2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Do we really need more picks? The scouts have done a great job recently but this team does not need to significantly add more quantity in the pipeline.

What they really need is a couple of high-end prospects that you typically find at the top of the draft. So we really just need more 1sts and maybe 2nds to either get what we can in those spots or use them to consolidate and trade up.

It’s the next best scenario as hopefully the scouts hit a Point/Kucherov/Johnston. I’m not holding my breath on them being able to trade up

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Do we really need more picks? The scouts have done a great job recently but this team does not need to significantly add more quantity in the pipeline.

What they really need is a couple of high-end prospects that you typically find at the top of the draft. So we really just need more 1sts and maybe 2nds to either get what we can in those spots or use them to consolidate and trade up.

Of course we need some high draft picks, but all things being equal, we need more picks.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Exactly.
Higher picks are better than lower picks
More picks is better than less picks.

You want to maximize your odds in both ways.

[stemit14]

In a draft that’s considered poor (like this year’s draft), is it better to have more picks than fewer picks that are higher? Looking back on other poor drafts where classes, the best players were found outside the top 5 picks.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am sort of on the same opinion about Dallas not being a great model, but I find myself on the fence with them.


On one hand, where would they be if they didn't win the lottery and get to draft Heiskanen? He is so good and really helps control the game I feel. Is that something that is repeatable - not tanking but expecting to luck out eventually and draft high?



I haven't bought in to them being a top team in the west this year, but my stance has changed. They didn't look good against Edmonton, granted, but they looked exceptional until then. Getting to the third round in consecutive years is nothing to sneeze at - that takes a quality team. I feel the Flames had some pretty good squads in the last 10 years, and they never came close to the third round.


I think Dallas will improve, however. I bet they will draw interest from UFAs, and few - if any - players will have them on their NTC lists.



The closest team to the Flames in terms of location, metro size, climate, etc, and who has had recent success is Edmonton. However, managing a team like a moron and simply lucking out is not a model. What's the next best comparable for the Flames? Has to be Carolina I think. Yet, this feels a bit 'light'. Carolina has made the playoffs for 7 straight seasons. They have been to the conference finals three times in that span. Yet, it still feels like Calgary is aiming a little low. Carolina always feels like a very good team - but not a great one. It is the team that the great teams in the east beat every year.


I don't think there is a 'model' for Calgary. Winnipeg? Less success than Carolina (though more than Calgary in the last decade). Ottawa is just turning things around - way too early to be a model. Montreal is a bit of a different animal, and I also think it is wildly premature to point at them.


I think what Conroy should do is simply create his own model. It is his job on the line, it is his reputation on the line. He gets to be the maverick leading this organization down a path that he feels is best. I am really curious to see what that path is. I have my own suspicions, but I may be completely wrong. He is definitely focused on drafting - this is the one thing that he keeps stating- that most of his players will come through the draft. Other than that, it is anyone's guess.

Only quoting your post because I like it and your comment about own model prompted this thought.

I think, as uncomfortable as it might make us, is that there is far more "reacting" to your individual and unique situation by GMs then any of us care to admit. We talk a lot about models.......... and really like to bucket into two big categories, tear down and re-tool. Now I'm not saying GMs don't have "longer term plans", but I think they respond to their individual situations far more than we think, and I think in all scenarios they are actually trying to get back to "competitive" for weaker teams, and "enhance quickly" for stronger as quickly as possible in most cases.

That's to say, have any teams really truly intentionally "tanked", or has taking for the most part been thrust upon them as they've failed? That was certainly the case with Edmonton for example. Anyone who thinks they intentionally tanked and got McDavid wasn't watching for the past 15 years. Now I'm not saying at points, teams don't accept their fate and embrace the tank for a short period of time, but usually that decision gets made for them is my point.

Anyway, I just think every team approaches things differently and always has, there are not "models" to follow. Every team mostly reacts to the existing asset situation and results, which guides most of the decision making IMO, and how well one executes on those is actually the determining factor on success. Then as mentioned you layer in every team has a unique set of "environmental" challenges the hardest of which belong to the small market Canadian clubs.

[TheIronMaiden]

Hearing Saravelli say that the Blackhawks are open to calls for the 3rd OA pick has be day dreaming.

There is No way that Andersson + the 18 pick would make sense?

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Hearing Saravelli say that the Blackhawks are open to calls for the 3rd OA pick has be day dreaming.

There is No way that Andersson + the 18 pick would make sense?

No. This happens every year and it turns out to be hot air. Especially not for a team like the Flames that is so deficient in quality assets.

[LokiMotion]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Hearing Saravelli say that the Blackhawks are open to calls for the 3rd OA pick has be day dreaming.

There is No way that Andersson + the 18 pick would make sense?

I'm not the best at assessing value but I was thinking Andersson, Coleman, pick #18, and maybe a prospect get the conversation started?

The Hawks get two veterans that can help guide that core right now, a decent pick, and a prospect they can use or flip.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Hearing Saravelli say that the Blackhawks are open to calls for the 3rd OA pick has be day dreaming.

There is No way that Andersson + the 18 pick would make sense?

