2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well there is a small difference in Cap hit and term.

LOL - just noticed that Forsberg's agent is Pekkas Rautakalio's son.

EDIT: Man is Nashville ever full of players past their prime.

Forsberg is 30 and has regressed for 28 games. He may still bounce back.

But I get the feeling he may well not.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

So, you would say that in the recent, relevant history of our franchise, we are in fact a mushy middle team?

Seems like that was exactly what I said prior to all this dissection but sure!

I agree we've had changes in management over 20 years, but overall we haven't changed course. It's been the same dogmatic "make it into the playoffs and see what happens" mantra every season- independent of management or coach. In fact we have had many debates on this board over the last 5 years about why this is- whether coaching or management is to blame, etc. Ultimately it seems to be a directive from ownership down. Bean confirmed this in a press conference last year, so I'm not even sure why we're discussing it. The feelings/whims of independent managers in the club have basically been worthless. They weren't allowed to feel certain ways. Economic situations of the league is interesting, but the league is in the best economic situation it has ever been and there's not huge evidence of change.

You said 30, I pointed out there really isn't all that much different between teams in 30 years.

20 years is more valid for sure.

But to me it's Treliving's era into Conroy's is all that is relevant to me, and only that long because Conroy worked under Treliving.

[Monahammer]

Stamkos-Huberdeau has all the makings of an absolutely awesome duo. But they'd need a Brayden point or someone similar in between them. Fast, good on the dot type N/S type of player. Nashville doesnt have that!

Also I dont think anyone would go near Huberdeau's contract at all, of course. Huberdeau's contract is 1 year and 2 million more per more expensive than Forsberg's... say total value of $20 million more. Doesnt seem surmountable, even if Forsberg sucks now.

[FlamesAddiction]

Stamkos didn't seem to take being let go from Tampa very well. I can't help but wonder if he is malcontent and it's affecting the locker room.

I recall on Barner Burner a while back, probably in the summer, Seravalli and Warrener got into it a bit because Rhett mentioned that people he talked to do not say good things about Stamkos. This was in response to Seravalli saying that Stamkos was a popular guy. They got into a bit of a heated argument about it, but Rhett was adamant that he had close sources.

[Monahammer]

It is pretty damn interesting, and definitely bucks historical league trends, than TB didn't move mountains to keep their double cup winning, first overall pick captain.

Has that ever really happened before that?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Stamkos-Huberdeau has all the makings of an absolutely awesome duo. But they'd need a Brayden point or someone similar in between them. Fast, good on the dot type N/S type of player. Nashville doesnt have that!

Also I dont think anyone would go near Huberdeau's contract at all, of course. Huberdeau's contract is 1 year and 2 million more per more expensive than Forsberg's... say total value of $20 million more. Doesnt seem surmountable, even if Forsberg sucks now.

They each have NMCs as well.

[Monahammer]

Stamkos is their statistical leader in Points, GP, Goals (including both OT goals and shootout goals).

It's a pretty wild move. Seems like perhaps the right move, but wow. Can't imagine our fanbase would be ok with making a similar move given how attached we are to guys like Rasmus Andersson.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It is pretty damn interesting, and definitely bucks historical league trends, than TB didn't move mountains to keep their double cup winning, first overall pick captain.

Has that ever really happened before that?

Stamkos turns 35 in 2 months. Tampa likely saw how teams like Chicago and LA went from cup champs to full rebuild by rewarding all these players. They decided to go get Jake Guentzel who was 29 at the time of signing to be their big money scoring winger as opposed to Stamkos.

Tampa also allegedly offered Stamkos 8x$3M which he declined.

What smart team moves mountains to keep a 35 year old?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Stamkos is their statistical leader in Points, GP, Goals (including both OT goals and shootout goals).

It's a pretty wild move. Seems like perhaps the right move, but wow. Can't imagine our fanbase would be ok with making a similar move given how attached we are to guys like Rasmus Andersson.

It was an unpopular but ultimately correct choice. That's what the best managers in this league seem to be able to do.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Stamkos turns 35 in 2 months. Tampa likely saw how teams like Chicago and LA went from cup champs to full rebuild by rewarding all these players. They decided to go get Jake Guentzel who was 29 at the time of signing to be their big money scoring winger as opposed to Stamkos.

Tampa also allegedly offered Stamkos 8x$3M which he declined.

What smart team moves mountains to keep a 35 year old?

Dial that clock down a few more years and I think we'll be at the same thought.

[Ped]

Vegas looking the same with Marchessault.

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Stamkos is their statistical leader in Points, GP, Goals (including both OT goals and shootout goals).

It's a pretty wild move. Seems like perhaps the right move, but wow. Can't imagine our fanbase would be ok with making a similar move given how attached we are to guys like Rasmus Andersson.

