[Trade] Weegar to Utah for Maatta, Castagna, 3 x 2026 2nd rounders

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Well Niewendyk was 27 overall. So these days that's a first in the last quarter of the draft.

True. On the other hand, those were the days of the Cold War, when Russians, Czechs, and yoked Slovaks were seldom drafted because they had to defect to get to the NHL. Also, U.S. college hockey has taken a big step up since then.

Allowing for the bigger talent pool, I’d figure an early 2nd now is about equal to an early 2nd then.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by browna

It is not clutching pearls or resistant to change, I just don’t know how the Flames replace these guys and their leadership and character in the short term. And that leadership and character are vital requirements for a younger team and collection of players like a Parekh to have some sort of role model or models to emulate (Phaneuf had Hamrilk as a simple example). Otherwise you’ll end up with another Buffalo (prior to this year) Chicago with Bedard, or pre and even post McDavid Oilers, with a bunch of talented youngsters flailing around the ice, without a proper balanced roster and strong leaders to support their development.

Flames acquired two proven veterans in return for Weegar and Andersson. I see no giant drop off in leadership and character.

Flames are getting beat in the talent department though, night after night. Conroy seems to be trying to address that.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by browna

...
Just my opinion.

My opinion is that this team has never really been a contender at any point in the past 20+ years.

In 2019 we thought we had an amazing team that could go far in the playoffs. Got blasted in round 1. In 2022 we thought we had an amazing team that could go far in the playoffs. Made trades to add to the team. Went all in. Barely squeaked through round 1, got blasted in round 2.

It's just... time for some honesty. Have we really been much more successful than the teams you keep holding up as examples of what not to be? Has all the character and leadership this team has had all these years, led to anything noteworthy? Has it resulted in us having contending teams? Has it led to deep playoff runs? Or just an endless cycle of mediocrity?

You might think there's no way to replace the character and leadership of someone like Weegar. I can assure you, there is a way. Draft well, develop well, coach well. You'll create leaders that way. You'll instill character that way. It doesn't happen overnight. It's a process. But there's one thing you can't coach, and that's raw talent. You don't get that by drafting 16th every year. You get that by going through some pain, like the pain we're about to go through. But the alternative is, in my opinion, no better. You can't stay a bubble team forever. That is, unless you want to stay a bubble team forever.

It's hard to say goodbye to your favorite players. That pain should not be shrugged off or hand waved away. It's real pain. I get it. But there are brighter days ahead. Never lose sight of that. We've got some very nice prospects in the system, and Conny has a plan to add more. Let's give him a chance to see it through. It's looking like when new building opens up, we'll have several young talented players to cheer for and be excited about. Fun times ahead! Just gotta be patient.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

True. On the other hand, those were the days of the Cold War, when Russians, Czechs, and yoked Slovaks were seldom drafted because they had to defect to get to the NHL. Also, U.S. college hockey has taken a big step up since then.

Allowing for the bigger talent pool, I’d figure an early 2nd now is about equal to an early 2nd then.

Also, there were 21 teams back then. The NHL talent is diluted through 32 teams now. It is easier to be a star now than it was then.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Also, there were 21 teams back then. The NHL talent is diluted through 32 teams now. It is easier to be a star now than it was then.

Actually, what I'm saying is that the talent pool has increased roughly at the same rate as the number of teams, so there really isn't any dilution to speak of.

In fact, with the improvement in player development and training, the bottom end of the NHL has definitely gotten better. You no longer see teams filling the bottom of their rosters with meatheads who can barely skate.

[Slanter]

Okay, since this is a message board, I'm allowed to say my opinion, right?

I don't like this trade. I was hoping for a quick bottom out and bounce-back. Maybe contending for the playoffs again in 2 years? Felt like Weegar, with his long-term contract and solid play could be part of that.

Feels like this trade locks us into 5 years of sucking. I'm not cool with that. And we're going to waste some solid Wolf years.

I don't like this trade.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Slanter

was hoping for a quick bottom out and bounce-back. Maybe contending for the playoffs again in 2 years?

You certainly have a right to your opinion. But I don't think turning the team around that quickly was ever a realistic possibility.

[Slanter]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You certainly have a right to your opinion. But I don't think turning the team around that quickly was ever a realistic possibility.

I think it was. We tied for a playoff spot last year. A bounce back wasn't out of the realm of possibility until we started trading away all our best players.

[jg13]

We already suck and there's no quick fix unless you want to remain in the mushy middle seeing no playoffs.


The trades Conroy has been making will ensure this team eventually plays more exciting hockey because of all the skill we'll be able to draft or trade for with some of the many picks he's accumulated.


Nobody wants to be bad for a long time but it's something that has to be done in order to get better.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Slanter

Okay, since this is a message board, I'm allowed to say my opinion, right?

I don't like this trade. I was hoping for a quick bottom out and bounce-back. Maybe contending for the playoffs again in 2 years? Felt like Weegar, with his long-term contract and solid play could be part of that.

Feels like this trade locks us into 5 years of sucking. I'm not cool with that. And we're going to waste some solid Wolf years.

I don't like this trade.

I feel like Whitecloud really changed things. Shorter sample size here but he seems to be able to handle the bigger minutes he has been given since arriving. He is younger and on a more maneuverable contract. Bahl has been good and Kuznetsov is solid too.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, what I'm saying is that the talent pool has increased roughly at the same rate as the number of teams, so there really isn't any dilution to speak of.