It was rumored they wanted a young asset so if a piece like McTavish were available then they do it but not for a near 30 year old and a mid 1st

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

No. This happens every year and it turns out to be hot air. Especially not for a team like the Flames that is so deficient in quality assets.

I agree about the hot air, its fun to talk about, but likely little more.
But I disagree that the Flames are deficient in quality assets.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Davidson wants a difference maker not a bunch of pieces.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

It was rumored they wanted a young asset so if a piece like McTavish were available then they do it but not for a near 30 year old and a mid 1st

Andersson is 28, good D men stay effective until they are 34.
His age is less likely to decrease his value more than the fact he is only under contract for 1 year.

[gvitaly]

^ I don't think that will get the conversation started. I don't see CHI risking such an asset for the likes of Coleman and Andersson. Maybe if Robertson, or McTavish becomes available, that would be someone they move #3 for.

If Calgary trades Andersson++ to one of UTA(4)/NSH(5)/BOS(7) then you might package that pick with another asset to move up to #3.

[Matty81]

I'd be shocked if Andersson and an add brings back pick 9 from Buffalo. I don't think pick 3 overall goes anywhere without a young player under 25 chicago can build around going back or a later 20s all star level player.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Andersson is 28, good D men stay effective until they are 34.
His age is less likely to decrease his value more than the fact he is only under contract for 1 year.

If a team is giving up a top 3 pick they are not doing it for a mid pair Dman who turns 29 at the start of next season. His age and contract situation go hand in hand. If he was 29 with 4 years left on his deal different situation. If he was 24 and 1 year left different situation. 29 with 1 year left the value is not even close

[SuperMatt18]

I like the Perri Pick Value model for stuff like this.

The 3rd overall pick has a value of 62.07

18 OV is worth 20.94
32 OV is worth 10.4

Andersson value is probably close to 15th OV + 2nd

15 OV is worth 24.93
2nd Round is worth 5.71

So that has the value at 62.07 vs 61.98

Flames would likely need to add another piece because you need to overpay to get a top 5 pick.

But the equivalent value of Andersson + 18 + 32 + another piece is actually pretty close in value to getting a top 5 pick. So the value is fair, You just need to hope a team actually wants the player and sees the value.

[Matty81]

Flames best hope is the narrative that this draft isn't amazing maybe someone talks themselves out of picking and they move up a couple times incrementally. But it's hard to see anyone moving a top 10 pick for a bunch of mediocre assets even if they add up to the same value. It's an NHL25 trade even if it adds up on the draft pick value calculator.

I could see pick 9 and an asset for Andersson and 18 if the Sabres strike out on other targets. Teams like them will explore whether or not Ekblad can be had as a better RHD with no trade cost first.

Then maaaaybe Calgary could trade 9 and the late 1st or a 2nd rounder to jump up a little more and maybe grab the center who is left over from Desnoyers, Frondell, Hagens, Misa or O'Brien if they find a team who don't like the draft class

[traptor]

The Blackhawks aren't moving the 3rd overall pick just to collect a bunch of lesser assets.

If they trade it, it's going to be for other premium pieces. Maybe they trade down a few spots, like from 3 to 6, but not all the way to 18.

There aren't many rumored established premium players worth making that kind of move for but if I’m Chicago, I’d be looking at a package like Peterka + Byram. Or Jason Robertson. Young, established high end players.. Not a pending UFA and picks like 18 and 32.


I think the Sabres #9 is the highest realistic target we could hit. They would definitely be interested in Rasmus, but I doubt Rasmus is interested in going there. So I don't really see how we make it happen.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

If a team is giving up a top 3 pick they are not doing it for a mid pair Dman who turns 29 at the start of next season. His age and contract situation go hand in hand. If he was 29 with 4 years left on his deal different situation. If he was 24 and 1 year left different situation. 29 with 1 year left the value is not even close

The devaluation of Andersson on this board is intense.

Mid-pair D-men are not playing an average of 24 minutes per game over an entire season. Andersson has playing those minutes for ~5 seasons and in this last season he did so with an unproven D partner.

Andersson is the second best available RD in the next 2 seasons (behind Ekblad) and Andersson can be had for cheap for 1 year before he needs his big contract extension. Depending on the cap situation of the teams interested in acquiring him this adds to the value, not take away.

I would guess that the value of Andersson is a 1st ++ if he was moved outside of the draft. If we deal him in this draft (which I still think is iffy) it should only be to get into the top 8 of the draft. (I like how SuperMatt18 expressed this with numbers to essentially say the same thing. Thanks!)

Otherwise he should be traded on July 1st with an extension in place in exchange for a good C prospect and/or 2026 1st without protection. Once Ekblad is off the board the value of Andersson will go up as the remaining teams bid against each other.

[howard_the_duck]

Teams at Chicago's stage of rebuilding don't dangle a top 3 pick for quantity that amounts to fair value.

That's a team that needs to boost the morale of its franchise player and start to see a resurgence as early as next season.

A top 3 pick should get them a frontline forward/D that will line up with the age of their young core. We don't have the horses to make a deal like that if it's not Coronato/Wolf/Parekh as anchors to the package.