin/Lindholm/etc along the way. Goaltending had a fair bit to do with not making it come together, plus the Monahan injury and whatever went on with Bennett. I'm not putting the latter all on the Flames - I think Bennett wasn't great here
but that he also recognized a second chance when he saw it and made it work.

[Vinny01]

I think it is pretty fair to say outside of the Pens in 2009 and the Hawks in 10 and 13 most teams that win with high picks happens around a decade after they were drafted. Look at the Pens 2nd and 3rd cups with Crosby that happened 11-12 years after he was drafted and 12-13 years after Malkin. Colorado won 9 years after MacKinnon. Florida won 11 years after Barkov, the Caps won 14 years after Ovie, Hawks won their last cup
9 years after Toews was drafted. The Blues 11 years after Pietrangelo. The Knights won 8 years after Eichel (even though they didn’t draft him). Oilers are knocking on the door a decade after McDavid. M

If we are truly going to have a team that can contend and win a cup it likely is in the mid 2030’s but hope there are several years of contention that come before that win

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

True. My challenge with the hope for MacKinnon model (I won’t say McDavid) is it’s not a plan.
Generational talents, by definition, come a couple times a generation. A team could be standing by that bus stop for a looong time. And it still is more likely to fall short than succeed.

Yeah I think the biggest flaw in the 'tank for lord stanley' strategy is that no one explains what happens after you get the #1 pick?

You've caught your tail, now what? Is the sole #1 pick you just got just going to make you win games? Or do you tank more for more good picks? Or do you then tell your scouts to find the pivotal 4th round gem now? Or does your coaching staff flip the 'win games' switch to 'on?'

[ResAlien]

Don’t forget the MacKinnon plan started as the Duchene plan and took 13 years to bear Stanley cup fruit. We're half a season in and folks are ready to lock up our vets long term. Not sure we're capable of the patience required for a MacKinnon plan.

[Jason14h]

You need 2-3 Superstars and another 2-3 stars in their prime / near prime to win the cup

How you get those players is irrelevant BUT what is relevant is the odds of acquiring them

Trades : Eichel and MT are the last two superstar quality players to be traded and both demanded a trade, AND wanted to go to a contending team. The odds of Calgary acquiring a star player this way is very very low, because teams genuinely don't trade them unless forced too, and then they usually go to winning, desirable locations.

Recently Reinhart would also fit into this group (and Fox but that's another outlier a team like the Flames certainly can't rely on)

Guys like Montour, Filip Forsberg, Mark Stone, Kadri also helped push teams over the edge / stars seasons who were traded

FA: Oof. If you are looking for franchise foundation FA's you are going to have a bad time.

Panarin is the best UFA recently, with guys like Hyman, Pietrangelo, Bobrovsky, JT Miller, Taylor Hall (for a few years), Zibanajeb, O'Reily rounding out the best FA signings

UFA's usually cost too much and are post apex. But its doable to find a foundational piece once in a while, but you better have a solid core first IMO

Draft Them: This is how most competitive teams acquire their core. (Duh)

Below is the success rates per round and per pick. For no surprise, picking higher means better chance at success - But I don't think people understand how huge the drop off actually is

https://thehockeywriters.com/success...l-draft-picks/

Drafting top 4 gives you a ~13% chance of a player who gets 1000 career points (Superstar Level Player)

Drafting 10th? 1.6%

Drafting 24th - 32nd? ONE player - Joe Nieuwendyk (CGY)

I know people like to point to JG's and Kucherov's as example - The odds of drafting a 1000 pts player in the 4th round is 0.3%. It's happened 5 times.

Even lowering to 750 points (star quality player) it has happened 3 additional times.

Looking at the Flames right now I see Wolf (fingers crossed no jinx) as potential star quality. I think you might get one more player out of the prospect mix who ends up in that group/ you hope you do

That means we need 2-3 more stars in our pipeline. (And preferable 1-2 superstar calibre)

It isn't just that the Flames need to draft better then the rest of the league, it's that statistically players of star quality very very rarely drop past the first few picks of the first round to even be available to be picked. And with better analytics these outliers will occur less and less

(I know this doesn't account for D or "non points" measures although GP is also in the link. It is more illustrative to show how rare drafting a superstar forward outside the first few picks really is)

[GioforPM]

Kucherov was 2nd round.

[SemicolonD]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Yeah I think the biggest flaw in the 'tank for lord stanley' strategy is that no one explains what happens after you get the #1 pick?

You've caught your tail, now what? Is the sole #1 pick you just got just going to make you win games? Or do you tank more for more good picks? Or do you then tell your scouts to find the pivotal 4th round gem now? Or does your coaching staff flip the 'win games' switch to 'on?'

There's so much luck and variance involved that you'll always find examples and counter-examples to any strategy for building a cup contender, but the whole point is to stack the odds in your favor the best you can.

Sure a #1 pick doesn't guarantee a cup, but it's your best odds at getting that franchise Center that you can build around.

Right now the Flames draft well in later rounds, and seem to be good at evaluating players in trades like Bahl, etc. We're great at finding the secondary pieces, but without our franchise pieces we'll never compete for a cup. Parekh could hopefully be one of those, but we need this kind of talent at Center.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Kucherov was 2nd round.

1000+ NHL Points 2nd Round: 0.5% (8/1458) (he will be the 9th)

I love those odds of finding the next Kuch!