2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Enoch Root]

People have responded to that question though - they've said Andersson should be traded now. That is the strongest level Conroy can pull, to try and get the team to finish lower in the standings.

No one is claiming it's a certainty. People are arguing that the reward is large enough that it is worth trying.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People have responded to that question though - they've said Andersson should be traded now. That is the strongest level Conroy can pull, to try and get the team to finish lower in the standings.

No one is claiming it's a certainty. People are arguing that the reward is large enough that it is worth trying.

So trading Andersson is the difference between tanking or not. Keep him and the Flames just tried to re-tool?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People have responded to that question though - they've said Andersson should be traded now. That is the strongest level Conroy can pull, to try and get the team to finish lower in the standings.

No one is claiming it's a certainty. People are arguing that the reward is large enough that it is worth trying.

So what is that worth to you? As a thought exercise what price needs to be met to trade him now. If someone offers a 2nd do you make the trade because the value of getting that higher pick is so high? What if it's just a 1st?

What's the tipping point to you in terms of the return such that you would make the deal now?

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

There is some absolutely wild overconfidence in our prospects in this thread. I am also excited about our prospect pool... but we will be fortunate if 5 of our current prospects play in the NHL long term. Some of you have hand picked superstars in there... Jeesh.

Flames currently have four of their top prospects playing in the NHL. All of them look like they should have long careers (Wolf, Zary, Coronato, Pelletier).

They've got two other guys knocking on the door, one who just made his debut in the NHL (Honzek and Kerins) and three Wrangler defenders -- Solovyov, Poirier, Brzustewicz -- that are going to get some NHL games in the next 15 months and could turn into impact guys.

And then they have their top prospect, Parekh, who in my mind is the biggest boom or bust candidate, and at least a handful of forwards and a few more defenders that have a decent probability of a long and impactful career.

Superstars is a bit of overselling, but the confidence is legitimate.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I think he is a top talent as well, let's see what happens.

Still think we need 3-4 elite players to be a contender and that is why I don't think Dallas is currently.

Losing Pavelski to retirement really hurt them. That is who they need to replace.

[Jason14h]

Dallas needs their Eichel trade

They are missing the star Center

[HighLifeMan]

I'd have to believe that the same people pushing to trade Andersson before the deadline, would be the same one's absolutely losing their minds when Montreal ultimately ends up selecting 11th overall with our pick as a result of said deal. That's the risk you take trying to "tank" a season where you don't possess your own draft pick. It would be a stupid and unnecessary gamble to take given where this team currently sits in the standings. If in 20 games time we sit near the bottom 10 then sure, that's a conversation that should absolutely be had at the deadline, but until that happens wishing for this team to lose is wild to me.

Given the circumstances I don't see any other option for CC other than allowing this team to continue to push for a playoff spot. A worse pick for Montreal and some playoff experience for the kids is hardly a bad outcome.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

I'd have to believe that the same people pushing to trade Andersson before the deadline, would be the same one's absolutely losing their minds when Montreal ultimately ends up selecting 11th overall with our pick as a result of said deal. That's the risk you take trying to "tank" a season where you don't possess your own draft pick. It would be a stupid and unnecessary gamble to take given where this team currently sits in the standings. If in 20 games time we sit near the bottom 10 then sure, that's a conversation that should absolutely be had at the deadline, but until that happens wishing for this team to lose is wild to me.

Given the circumstances I don't see any other option for CC other than allowing this team to continue to push for a playoff spot. A worse pick for Montreal and some playoff experience for the kids is hardly a bad outcome.

Well yeah then the argument will be "see they should have traded Andersson 2 weeks earlier!"

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

Flames currently have four of their top prospects playing in the NHL. All of them look like they should have long careers (Wolf, Zary, Coronato, Pelletier).

They've got two other guys knocking on the door, one who just made his debut in the NHL (Honzek and Kerins) and three Wrangler defenders -- Solovyov, Poirier, Brzustewicz -- that are going to get some NHL games in the next 15 months and could turn into impact guys.

And then they have their top prospect, Parekh, who in my mind is the biggest boom or bust candidate, and at least a handful of forwards and a few more defenders that have a decent probability of a long and impactful career.

Superstars is a bit of overselling, but the confidence is legitimate.

I'm not sure what your definition of a long and impactful career is.

Is it 5 years, 10 years? And good do they need to be to be impactful?

I'd just that it's unlikely Pelletier will have a long and impactful career. That's a high standard for a guy who recently passed through waivers.

