2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[YyjFlames]

I wonder how much of this discussion hinges on how much faith we each have in Calgary's drafting and development.

I like the idea of the Flames finishing bottom of the standings next year and drafting McKenna, because it would be nice to have the next superstar for hopefully a decade or two. But I also have quite a bit of faith in the current management and scouting that if they end up finishing between 17 and 26 for the next three years, the team will still have a strong base and should be really competitive.

Based on how this team's management and scouting seems to be built, I don't see them ending up like Ottawa, Buffalo or the before-Mcdavid Oilers, regardless of whether they tank or not.

[howard_the_duck]

Hedman was front and centre in the TB cup teams. In his prime a top 5D in NHL all day long.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by 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)

Great post. Interesting how rare these players are to find.

I would be interested to know how the odds change if the parameters were changed to looking for players that produced at a >0.75 ppg for at least 4 years. I would consider those players to be important for any competitive or contending team. A good example might be an Alex Killorn. He’ll never have 1000 points but was an important player for Tampa in their cup run. I think there are lots of players that become important core players to cup teams that will never fit the criteria of superstar simply because they won’t maintain that high level of play for long enough in their careers. Marchessault Is another great example.

Obviously teams need superstars but what about just really good players that are star players or near superstars for a brief period of their careers.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

I wonder how much of this discussion hinges on how much faith we each have in Calgary's drafting and development.

I like the idea of the Flames finishing bottom of the standings next year and drafting McKenna, because it would be nice to have the next superstar for hopefully a decade or two. But I also have quite a bit of faith in the current management and scouting that if they end up finishing between 17 and 26 for the next three years, the team will still have a strong base and should be really competitive.

Based on how this team's management and scouting seems to be built, I don't see them ending up like Ottawa, Buffalo or the before-Mcdavid Oilers, regardless of whether they tank or not.

I just want them to have the best ammo possible because they seem to draft well and the top centers typically go at the top of the draft. Tkachuk, Bennett, and Monahan was solid drafting. Way different look to the team if they are picking 10th overall in those drafts.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by 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)

Excellent post!!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Hedman was front and centre in the TB cup teams. In his prime a top 5D in NHL all day long.

Sure he was, but would they have won with Gio or Josi or someone like that?

[FlamesAddiction]

The Flames have actually done a decent job with draft picks outside of the 1st round. The problem has been getting those elite players in the top 5 or top 3.

For a smaller market Canadian team like the Flames, probably the most important part is getting those top draft picks. Luring impactful free agents is always going to be a challenge and the NHL has hobbled the ability to make trades by letting NMCs/NTCs get out of hand. It also doesn't help when you can nail a pick in a later round like Adam Fox but have no team control over what happens after you draft him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I just want them to have the best ammo possible because they seem to draft well and the top centers typically go at the top of the draft. Tkachuk, Bennett, and Monahan was solid drafting. Way different look to the team if they are picking 10th overall in those drafts.

Bennett and Monahan were concensus picks and Tkachuk fell into Calgary's lap. The problem with that period is that outside of Rasmus, and maybe Managiapane, they didn't draft anyone very good otherwise (well, Fox but you know..).

They look different with Demko, not Macdonald, Montour not Smith, eg.

[Enoch Root]

To follow up on SuperMatt18's post, not only does every team except Vegas have top 5 picks, but also, the teams with the most are not necessarily the teams winning the most cups. (Team, top 5 picks, cups - post lockout)

CBJ: 7, 0
CHI: 6, 3
EDM: 6, 0
MTL: 6, 0
CAR: 5, 1
PHX: 5, 0
LAK: 5, 2
NYI: 5, 0
COL: 5, 1
NJD: 5, 0
ANA: 4, 1
FLA: 4, 1
BUF: 4, 0
TOR: 4, 0
WSH: 3, 1
PIT: 3, 3
TBL: 3, 2
PHI: 3, 0
WPG: 3, 0
OTT: 3, 0
STL: 2, 1
BOS: 2, 1
NYR: 2, 0
SEA: 2, 0
SJS: 2, 0
VAN: 2, 0
CGY: 1, 0
DAL: 1, 0
NSH: 1, 0
DET: 1, 1
MIN: 1, 0
VGS: 0, 1

There were 14 teams that drafted at least 4 times in the top 5 over that period. Those 14 teams won 9 of the last 19 cups.

There were 18 teams that had 3 or fewer top 5 picks, and those teams have won 10 of the 19 cups. And that includes SEA and VGS who haven't been in the league long.

No correlation whatsoever.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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.

I didn't even bring up the Flames defence, as that was clearly championship quality. Would have potentially been even better if the Flames had properly developed some of their prospects to fill out bottom pairing and PP specialty roles.

At the end of the day, the Flames drafted the horses they needed, but couldn't close the deal. That's what happens to most teams. Only one team wins every year.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Bennett and Monahan were concensus picks and Tkachuk fell into Calgary's lap. The problem with that period is that outside of Rasmus, and maybe Managiapane, they didn't draft anyone very good otherwise (well, Fox but you know..).

They look different with Demko, not Macdonald, Montour not Smith, eg.

Just because they were near consensus picks at the time does not mean they didn’t draft well. IE Vancouver taking Juolevi or Winnipeg ‘reaching’ for PLD in that same draft. Alex Nylander was in the same tier as Monahan

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by SemicolonD

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.

It's not an issue of finding a counter-example.

It's rather the issue that the number of teams who have tanked for Lord Stanley far outweigh the number of teams who have won Lord Stanley.