In fact, with the improvement in player development and training, the bottom end of the NHL has definitely gotten better. You no longer see teams filling the bottom of their rosters with meatheads who can barely skate.

A quick bounce back would just have us being a bubble team and not a true contender. Did you really want to see us battling for spot 8 every year?

With rebuilding and acquiring draft picks, it will take a lot longer. But, this is how you build a true contender, through the draft and by bottoming out.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

A quick bounce back would just have us being a bubble team and not a true contender. Did you really want to see us battling for spot 8 every year?

With rebuilding and acquiring draft picks, it will take a lot longer. But, this is how you build a true contender, through the draft and by bottoming out.

I think you meant to reply to someone else's post. It was Slanter who wanted a quick bounce back, not me.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Slanter

I think it was. We tied for a playoff spot last year. A bounce back wasn't out of the realm of possibility until we started trading away all our best players.

The team had a white-hot start last year – 5-0-1 after six games. This year they started 1-5-0. The team did not trade away any roster players until January. It was quite clear by then that no bounce back was happening.

EDIT: At the moment of the Rasmus Andersson trade (January 18), the Flames were in 28th place overall.

[united]

Originally Posted by The Original FFIV

LOL - what a stupid formula (no personal offense as you aren't the athletic). I hope Conny tries that package to whoever owns the 12th overall pick and sees their reaction. Too bad the draft is virtual - would love to see the other GMs reaction.

Because you are conflating what The Athletic's model shows with what you think it shows. What The Athletic's draft model shows is the expected on-ice value of the player drafted at each draft position, which is based on the actual on-ice value of thousands of draft picks over time.

The expected on-ice value of the players picked at 37, 49, and 51, in aggregate, is the same as the expected on-ice value of the player picked at 12, per The Athletic.


However, what are you looking for is the expected trade value of the pick at each position, which is an entirely different thing. A good source for trade value which is what you are after is Matt Perri's model at PuckPedia, which is based on dozens of draft pick(s)-for-draft pick(s) trades over time.
https://puckpedia.com/pickvalue

The expected trade value of picks 37, 49, and 51, results in an equitable trade return of 21, per PuckPedia.


The disparity between the two is that, as has been exhaustively demonstrated in all research of the NHL, NFL, and NBA drafts, management teams overestimate their ability to project future performance of draft-eligible players such that in aggregate, trading up - particular in the first round - is a -EV move. Sometimes trading up is well worth it. Sometimes is goes terribly. But it goes poorly more often than it goes well. Hence, actual value > trade value.

So, all depends what metric you are after as both show different things for different purposes.

[Jay Random]

^

Part of that is management overrating their abilities, as you suggest. Part of it is also that fans don't like their teams to trade down, especially out of the first round, and since the fans are ultimately paying the bills, keeping them happy is a concern even if it means not maximizing the chances of winning.

It's a rational calculation for a GM based on (projected value of the player picked) – (chance that the fans and media will spook the owners into firing me before I ever see him play).

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Slanter

I think it was. We tied for a playoff spot last year. A bounce back wasn't out of the realm of possibility until we started trading away all our best players.

The beauty of the Flames is that outside Cooley and Wolf they don’t really have a best player. They could trade anyone on the roster and it won’t make any difference.

Might as well get the most picks and prospects that they can since that seems to be the path they have chosen. If Weegar gets that then go for it. He’s been one of our weakest defenders this year. Gets Brzustewicz back up probably and some more ice time for Pachal who has gotten the shaft all year.

[Vinsta13]

Love the trade.

Way I see it,

If we traded:
Weegar
Andersson

For
McKenna or Stenberg

We would all take that trade in a heartbeat. This brings us one step closer to that. All the additional picks, prospects and roster players added on the way is gravy.

[Slanter]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The team had a white-hot start last year – 5-0-1 after six games. This year they started 1-5-0. The team did not trade away any roster players until January. It was quite clear by then that no bounce back was happening.

EDIT: At the moment of the Rasmus Andersson trade (January 18), the Flames were in 28th place overall.

Yep, I understand this year was a lost year right from the start. I'm just saying these trades lock us into a lost year next year, and probably the next two at best.

Look, I said this was a personal opinion, and it really is. I've got boys 11 & 13. They're in the years where they become lifelong fans. And since they've become aware about hockey, the Flames have:

-Lost the best player on their roster to free agency (Gaudreau)
-Traded the next best player on their roster (Tkachuk)
-Traded the next best player on their roster (Lindholm)
-Traded their best player this year (Anderson)
-Traded my son's favorite player (Weegar)

Look... I know there are better players on the horizon. But we can also acknowledge this currently sucks. I can respect why the Flames management has been hesitant to do this. You're going to lose some fans now, and in the future.

So no, I don't want this team to bottom out hard. Was looking for a softer landing. But here we go.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

And in one move, we got all the 2nds Treliving traded.

*if someone already made that quip, apologies

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Slanter

Yep, I understand this year was a lost year right from the start. I'm just saying these trades lock us into a lost year next year, and probably the next two at best.

I don't think keeping Andersson and Weegar would have changed that. This is a bad team with or without them.

Those are the only roster players that have been traded this year so far. Having Whitecloud and Määttä instead isn't likely to make a difference of more than a couple of wins next year, and progressively less as time goes on and all four players age out.

If anything, the trades open up the possibility of a quicker turnaround because they can be traded for players later on. I am convinced that there's significant arbitrage to be had by picking up draft picks at the deadline, when some GMs are practically giving them away to get players, and dealing them away on draft day, when other GMs are practically giving away players to get picks.