Prospects are prospects, and the failure rate is very high, even for good ones.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

I'd have to believe that the same people pushing to trade Andersson before the deadline, would be the same one's absolutely losing their minds when Montreal ultimately ends up selecting 11th overall with our pick as a result of said deal. That's the risk you take trying to "tank" a season where you don't possess your own draft pick. It would be a stupid and unnecessary gamble to take given where this team currently sits in the standings. If in 20 games time we sit near the bottom 10 then sure, that's a conversation that should absolutely be had at the deadline, but until that happens wishing for this team to lose is wild to me.

Given the circumstances I don't see any other option for CC other than allowing this team to continue to push for a playoff spot. A worse pick for Montreal and some playoff experience for the kids is hardly a bad outcome.

Yup, bang on. With the way the team is playing and just how bad the bottom teams are playing, it's a very likely outcome.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Trading Andersson for me is not about tanking the season. It is maximizing the asset and setting the tone we are not handing our retirement contracts unless you are a truly elite player.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Agree on the rest but I am hoping they don't even do that just because it would really show they are staying the course.

I hope they do the opposite. Be the third party and retain on one or two expiring contracts and add more draft picks.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Trading Andersson for me is not about tanking the season. It is maximizing the asset and setting the tone we are not handing our retirement contracts unless you are a truly elite player.

To me, the long term contracts (8 years) need to be reserved for:

- promising young players (<25) on their second contracts
- elite core players (<28) that project to be top line or top D for majority of contract
- elite free agents (30 or younger) to augment your core only when you’re in your win now window

No exceptions. Rasmus doesnt fit this criteria and to me is clearly an asset you move.

[Tkachukwagon]

Nemec unhappy with the Devils

https://twitter.com/user/status/1879913515965919538

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The saving grace with Edmonton is their terrible management which led to their continued string of picking 1st overall. They didn't purposefully tank, they just ended up there. McDavid probably has a few cups if the Oilers' management wasn't so terrible.

San Jose vs Chicago will be interesting to watch. San Jose fell into their rebuild and Chicago tried to tank for Bedard.

And where would they be with Dylan Strome instead of McDavid?

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

To me, the long term contracts (8 years) need to be reserved for:

- promising young players (<25) on their second contracts
- elite core players (<28) that project to be top line or top D for majority of contract
- elite free agents (30 or younger) to augment your core only when you’re in your win now window

No exceptions. Rasmus doesnt fit this criteria and to me is clearly an asset you move.

All the ‘trade Rasmus now’ discussion smacks of Markstrom this time last year. This forum was in a tizzy about ‘you have to trade Markstrom right now to maximize return’.

Needless to say, it didn’t happen. Was the Devils offer better then than what the deal turned out to be? Who knows. I doubt many, if anyone, who frequents this forum unequivocally does. And if there are, I don’t recall them spilling the beans, not that I expect they would.

[konradical]

We have traded Lindholm, Zadorov, Hanifin, Tanev, Markstrom and Mangiapane in the past year but if we keep Andersson past this deadline we are not a rebuilding team?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by konradical

We have traded Lindholm, Zadorov, Hanifin, Tanev, Markstrom and Mangiapane in the past year but if we keep Andersson past this deadline we are not a rebuilding team?

They traded Lindholm and Hanifin only after they rejected the Flames offer. Zadorov wanted way more term than the Flames were happy to give. Markstrom wanted out, and the Flames best prospect was a goaltender.

Andersson will likely only get traded next year if he rejects the Flames final offer.

Now the big difference is the Flames won't give whatever it takes to keep the player, there is always a set limit. But the Flames are trying to stay competitive within reason.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by konradical

We have traded Lindholm, Zadorov, Hanifin, Tanev, Markstrom and Mangiapane in the past year but if we keep Andersson past this deadline we are not a rebuilding team?

2 out of the 5 players were a loss to the Flames IMO, that's Hanifin and Tanev.

The rest, Lindholm ,Zadorov and Mangiapane were additions by subtraction. How would the Flames look right now if they kept Lindholm and Mang? Likely much worse. 2 less spots for kids who have made an impact.

Zadorov was just okay and IMO, Pachal has filled Zads void and honestly improved the spot.

I don't think losing guys whose foot were already put the door as triggering a rebuild. How Conroy has approached the situation has turned out pretty on the mark, giving room for young players to earn their spot and make an impact, which they have.

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

To me, the long term contracts (8 years) need to be reserved for:

- promising young players (<25) on their second contracts
- elite core players (<28) that project to be top line or top D for majority of contract
- elite free agents (30 or younger) to augment your core only when you’re in your win now window

No exceptions. Rasmus doesnt fit this criteria and to me is clearly an asset you move.

Personally, I think the Mackenzie Weegar signing was a good one for the Flames, and he doesn't fall into your restrictive criteria.

I'm generally on board, from an asset management perspective, with trading Andersson. But there's a lot more to building a team than only asset management (although it's important).

I'm good either way at this point.