The 2025 Offseason thread.

[Toonage]

My take was going off the provided projections above me. Personally I expect a similar year as last. The one caveat being, agreeing with Jiri here, that this team goes as Wolf goes.

[savardandjokinen]

Kirkland is a 29 year old career AHLer coming off an ACL tear, I agree he probably has the inside track for the 13th forward spot but I definitely would not be surprised if last season was the peak of his career and he gets sent back to the Wranglers and spends most of the season there

[Strange Brew]

Probably the wrong place for this but I happened to see MGM sports book has Flames point total at 83.5 for next year. I do think the 96 points last year was a little flukey but usually they don't peg teams to be that far off from prior year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But of course it's not a good draft for centers.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the Flames suffer a major step back this season. If Wolf has any sort of sophomore slump, that in and of itself could do it.

But I had them bottom 5 last season and was dead wrong so who knows.

This is why it was so imperative for them to focus entirely on Cs with the early picks: strong draft for Cs and they had a desperate shortage. They did focus on them, and they did well. Now they are more balanced with their prospect base and they can go back to BPA, and taking what the draft gives them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Probably the wrong place for this but I happened to see MGM sports book has Flames point total at 83.5 for next year. I do think the 96 points last year was a little flukey but usually they don't peg teams to be that far off from prior year.

IMO, 83 sounds far more plausible than 72 - they have too much depth and too many solid vets to drop to 72.

And of course, there's the Wolf.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

IMO, 83 sounds far more plausible than 72 - they have too much depth and too many solid vets to drop to 72.

And of course, there's the Wolf.

It's funny because his "model" projects Wolf as being the main reason as to why the Flames regress 23 points next year since there is no history of the player being able to repeat the season he just had

[Johnny Makarov]

Maybe JoeFresh should stick to his Bangladesh clothing for Superstore. There is no way we are getting 72 points with Wolf in net.

[Strange Brew]

Yeah Vegas generally knows what they are doing. I can kind of see reasons to go on either side of 83.5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

IMO, 83 sounds far more plausible than 72 - they have too much depth and too many solid vets to drop to 72.

And of course, there's the Wolf.

His model has an average error rate of 10.4 points, so 83 would would fit within the average accuracy of his model.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

His model has an average error rate of 10.4 points, so 83 would would fit within the average accuracy of his model.

Is it such that the model average error rate is 10.4 in either direction? If so, that seems pretty useless. My "model" would take the middle 20 teams and give the exact same point total from the prior year. Top 5 teams I would deduct 10. Bottom 5 teams I would add 10 for regression to the mean and take my chances with that.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Maybe JoeFresh should stick to his Bangladesh clothing for Superstore. There is no way we are getting 72 points with Wolf in net.

Remember Steve Mason?

Not saying that it’s an outright fair comparison, but I think expectations for Wolf may be a tad high/premature at this point.

He’s a young guy. Let’s not bury him if he comes out and only puts up a .900 save % this coming season. If he has a sophomore slump, which would probably be more in line with the norm, we shouldn’t panic.

Goalies, and goalie development, are unpredictable.

[Bingo Jr.]

I'm just glad we don't have any more crazy Brad trade conditions looming over us heading into this season.

[SuperMatt18]

Yeah my guess for the flames would be that the mean for them would be 85 points, but in the NHL there is about 10-12 points of variability in either direction based on just luck, scheduling, injuries, etc.

So a good season could have them in that 95-97 range again and a poor season could have them in the 73-75 range.

[Calgary Highlander]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Remember Steve Mason?

Not saying that it’s an outright fair comparison, but I think expectations for Wolf may be a tad high/premature at this point.

He’s a young guy. Let’s not bury him if he comes out and only puts up a .900 save % this coming season. If he has a sophomore slump, which would probably be more in line with the norm, we shouldn’t panic.

Goalies, and goalie development, are unpredictable.

Whatever expectations people have for Wolf, he consistently exceeds them each year.

The only reasonable expectation at this point is to assume he will be a Vezina nominee next year, and win the thing in the next three years .

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am interested to see how accurate this model looks. The standouts to me is Anaheim being too low, Montreal taking a step back after being a young team that is rising through the standings, and Buffalo improving. I think the model falls apart with Buffalo since it wasn't a lack of talent in Buffalo, but rather a lack of culture there.



Flames spiraling down the standings can most certainly happen. Who had Boston taking a huge dive this last season? Nashville imploded.



4 points for me:
1) Kadri - he will be 35 when the season starts. He has been EXCELLENT in the previous 2 seasons. The thing with aging players is that, frequently, the drop in performance is both sudden and substantial. Will it happen this upcoming season? No idea. I just wouldn't feel comfortable betting on it either way. In many cases, it seems like an aging player just became replacement-level overnight. It could be an injury, and when it heals, it was too hard to get back to that level, or whatever. I am hoping he has another great season in him, however.