[Jason14h]

There were 14 teams that drafted at least 4 times in the top 5 over that period. Those 14 teams won 9 of the last 19 cups.

There were 18 teams that had 3 or fewer top 5 picks, and those teams have won 10 of the 19 cups. And that includes SEA and VGS who haven't been in the league long.

No correlation whatsoever.

You literally picked the cut off point to exclude Pitts, Washington and TB from the first group. (7 cups)

Why is 3 the magical cut-off to show "no correlation" or Botton 5? Why not 2 bottom 3 picks? You made up a stat to match your narrative.

Also a team picking bottom in the last few years may have no/little return on those players. There is obviously a lag in success vs drafting stars

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

To follow up on SuperMatt18's post, not only does every team except Vegas have top 5 picks, but also, the teams with the most are not necessarily the teams winning the most cups. (Team, top 5 picks, cups - post lockout)

CBJ: 7, 0
CHI: 6, 3
EDM: 6, 0
MTL: 6, 0
CAR: 5, 1
PHX: 5, 0
LAK: 5, 2
NYI: 5, 0
COL: 5, 1
NJD: 5, 0
ANA: 4, 1
FLA: 4, 1
BUF: 4, 0
TOR: 4, 0
WSH: 3, 1
PIT: 3, 3
TBL: 3, 2
PHI: 3, 0
WPG: 3, 0
OTT: 3, 0
STL: 2, 1
BOS: 2, 1
NYR: 2, 0
SEA: 2, 0
SJS: 2, 0
VAN: 2, 0
CGY: 1, 0
DAL: 1, 0
NSH: 1, 0
DET: 1, 1
MIN: 1, 0
VGS: 0, 1

There were 14 teams that drafted at least 4 times in the top 5 over that period. Those 14 teams won 9 of the last 19 cups.

There were 18 teams that had 3 or fewer top 5 picks, and those teams have won 10 of the 19 cups. And that includes SEA and VGS who haven't been in the league long.

No correlation whatsoever.

10 cups were won by 4 teams that drafted 6, 5, 3 and 3 times.

Huge Correlation.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You literally picked the cut off point to exclude Pitts, Washington and TB from the first group. (7 cups)

Why is 3 the magical cut-off to show "no correlation" or Botton 5? Why not 2 bottom 3 picks? You made up a stat to match your narrative.

Also a team picking bottom in the last few years may have no/little return on those players. There is obviously a lag in success vs drafting stars

I stopped at 4 because that constituted 67% of the picks (44% of the teams, won 48% of the cups). Big whoop

If I had made the cutoff at 3, that would have been 20 teams (vs 12), and 89 of 106 of the available picks. Of course they would have the majority of cups (but still not as many as the draft picks would imply), and it would tell us nothing.

Also, 3 is the median, so 4 was all teams above the median.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

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

I love those odds of finding the next Kuch!

The draft odds thing is misplaced. It’s not a roulette wheel. It’s not an objective process or an open system.

Teams can only take who is there. If it’s MacKinnon, awesome. If it’s nuge … meh. Yakapov anyone?

If your scouts ID Kuch or JG, awesome. If they want a boring stay at home D man, maybe you miss on that guy.

Is luck involved? Yes. Is probability? No. Unless you go full oiler and shoot for 100 top picks to prove the distribution curve. (Or buffalo, yikes).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

10 cups were won by 4 teams that drafted 6, 5, 3 and 3 times.

Huge Correlation.

No, it isn't.

The median is 3, and the average is 3.3. So teams that have picked 3 times are actually below average, which is not going to help the correlation at all.

CHI and LAK are not enough to have any significant impact on the correlation

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Sure he was, but would they have won with Gio or Josi or someone like that?

I’m not sure the point. I suppose they could have fluked out again and signed a future Norris winning defenseman like Gio who went undrafted, or heck even picked Johnny in the 4th round. Who needs first round picks?

Getting top of the draft talent isn’t the only way to build your franchise cornerstones, but as has been pointed out plainly, your odds are substantially better. I’ll take 10-20% chance vs 0.3-0.5% chance everyday.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

10 cups were won by 4 teams that drafted 6, 5, 3 and 3 times.

Huge Correlation.

Not really. 2 of Chicago’s picks are in their current rebuild and the same with LA. I am blanking on the 3rd top 5 guy the Pens drafted post lockout after Crosby and Staal and we have talked about Tampa’s top picks being important but not the most influential pieces of their cup wins.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The draft odds thing is misplaced. It’s not a roulette wheel. It’s not an objective process or an open system.

Teams can only take who is there. If it’s MacKinnon, awesome. If it’s nuge … meh. Yakapov anyone?

If your scouts ID Kuch or JG, awesome. If they want a boring stay at home D man, maybe you miss on that guy.

Is luck involved? Yes. Is probability? No. Unless you go full oiler and shoot for 100 top picks to prove the distribution curve. (Or buffalo, yikes).

you mistaking odds and probability.

The probability of getting a star and superstar later in the draft drops significantly. You need 2 independent things to occur (Could argue 3)

1. The player with that potential falls to your pick
2. You identify the player correctly
3. (Arguable how much this actually influences) Develop correctly

If #1 doesn't/can't occur how good you are at #2 is doesn't matter. This is the problem the lower you pick. You might identify the star in the rough but what if hes picked at 8th overall? 10th? 17th? 28th? Doesn't help if we're picking 30th with florida's pick