2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Lightning in 2020 as well. But it doesn’t matter, could be one or 100.

The point is not to obsess over some made up criteria. Enjoy the ride.

Not a made up criteria. When it’s the piece 20 teams are chasing and most valued position. But keep telling yourself that. Enjoy converted wingers to center.

[The Original FFIV]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I'm not sure Montreal needs Ras. They have Matheson for one more year and Reinbacher looks NHL ready.

Guhle and Xhekaj look like great 2nd pairing guys. Carrier was a sneaky pick up too. Why trade 1sts for d right now, unless they prefer Ras over Matheson by enough to part ways with a 1st.

Exactly. Unless Royle9 says Habs are interested, they’re not and picking random teams who might be interested is baseless speculation.

Follow the insiders and speculate accordingly.

[traptor]

I dint think Rasmus gets or is worth 16th + 17th.


I would be happy with 16th + Beck

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by traptor

Sellers market
Flames apparently retooling
Flames have lots of vets
Two years of top end 1st overalls in McKenna then Dupont




Flames dont sell...?





Flames are always missing the boat.

Dang the trade deadline came early this year! Damn you Conroy!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Original FFIV

Exactly. Unless Royle9 says Habs are interested, they’re not and picking random teams who might be interested is baseless speculation.

Follow the insiders and speculate accordingly.

Or just speculate on whatever you want because that’s fun and nobody here is getting paid for their insights.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Flames aren't either.

It amazes me that so many people think the Flames are building around Huberdeau and Kadri - they are not. These guys are placeholders and leaders, while the team is rebuilt with youth.

Look at the roster - there is hardly anyone between the ages of 26 and 30. The 'core' is Coronato, Zary, Wolf, Parekh, Frost, etc. When these guys are good, Kadri, Coleman, Backlund and possibly Huberdeau, will all be long gone.

The article the other day from Kent showed the althea majority or ice time and production still comes from our vets group. This isn't indicative of a rebuilding team.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

Dang the trade deadline came early this year! Damn you Conroy!

Its a speculation thread im speculating based on the common narrative that the Flames are only looking to shop Rasmus and that's if a deal can't be made.

[Royle9]

Montreal is not trading 15+16 for Andersson, I can promise you that.
I haven't heard of them having any interest in Andersson thus far.

[traptor]

Habs definitely need Ras. Matheson is ld.. Reinbarcher isn't ready to be a bonafide top 4 guy. Carrier is a #5.


They have their core pieces, and are ready to take a step.



16th + seems fair and fills a hole for us.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by traptor

The article the other day from Kent showed the althea majority or ice time and production still comes from our vets group. This isn't indicative of a rebuilding team.

By this criteria the Blackhawks are not a rebuilding team.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

With 16, 17, 18 would people rather:
- make all three picks
- package two of them to move up 3-6 spots
- package all three to move up 7+ spots

If you made your mind up before the plinko chips fall on the draft board...you are doomed to suck.

You need to know what players you really want first. Then have a rough idea of where they'll go and how far you could move if needed. Then observe how the board shapes up.

I don't know this draft well enough to form a good opinion. But if trading all 3 gets you to say pick 7, and the scouts think it's worth it, that's the move you make.

In a three similar situations that come to the top of my head. Calgary and Columbus in 2013, and Boston in 2015. Out of 9 picks made between picks 6 to 28...three guys played more than 200 games, Monahan (6), Alexander Wenburg and Jake Debrusk both picked at 14. Which ended up being 3 of the 4 highest picks.

Now all three teams missed on better players with their busts...but that's the draft once you get below those top few players. But it does seem like if you have 3 picks in the middle or back half...getting one legit player is what you can expect.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If PPG = elite, then a whole lot of teams that haven't won have had elite centres.

A PPG was elite for a very long time.

Backstrom was easily a top 10 C in the NHL. From the time he entered the league in 2007-08 until WSH won the cup in 2017-18 Backstrom had the 5th most points in the NHL! He was only behind Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, and Kane! He had 799 points in 815 games, and was +118.

