2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This is just revisionist. Dougie had a kind of rough first 2 seasons, looked OK offensively third season but there were tons of rumors about attitude and fit with teammates, which is the entire reason Boston agreed to trade him!
Let's not pretend he was some pristine untouched golden boy here.
If anything, Cozens season of ~70 points is far beyond anything dougie did prior to being traded by Boston. If we're talking relative performance.

The difference is that Hamilton was improving every season into the trade

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The difference is that Hamilton was improving every season into the trade

Dougie was getting better every year, and got better here as well. He also was at a 58% CF in Boston, they didn't track xGF.

Also remember he just wanted to go to a younger team as that Boston was a veteran group, even Seguin didn't fit in.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The difference is that Hamilton was improving every season into the trade

Completely different environments though.

Dougie was playing top 4 minutes with a cup winning Bruins core. Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic (when he was good), Krejci, Rask and Chara were all still playing high level hockey.

Cozens is playing on one of the biggest disaster franchises in NHL history.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by traptor

Completely different environments though.

Dougie was playing top 4 minutes with a cup winning Bruins core. Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic (when he was good), Krejci and Chara were all still playing high level hockey.

Cozens is playing on one of the biggest disaster franchises in NHL history.

Doesn’t mean Cozens will start playing better when he is moved. He might or he could stay the same and he has a sizeable contract to earn. Trading for him definitely has Hamonic downside.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Doesn’t mean Cozens will start playing better when he is moved. He might or he could stay the same and he has a sizeable contract to earn. Trading for him definitely has Hamonic downside.

Yeah there's risk. There's always risks.

Say we were paying picks to get him.

There's still risk in keeping those picks and having them not turn out.

[Burning Beard]

I would like to see how Cozens looks here. Right now he is in the middle of a years long dumpster fire. Look how Coronato and Zary have developed here. Does anyone honestly think they would look the same in Buffalo?

[Monahammer]

Consider that, without really tanking, which many seem to agree is unlikely or impossible for this franchise (perhaps due to risk), acquiring a distressed asset but highly touted potential 1st line center is basically the only way we're going to get one. Yes, we could get obscenely lucky drafting mid round... but that risks the downside of just never occurring.

If we dont want to rebuild properly then we have to accept the risk on players like Cozens who may have blemishes.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by traptor

Yeah there's risk. There's always risks.

Say we were paying picks to get him.

There's still risk in keeping those picks and having them not turn out.

The picks don't come with a sizeable contract.

The team needs to do a deeper dive when you want to make an investment that large not just act like dammage79 and jump at any name that pops up.

Need play drivers and guys who are good at faceoffs.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This is just revisionist. Dougie had a kind of rough first 2 seasons, looked OK offensively third season but there were tons of rumors about attitude and fit with teammates, which is the entire reason Boston agreed to trade him!
Let's not pretend he was some pristine untouched golden boy here.
If anything, Cozens season of ~70 points is far beyond anything dougie did prior to being traded by Boston. If we're talking relative performance.

Dougie had his best year here in the second year he was a flame and that is when he was moved to Gio’s partner full time and the Flames had Brodie with Hamonic.

Hamilton struggled a bit in his first year here but still had 47pts. He actually had his lowest point total as a Flame in his third year but had 47, 50, and 44pts here which were all better than any year in Boston.

Dougie was 21 when he was traded to Calgary and Cozens is about to be 24 so not sure why you are saying Cozens had a better pedigree prior to the trade. Dougie had 42pts as a top pair D in Boston at 21 and Cozens had his 68pt season when he was also 21/22. Dougie set career highs the following 2 years where Cozens is on pace for his second straight year of regression.

Not a good example/comparison

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by traptor

Yeah there's risk. There's always risks.

Say we were paying picks to get him.

There's still risk in keeping those picks and having them not turn out.

Yeah, but I’d say it’s closer to the Hamonic risk. He rode a very high shooting % on his breakout year and then regressed hard. He also isn’t great defensively and is sort of the reason Buffalo is struggling. If he played a solid two way game and was struggling offensively then I’d find him a lot more compelling. If they can get him cheap then fine but I doubt Buffalo will trade him unless they get something worthwhile.

[Toonage]

Since every NHL player and their dog with a NTC has Buffalo on their list, if the Flames were to get Cozens it would be purely a futures deal and I thought I had read they weren't interested in that and want a young C back.

