2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Enoch Root]

The correlation between number of top 5 draft picks taken, and cups, based on those two data sets above, is 0.123

If drafting top 5 was important, and thus, presumably, drafting more top 5 would be better, than the correlation should be MUCH higher than this

A correlation coefficient of 0.12 indicates a weak linear relationship between two variables, or no linear relationship at all:
Explanation
A correlation coefficient of 0.12 is considered very weak, as absolute values of r between 0 and 0.19 are generally considered very weak. A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no linear relationship between variables. However, two variables can have a strong relationship but a weak correlation coefficient if the relationship is nonlinear.
Example
For example, if the correlation between the mood and the amount of liquid consumed by daily drinking is 0.12, it is not correct to conclude that there is a significant correlation between the two.

[Enoch Root]

Side note: that answer from AI is really lousy, LOL

[PepsiFree]

I’m not even sure what unique point laying out the odds is making.

Does anybody, anywhere believe that top players aren’t more likely found at the top of the draft?

It’s the entire reason the 1OA pick has the most value and the 32nd pick of the 7th round has the least.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The correlation between number of top 5 draft picks taken, and cups, based on those two data sets above, is 0.123

If drafting top 5 was important, and thus, presumably, drafting more top 5 would be better, than the correlation should be MUCH higher than this

Why do you think it's top 5?

I already provided the data that shows 5th not near as valuable historically at top 4 for scorers

And to the effect, three isn't nearly as valuable as 1-2 (4 surprisingly is way more valuable then 3 for forwards)

And this doesn't take into lag consideration. Obviously finishing last 2 years in a row like SJ and Chicago the last two seasons isn't going to win them a cup. Yet.

So you need to determine the average lag to a player hitting their potential and factor in . A player in the minors drafted contributes ZERO to the cup winning chance.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m not even sure what unique point laying out the odds is making.

Does anybody, anywhere believe that top players aren’t more likely found at the top of the draft?

It’s the entire reason the 1OA pick has the most value and the 32nd pick of the 7th round has the least.

Because the odds of each pick being a star don't change in a linear manner, rather parabolic.

[TheIronMaiden]

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.

I like they layout of this post, but disagree with the conclusion.

For starters, Vegas and Seattle should not be considered for a list like this.

So the ratio should be

Teams with 3 or more picks in the top 5 9/20 win the cup.
Teams with 2 or fewer 3/10

but even that is inexact because it doesn't account for the fact that many teams use those players to win multiple cups.

Excluding the anomaly that is Vegas there has been 18 Stanley cups awarded since the lock out of those 15/18 have been won by teams with 3 or more picks in the top 5.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Because the odds of each pick being a star don't change in a linear manner, rather parabolic.

So your point is that it’s better to pick 1, 2, 4, or 15th if you want a star player or… what?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Why do you think it's top 5?

I already provided the data that shows 5th not near as valuable historically at top 4 for scorers

And to the effect, three isn't nearly as valuable as 1-2 (4 surprisingly is way more valuable then 3 for forwards)

And this doesn't take into lag consideration. Obviously finishing last 2 years in a row like SJ and Chicago the last two seasons isn't going to win them a cup. Yet.

So you need to determine the average lag to a player hitting their potential and factor in . A player in the minors drafted contributes ZERO to the cup winning chance.

I don't 'think it's top 5'. I just used the numbers that were presented in the conversation because, you know, it's a conversation.

Yes, 4 is more valuable than 5, and 3 is more valuable than 4, and so on.

Doesn't change the numbers I presented.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I like they layout of this post, but disagree with the conclusion.

For starters, Vegas and Seattle should not be considered for a list like this.

So the ratio should be

Teams with 3 or more picks in the top 5 9/20 win the cup.
Teams with 2 or fewer 3/10

but even that is inexact because it doesn't account for the fact that many teams use those players to win multiple cups.

Excluding the anomaly that is Vegas there has been 18 Stanley cups awarded since the lock out of those 15/18 have been won by teams with 3 or more picks in the top 5.

When you draw your own lines, you are subject to your own biases.

Correlation is just math.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

When you draw your own lines, you are subject to your own biases.

Correlation is just math.

No one is suggesting that picking 3 times in the top 5 is going to guarantee a cup, but it would be just an disingenuous to suggest that picking in the top 5 three times does not improve your chances of becoming a championship caliber team.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

No one is suggesting that picking 3 times in the top 5 is going to guarantee a cup, but it would be just an disingenuous to suggest that picking in the top 5 three times does not improve your chances of becoming a championship caliber team.

vs what?

Explain where the correlation numbers are wrong. Or where they support your argument for that matter.

They pretty clearly state that there is almost no correlation between how many top 5 picks a team has had, and the number of cups they have (within the set of data).

[Bonded]

A team needs top of the draft picks, good drafting, luck, and good management.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

vs what?

Explain where the correlation numbers are wrong. Or where they support your argument for that matter.

They pretty clearly state that there is almost no correlation between how many top 5 picks a team has had, and the number of cups they have (within the set of data).

Run the contrary, how many teams won without multiple top 5 picks?

[gvitaly]

I actually wouldn't be against building a team through the draft that's a powerhouse in the regular season for a decade without having much playoff success.

Teams like Toronto, and Carolina don't have any recent cups, but they're very good teams year in and year out. Washington was fighting for the presidents trophy every year, but it took them about 10 years to win the cup.

[Bingo]

Isn't this multi page debate really just two sides that largely agree with each other?

Those that aren't stressing about the team finishing say 23rd overall instead of 29th overall aren't suggesting that building through the draft is a bad idea.

I loved the 2024 draft, the extra first and 2nd rounders, and adding to the prospect base.

But I'm not going to lose it with every point earned this season.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Isn't this multi page debate really just two sides that largely agree with each other?

Those that aren't stressing about the team finishing say 23rd overall instead of 29th overall aren't suggesting that building through the draft is a bad idea.

I loved the 2024 draft, the extra first and 2nd rounders, and adding to the prospect base.

But I'm not going to lose it with every point earned this season.

Basically, yes.

It’s one side stressing how much better the top of the draft is than the rest, which is basically foundation to how every teams plans a draft, and as far as I can tell, nobody disagreeing with that outside of suggesting that building a team is more than worrying about that one point.

[ForeverFlameFan]

So with the Georgiev trade, are there any more teams that are mightily struggling with goaltending and would pawn off a 2nd round pick to get rid of their goalie? Maybe Detroit with Husso?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Isn't this multi page debate really just two sides that largely agree with each other?

Those that aren't stressing about the team finishing say 23rd overall instead of 29th overall aren't suggesting that building through the draft is a bad idea.

I loved the 2024 draft, the extra first and 2nd rounders, and adding to the prospect base.

But I'm not going to lose it with every point earned this season.

I think a lot of the handwringing is probably because people are worried the Flames will make some win now moves. I don’t think they do much this season besides maybe trade Vladar or Andersson if a good offer comes along.

[genetic_phreek]

Lot's of analyzing draft position and winning correlation happening here.



Need some trade rumors. Royle/Sec/Rasta spill the beans!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Run the contrary, how many teams won without multiple top 5 picks?

Out of the total teams that didn't have multiple top picks?