2) Backlund. This teams most underrated and underappreciated player. This team would be sunk without him. Playing the toughest minutes against the league's top lines, and out-chancing and often out-producing them head-to-head? Kadri or Frost are not even close to the level that Backlund was last season. With that said, he is 36, and will turn 37 when the season is winding down. He was playing injured last year (another point that the usual band of critics on this site seem to conveniently ignore) and still put up a solid season. However, father time undefeated. Being a defensive player, he may age more gracefully, as he can still be a very effective defensive player for a few more years, but the drop-off might be considerable as well. Favourite player on the team for me personally, and I hope he still manages to keep going for as long as possible, but we just never know. Giordano went FAST IMO, and he was a similar fitness nut.



3) Season start. Last season, the Flames had a relative luxury - a slow start to the season in terms of GP. It allowed for more rest between games, more practices, etc. I think it helped get them to those wins, and it helped with their belief. When a team believes, it is much easier to put in that kind of effort. I don't think there was another team in the NHL that was as consistently hard-working as the Flames. If they start slow, does it snowball the other way? Will it erode their belief a little, and will it then in turn erode the effort level to any degree?



4) Andersson trade. Can the Flames legitimately absorb the loss of another top 4 defencemen, without replacement? I don't think so. I love Parekh, and I think he has the chance to not only end up as an elite defencemen in this league, but a franchise-changing one at that. However, expecting him to be able to defend as well as Andersson has is not being realistic. There will be growing pains, and I am very high on Parekh not only because he is an offensive dynamo, but because I am confident that he will become reliable enough defensively as well. I wouldn't be so high on him if he was looking like another offence-only defender. I just think it will take time, and that pairing will see more goals against.


I can absolutely see that the Flames over-performed last season season, and could under-perform this upcoming season. That's a huge swing. I think things just snowball quite quickly for teams like the Flames that play so deep into the margins. That's not even looking at things like Vladar leaving, a significant injury to someone like Weegar (imagine trading Andersson and Weegar being out for a long stretch? ouch!). There are so many variables, and this is why sports-betting sites make a tonne of money, right?



I wouldn't be surprised if the Flames put in another really good season, with the vets hanging onto their current levels, and the young guys taking a step forward. I can also see a huge drop off too. If I was forced to bet, I would bet on them having a drop off. I guess we will see.



It will be interesting to see how accurate this model ends up being. I think this model will be fairly good overall, and you can tell that just by looking at his standings. What I don't think this model will be good at - and I haven't seen one that has been - is being able to accurately predict the exceptions. Boston and Nasvhille dropping to where they were, teams like the 2015 and 2025 Flames' exceeding expectations. So while I find this model to be interesting (specifically with a few points like Anaheim probably being too low, Montreal probably being too low), I also feel it is not going to be close at predicting the exceptions, as no current model really is good at it.


However, that's a huge part of what makes sports incredibly interesting an fun. How teams can suddenly just implode, and sometimes how a band of misfits can just come together and blow up at the right time out of nowhere. Maybe AI + quantum computing will be able to accurately figure out the exceptions by looking at team cultures, better predictive injuries, and account for things like personalities and off-ice drama that breaks teams down or helps them gel together and exceed expectations. Until then, this is just more of the same, though still interesting, and probably a useful exercise nonetheless - especially for those that participate in online gambling.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah my guess for the flames would be that the mean for them would be 85 points, but in the NHL there is about 10-12 points of variability in either direction based on just luck, scheduling, injuries, etc.

So a good season could have them in that 95-97 range again and a poor season could have them in the 73-75 range.

Exactly this.

The upside is there, the risks are there.

The team is one bad shot block from 73-75, and one good healthy season away from 95-97.

We don’t have the skill to backfill if we take an injury to any one of our key players (Kadri, Wolf, Weegar etc.), whereas you see other teams able to plug through them.

On the flip side of that, it’s not unrealistic to expect very similar results to last year if the gang stays healthy.

[Finger Cookin]

I have to say that I agree with a lot of what's said here, and I'm expecting the Flames to take a step back this year. A lot went right this year - vets performed extremely well, Wolf did great, the team stayed relatively healthy almost the whole season, especially key players. I think we caught many teams by surprise last year, and that most teams will be better prepared for the Flames this season.

Will it be over/under 83.5 points? Only time will tell. I'm not expecting 96+ points this coming season, personally.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I’ll just give it a guess of 87 points, with a lot of OTLs because we lack that game breaking forward for 3v3 hockey. Something like 37-32-13. It will be the reason we miss the playoffs again.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Is it such that the model average error rate is 10.4 in either direction? If so, that seems pretty useless. My "model" would take the middle 20 teams and give the exact same point total from the prior year. Top 5 teams I would deduct 10. Bottom 5 teams I would add 10 for regression to the mean and take my chances with that.

It's really 5 wins in either direction of variance which I think is probably fine. I know rookies, goaltending and injuries can really swing the standings over the course of a season.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

It's really 5 wins in either direction of variance which I think is probably fine. I know rookies, goaltending and injuries can really swing the standings over the course of a season.

I get it, of course rookies and injuries can swing the results. My point is what does the model bring that provides any insight into the upcoming year? I think nothing, if any rando (like me) could guess his way into a similar prediction.