Don't think the Flames can make that deal even if they wanted to, but Frank has mentioned the Flames having interest so maybe they're waiting for the price to drop or at least the pieces to change.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Consider that, without really tanking, which many seem to agree is unlikely or impossible for this franchise (perhaps due to risk), acquiring a distressed asset but highly touted potential 1st line center is basically the only way we're going to get one. Yes, we could get obscenely lucky drafting mid round... but that risks the downside of just never occurring.

If we dont want to rebuild properly then we have to accept the risk on players like Cozens who may have blemishes.

I still think there is a strong possibility that the worst years, standings wise, still lie ahead. I believe that in the stretch of 2026-2029 this team will be drafting early in the 1st.

[konradical]

For a trade to "add" for the deadline assuming we are still in the hunt it would be intriguing to swap Kuzmenko with another struggling player.

For example Hall for Kuzmenko (maybe you add a bit more). Both similar cap hits and UFAs. Both have no reason to stay with their current teams. Chicago could be intrigued with Kuz playing top line minutes with Bedard as we has shown he can be a ppg twice already.

Hall can be a reliable player to put anywhere in your lineup with injuries or just experience.

Chicago can test out Kuz and see if he can gel there and get him for basically a swap. It think it is a better risk then getting yet another 4th pick for Hall. Calgary can "add" by mainly swapping a forward and maybe adding a late pick.

Can help this group feel confident that the management believes in them with very little futures being given. I feel Hall would be more effective for this team then Kuz and have the boost playing for his hometown team.

Chi: Kuzmenko + 6th
Cgy: Hall

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This market is shifting now. Players are getting more say now than ever before. Tkachuk should have been offered to 31 teams when the Flames traded him, but instead was only offered to 5 teams, even though he didn't have any trade protection. Hanifin's value was further impacted when his agent spoken to teams and let them know which markets Hanifin was willing to re-sign in (and yes, Vegas was one of them, even though he preferred the east coast - Eichel is one of his best buddies too).



So why wouldn't Andersson push his preferences in this upcoming off-season? I would if I was in his shoes, given how many others are doing the same? He just saw Tkachuk lift a cup. He is watching Hanifin's team at the top of the standings. I would imagine he will probably want to have more say than his 6 team no trade list - or at least, the risk is there of him having his say.


It is an easier pill to swallow for a team worrying about re-signing Andersson and possibly losing him for nothing, if you get two playoff runs at least - plus more time to convince him to re-sign.



I can't see an argument where Rasmus isn't more valuable up until this trade deadline. I do see an argument as to whether or not to trade Andersson, however. As stated, I am more inclined to trade him, but I do see value in extending him as well - he is a great player with a great character, and that's not always easy to find.

It’s true. The value of an asset is related to how long the acquiring team gets to keep them. If it comes out next year or in the summer that Andersson only wants to sign with 3-4 teams, his trade value instantly goes down for every other team because for them, he is only a rental. Makes it even worse if of those 3-4 teams, only one or two of them are interested in acquiring him. This is what happened with Hanifin.

[PepsiFree]

If the prospect of Anderson being a rental hurts his value, isn’t his value naturally higher when he can sign an extension vs now when he can’t?

[camm13]

Originally Posted by konradical

For a trade to "add" for the deadline assuming we are still in the hunt it would be intriguing to swap Kuzmenko with another struggling player.

For example Hall for Kuzmenko (maybe you add a bit more). Both similar cap hits and UFAs. Both have no reason to stay with their current teams. Chicago could be intrigued with Kuz playing top line minutes with Bedard as we has shown he can be a ppg twice already.

Hall can be a reliable player to put anywhere in your lineup with injuries or just experience.

Chicago can test out Kuz and see if he can gel there and get him for basically a swap. It think it is a better risk then getting yet another 4th pick for Hall. Calgary can "add" by mainly swapping a forward and maybe adding a late pick.

Can help this group feel confident that the management believes in them with very little futures being given. I feel Hall would be more effective for this team then Kuz and have the boost playing for his hometown team.

Chi: Kuzmenko + 6th
Cgy: Hall

I wouldn't even add a 6th. One for one trade, players trade scenery, see where it goes. A 6th rounder isn't useless capital (Mangiapane/Kerins).