In that time period he is the 8th best C in terms of points per game with 0.95P/GP. He was only behind Crosby, McDavid, Malkin, Barzal(84GP), Stamkos, Datsyuk, and Getzlaf. He was ahead of Thorton, Tavares, Sedin, Kopitar, Zetterberg, Spezza, Seguin, Toews etc.

You can also go year by year among centers:
2007-08(rookie): 23rd in points ,29th P/GP
2008-09: 6th in points, 6th P/GP
2009-10: 3rd in points, 3rd P/GP
2010-11: 20th in points, 23rd P/GP
2011-12: 49th in points, 5th P/GP
2012-13: 8th in points, 10th P/GP
2013-14: 5th in points, 10th in P/GP
2014-15: 3rd in points, 8th in P/GP
2015-16: 7th in points, 8th in P/GP
2016-17: 3rd in points, 5th in P/GP
2017-18: 16th in points, 23rd in P/GP
Kuznetsov
2017-18: 9th in points, 8th in P/GP

[Scroopy Noopers]

Yeah, playing with the greatest goal scorer of all time will do that. The guy was a great centre, but he’s not why they won.

But happily disregard me. ####, I’d throw Chicago on the list of teams who won with elite wingers and D and had a really good centre and good centre depth. Which I know is far from popular.

[Ba'alzamon]

Glad I'm not the only one around here who knew how good Backstrom was lol. He gets so little respect, it's baffling.

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah, playing with the greatest goal scorer of all time will do that. The guy was a great centre, but he’s not why they won.

But happily disregard me. ####, I’d throw Chicago on the list of teams who won with elite wingers and D and had a really good centre and good centre depth. Which I know is far from popular.

The years where Ovechkin was playing with Kuznetsov, Backstrom was still posting 70+ point seasons. In 2016/17 they played together, and Backstrom had 86 points. Ovechkin? 69. Back in 2011/12, Ovechkin had 65 points because Backstrom only played 42 games (and scored 44 points in those 42 games).

But yeah, it was totally just playing with Ovechkin that made him good.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah, playing with the greatest goal scorer of all time will do that. The guy was a great centre, but he’s not why they won.

But happily disregard me. ####, I’d throw Chicago on the list of teams who won with elite wingers and D and had a really good centre and good centre depth. Which I know is far from popular.

I’m right there on the island with you. The question of how much hindsight impacts perception, especially with context removed, is really interesting to me.

Similar to how certain guys weren’t winners… until they won… I think some guys that maybe would never have been considered elite win cups and that changes the perception of them forever and rewrites their history a little bit. People acknowledge it with middle of the pack players all the time, but seem less reluctant to do it with top line players.

The NHL is such a reputation league. And team results can have a huge, sometimes undeserved impact on an individual’s reputation (both good and bad).

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah, playing with the greatest goal scorer of all time will do that. The guy was a great centre, but he’s not why they won.

But happily disregard me. ####, I’d throw Chicago on the list of teams who won with elite wingers and D and had a really good centre and good centre depth. Which I know is far from popular.

Ovechkin played a huge role in Backstrom's success, but a part of Ovi's success was thanks to Backstrom as well.

The same way both Monahan and Gaudreau benefited from playing with one another.

I also think that Towes was an elite defensive center similar to Barkov, but that's my opinion.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by traptor

Habs definitely need Ras. Matheson is ld.. Reinbarcher isn't ready to be a bonafide top 4 guy. Carrier is a #5.


They have their core pieces, and are ready to take a step.



16th + seems fair and fills a hole for us.

100% disagree. If they need to add, it's at forward. Their d is their strength. Matheson is 1 year older than Ras. Why pay big money when Hutson will be getting that soon.

Why trade a 1st for Ras to replace Matheson when he is just as good?

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Ovechkin played a huge role in Backstrom's success, but a part of Ovi's success was thanks to Backstrom as well.

The same way both Monahan and Gaudreau benefited from playing with one another.

I also think that Towes was an elite defensive center similar to Barkov, but that's my opinion.

Yes, the secondary player contributes. But AO played with Kuznetsov and he was the #1 center when they won the cup. AO has shown he can play with Backstrom, Kuznetsov or Strome over his career.