Calgary traded its all time leader in points, GP and goals in Iginla when he was the same age. Most fans were okay with it because of his age and wanting to give him the chance at the cup. Many of us wanted to move him a year earlier when the writing was on the wall to get a better return.

Andersson is different because he could have another decade of good hockey in him and will still be decent when the team is competitive.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Stamkos-Huberdeau has all the makings of an absolutely awesome duo. But they'd need a Brayden point or someone similar in between them. Fast, good on the dot type N/S type of player. Nashville doesnt have that!

Also I dont think anyone would go near Huberdeau's contract at all, of course. Huberdeau's contract is 1 year and 2 million more per more expensive than Forsberg's... say total value of $20 million more. Doesnt seem surmountable, even if Forsberg sucks now.

Forsberg has regressed for 28 games, Huberdeau for 2 years and 28 games.

Forsberg still has a chance.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Stamkos-Huberdeau has all the makings of an absolutely awesome duo. But they'd need a Brayden point or someone similar in between them. Fast, good on the dot type N/S type of player. Nashville doesnt have that!

They also have all the makings of an absolute boat anchor duo.

[Ped]

The thing is, Stamkos' decline as a 5-on-5 player was clearly evident last season, and Tampa Bay has better and more expensive players. To give Stamkos the money they wanted, they would have to cut someone else better suited to what they want. I mean, they went out and reacquired McDonough because they realized how much they missed him.


And in Nashville, Stamkos doesn't have the same skill on the ice with him, either 5-on-5 or on the powerplay.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

Calgary traded its all time leader in points, GP and goals in Iginla when he was the same age. Most fans were okay with it because of his age and wanting to give him the chance at the cup. Many of us wanted to move him a year earlier when the writing was on the wall to get a better return.

Andersson is different because he could have another decade of good hockey in him and will still be decent when the team is competitive.

Yeah but can you really imagine walking away from Iginla if we were still in our window trying to win, just not with him?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

Calgary traded its all time leader in points, GP and goals in Iginla when he was the same age. Most fans were okay with it because of his age and wanting to give him the chance at the cup. Many of us wanted to move him a year earlier when the writing was on the wall to get a better return.

Andersson is different because he could have another decade of good hockey in him and will still be decent when the team is competitive.

Iggy was not going to resign with Calgary, made the trade much easier.

If he was wiling to stay, management would have signed him.

Whether Andersson will still be decent when Calgary is again competitive depends on how long you think the rebuild will take. And that's likely a difficult question to guess at, because it's just a guess.

[Ped]

Yeah there's a big difference between trading your franchise guy to a contender when you're out of the playoffs, and letting your franchise guy go as a free agent when you are still trying to contend.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by dino7c

When the Flames won the division twice and finished 2nd overall I think its fair to say they were contenders

If your definition of a true contender equates to strong regular season success, then you are 100% correct (even if that success was never sustained year-to-year, those were definitely fun regular seasons).



I just don't attribute regular season success with being a contender - you don't know that a team is a contender or a pretender until... they actually contend, no?



Don't misunderstand me - those seasons are still fun seasons, and of course it is better to have regular season success than not. I just think a SCF is much more important than a divisional win, or finishing 1st in the west and then imploding in the playoffs in the first round. Can you really say that the Flames were contenders when you bow out in the first round, or only manage to win 1 game in the 2nd round? I can't. That's the point. Contenders actually contend, not just put up dazzling regular season stats.


Flames never contended for a cup in the last decade. They didn't even manage to be a consistent playoff team. A couple of fantastic regular season finishes doesn't make for a contender in my eyes. I myself THOUGHT that they were contenders, but with hindsight, can you really look back and say that they were contenders? I can't, which is why I stick to my definition. I understand why you stick to yours. Agree to disagree.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

If your definition of a true contender equates to strong regular season success, then you are 100% correct (even if that success was never sustained year-to-year, those were definitely fun regular seasons).



I just don't attribute regular season success with being a contender - you don't know that a team is a contender or a pretender until... they actually contend, no?



Don't misunderstand me - those seasons are still fun seasons, and of course it is better to have regular season success than not. I just think a SCF is much more important than a divisional win, or finishing 1st in the west and then imploding in the playoffs in the first round. Can you really say that the Flames were contenders when you bow out in the first round, or only manage to win 1 game in the 2nd round? I can't. That's the point. Contenders actually contend, not just put up dazzling regular season stats.


Flames never contended for a cup in the last decade. They didn't even manage to be a consistent playoff team. A couple of fantastic regular season finishes doesn't make for a contender in my eyes. I myself THOUGHT that they were contenders, but with hindsight, can you really look back and say that they were contenders? I can't, which is why I stick to my definition. I understand why you stick to yours. Agree to disagree.

Once again, 100% C4L!!!!