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If the prospect of Anderson being a rental hurts his value, isn’t his value naturally higher when he can sign an extension vs now when he can’t?

I should clarify… The value of having Andersson for two playoff runs at a low cap hit could offset the loss of him just being a 1.5 year rental. Next year, it would be a 1 year rental. One playoff run.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If the prospect of Anderson being a rental hurts his value, isn’t his value naturally higher when he can sign an extension vs now when he can’t?

That's why I don't think anyone can say with certainty that the optimal time is now or at the deadline. It ignores this and other factors.

[traptor]

I'm actually not worried about Cozen's contract.

There's been some speculation that the cap is going to rise to 100,000,000 over the next year or two.

At 100 million his contract is 7.1%.

That's middle 6 forward money. By the back half of his contract it will be even less then that.

I think a middle 6 winger is his floor, which wouldn't be great, but far from a disaster.

I think the risk is quite low.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I do think that Monahammer is right on a key point at least - that Andersson's value is probably the highest right now and up until this deadline. I actually don't think there is an argument against it.


If Huberdeau was still making 5.9 million, and he was on an expiring contract, we would expect the offers for him at the deadline to start with a 1st++, no? But with his current deal, we can expect the offers to be "future considerations" and for Calgary to add multiple 1st round picks. Say what you will about the value either way at the maximum and minimum - that's totally not the point here - but you can NOT argue that Huberdeau's contract is the biggest influence on his valuation. Why then, isn't the same logic being shown towards Andersson's cap-friendly deal? Of course his value is the highest between now and the deadline, and I argue it was probably the highest during this past off-season, and already some of that value has evaporated, especially since he did NOT hold a 6 team no trade list until July 1st.


Sure, there are fluctuations year-to-year every trade deadline. However, these fluctuations mostly impact wingers and depth pieces, not top 6 Cs and top 4 Ds - these premium positions always go for premium assets. The deadline is when teams value players the most. The draft is when teams value picks the most.



Now, whether to trade Andersson or not is a different argument, and I see both sides. I prefer to trade him, but if he signs a fair deal (not necessarily team friendly , but also not an overpay to keep him), I would be happy to retain him. He is part of a leadership core that seems to be great, overachieving, and helping young players develop. That's good, and I am fine with re-signing him. I would rather have more bullets in the chamber, however, and given his age, and other long-term deals on the books, I would rather move on. As long as he isn't sold for pennies on the dollar, or re-signed to an overpay, I will be happy.


Something else to ponder...



This market is shifting now. Players are getting more say now than ever before. Tkachuk should have been offered to 31 teams when the Flames traded him, but instead was only offered to 5 teams, even though he didn't have any trade protection. Hanifin's value was further impacted when his agent spoken to teams and let them know which markets Hanifin was willing to re-sign in (and yes, Vegas was one of them, even though he preferred the east coast - Eichel is one of his best buddies too).



So why wouldn't Andersson push his preferences in this upcoming off-season? I would if I was in his shoes, given how many others are doing the same? He just saw Tkachuk lift a cup. He is watching Hanifin's team at the top of the standings. I would imagine he will probably want to have more say than his 6 team no trade list - or at least, the risk is there of him having his say.


It is an easier pill to swallow for a team worrying about re-signing Andersson and possibly losing him for nothing, if you get two playoff runs at least - plus more time to convince him to re-sign.



I can't see an argument where Rasmus isn't more valuable up until this trade deadline. I do see an argument as to whether or not to trade Andersson, however. As stated, I am more inclined to trade him, but I do see value in extending him as well - he is a great player with a great character, and that's not always easy to find.

Some of your reasons for trading Anderson are why I also feel not trading him by deadline would be a it if a failure. Even if flames somehow squeak into playoffs I have my doubts Anderson would automatically re-sign. He would probably still take a wait and see approach.

As for players having more say, I think your bang on. I get he only has 6 teams he can’t be traded to but he can easily force his hand to which teams he will go to for full compensation back. I doubt any gm looking at him in summer is going to give up full value if it’s known to them that he might not re-sign. I see proposals for buffalo , Ottawa, Detroit ect. My guess he tells them Wait and see approach .

Flames have to make the tough decision and trade him this year. I get vets won’t be happy but they have to get where the flames are at.