Point is, if elite are guys like this, you can get them past the top 5. Crosby, MacKinnon and McDavid no you can't.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No. Who said anything like that? Who are you confirming this with? lol

You did. Otherwise, what was the point of bringing up Montreal drafting in the top five only once in 10 years because of injuries to their top-line players? You're implying that this somehow disproves my point. But an injury isn't something you plan for. It's a fluke. Montreal was a middle-tier team that never would have drafted that high without that injury. That’s not a plan, and it supports what I’ve been saying.

Crawford was better than Backstrom but you included him. MAF was drafted before Crosby, Malkin, and Letang.

Backstrom was an elite goalie who propped up a middle-of-the-pack team. That’s the comparison I was trying to make. That’s why I included him. It makes sense, right?

Crawford, on the other hand, was an average-to-above-average goalie playing behind a dynasty team. Chicago already had elite and future Hall of Fame players in place before he even became the starter. That’s not remotely comparable to the Flames' current situation. So yes, there's a reason why one is included and the other isn’t.

Pittsburgh, Chicago, even Tampa aren’t relevant comparisons. We’re looking for teams that resemble the Flames right now—teams that acquired an elite goalie and tried to stay competitive while building around a veteran core. That’s a small list. Only six teams in the last 15 years. The Flames are not tanking. They’re not planning to trade Kadri or most of their vets (aside from Andersson, as far as we know). They aren’t trying to draft in the top 10. So if we want a useful discussion, we need to compare apples to apples.

Bringing up examples that don’t reflect the Flames' current context just muddies the conversation.

I’d say they’re pretty comparable. The Flames players were just worse at being bad.

No, they’re not. The Flames have never intentionally been bad. If they end up bad by accident, fine, but they’ve always tried to stay competitive. They target 20 to 25-year-old middle-six forwards, chase free agents, and spin their wheels. That’s the cycle I’m pointing out doesn’t work.

Unless you fully bottom out with veterans still in place, it doesn’t result in meaningful success. LA had Hall of Fame players at center and on defense. The Flames don’t. They had 96 points last season, and you can bet the plan is to stay in that range, not to pick top 10. Conroy has said he expects to be middle of the pack and remain competitive, trying to “roll Yahtzee” with mid-round picks with an elite goalie in place. That’s the issue, and that’s the pattern I’ve been highlighting.

It’s not a pattern. As pointed out like half a dozen times, there are way too many factors at play for you to make the conclusion you’re making.

It is a pattern, at least when we focus on teams in situations similar to the Flames. Of course it’s not, if you keep using examples that don’t actually apply.

So just to be clear:
LA who drafted Byfield with Kopitar, Quick, Doughty, Toffoli, Carter, Brown, Kovalchuk on the roster (7 vets, 2-3 HOF) = good and an example of how you can hang on to a few vets
CGY with Andersson, Coleman, Kadri, Huberdeau, Backlund, and Weegar on the roster (6 vets, 0 HOF) = bad! too many vets! they’ll stop us from drafting a Byfield!
lol k

That’s not a fair comparison. If the Flames could somehow tank with this current roster and land a top 2 picked center like Byfield, great. That’s what I’m advocating for. But that's not the plan management has outlined. The valid comparisons are with other teams that tried to build off a mediocre core and elite goalie, stayed competitive, and hoped for the best.

Take J.S. Giguère. Yes, he was acquired before Getzlaf, and yes, they won a Cup. But again, not comparable. Who’s our Selanne? Who’s our Niedermayer, who only signed because his brother was already there? Anaheim got incredibly lucky. They landed a Hall of Fame center in one of the deepest drafts in history at 19...that's extremely rare. That's not a plan. It's a perfect storm.

Unless the Flames sign Makar in free agency and Honzek turns into Getzlaf, the comparison doesn’t hold up. Even then, we’d still need a Selanne-level forward and for Parekh to develop like Niedermayer. That’s a massive amount of good fortune. You can’t build a model around that kind of outcome.

So again, if you can find a team in a truly comparable situation—no Hall of Famers, middle-of-the-pack core, elite goalie already in place, management committed to retooling on the fly with mid-round picks—and show me that more than 50% of them succeeded, then sure, I’ll concede the Flames might be following a sustainable model. But as it stands, I’ve found six examples, and it didn’t work out for any of them.