2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

Exactly!

Last year's Stanley Cup winner drafted Ekblad in the same year we took Bennett, and Barkov in the same year we took Monahan.

Across the board, it seems to take nearly 10 years to build a Champion from the moment you draft your foundational cornerstone player(s).

The path featuring the bottoming-out won a Stanley Cup.

The path of doing poor but not bottoming-out, got to draft 9th overall rather than 32nd.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Last year's Stanley Cup winner drafted Ekblad in the same year we took Bennett, and Barkov in the same year we took Monahan.

Across the board, it seems to take nearly 10 years to build a Champion from the moment you draft your foundational cornerstone player(s).

The path featuring the bottoming-out won a Stanley Cup.

The path of doing poor but not bottoming-out, got to draft 9th overall rather than 32nd.

If you keep ignoring the retool through significant trades and if you keep going back in history you can make some sort of “high draft pick“ argument for every team.
So
Ok, you’ve convinced me, the absolute ONLY way to win a championship is to draft at least top 6 and don’t even dare to trade for a decent young centre.

You showed how the panthers won by drafting high and retooling.

Now, do the leafs!

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Last year's Stanley Cup winner drafted Ekblad in the same year we took Bennett, and Barkov in the same year we took Monahan.

Across the board, it seems to take nearly 10 years to build a Champion from the moment you draft your foundational cornerstone player(s).

The path featuring the bottoming-out won a Stanley Cup.

The path of doing poor but not bottoming-out, got to draft 9th overall rather than 32nd.

I think you're confusing correlation and causation.

I crunched the numbers a couple of years back, and it turned out that all but 2 or 3 teams had a top 3 pick on their roster. I'm guessing every team in the NHL has a top 5 pick on their roster. Granted, that not all of them were developed by their organizations.

As for bottoming out for a team like Calgary. A draft pick gives the team control of the player for 7 years, not 9 or 10. Calgary would need to actually convince the drafted players to stay here as UFAs, probably by overpaying.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

If you keep ignoring the retool through significant trades and if you keep going back in history you can make some sort of “high draft pick“ argument for every team.
So
Ok, you’ve convinced me, the absolute ONLY way to win a championship is to draft at least top 6 and don’t even dare to trade for a decent young centre.

You showed how the panthers won by drafting high and retooling.

Now, do the leafs!

There’s no guarantees that things will work out, but you have to give yourself a real chance.

You have to draft foundational top tier players, and you have to be one of the absolute best managed teams in the entire league.

Simple, no?

If anything, the Leafs are a good example of what not to do with free agency. Signing high priced UFAs for a secondary role (2nd line centre) screwed up their cap structure significantly.

Leafs had Kadri + Matthews. Two homegrown top-six quality centres. Imagine if they had kept Kadri on that great deal they had him on, and then spent the $11M they gave to Tavares on solid UFA players that came up around that time that actually addressed their issues (like Tanev).

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

There’s no guarantees that things will work out, but you have to give yourself a real chance.

You have to draft foundational top tier players, and you have to be one of the absolute best managed teams in the entire league.

Simple, no?

If anything, the Leafs are a good example of what not to do with free agency. Signing high priced UFAs for a secondary role (2nd line centre) screwed up their cap structure significantly.

Leafs had Kadri + Matthews. Two homegrown top-six quality centres. Imagine if they had kept Kadri on that great deal they had him on, and then spent the $11M they gave to Tavares on solid UFA players that came up around that time that actually addressed their issues (like Tanev).

Wait,
So, it’s the ONLY WAY, if you retool 10 years after but there aren’t any guarantees?
And
Just make sure to keep tanking and avoid trying to make a good trade for a decent young centre that fits your age group?

That’s gonna solidify a lot of confidence and sell lotsa tickets

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

Wait,
So, it’s the ONLY WAY, if you retool 10 years after but there aren’t any guarantees?
And
Just make sure to keep tanking and avoid trying to make a good trade for a decent young centre that fits your age group?

That’s gonna solidify a lot of confidence and sell lotsa tickets

Who gives a #%^* if it fits your age group of your mediocre team?

If you acquire a decent young centre who improves your team right now, it hurts your ability to actually draft the centre that would drive the success of a top team.

Sequencing is massively important. Acquiring a middle six centre is a pretty achievable goal every season for any team. Acquiring a top line centre capable of carrying a team? Well, there’s been…two of those traded in the last quarter century (Thornton and Eichel)?

If you acquire that middle six centre before you draft your #1 centre, well…you’ve kinda screwed yourself.

Are we talking about selling tickets, or winning a Championship?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Who gives a #%^* if it fits your age group of your mediocre team?

If you acquire a decent young centre who improves your team right now, it hurts your ability to actually draft the centre that would drive the success of a top team.

Sequencing is massively important. Acquiring a middle six centre is a pretty achievable goal every season for any team. Acquiring a top line centre capable of carrying a team? Well, there’s been…two of those traded in the last quarter century (Thornton and Eichel)?

Are we talking about selling tickets, or winning a Championship?

So should we trade Wolf, Zary, and Pospisil right now while their value is high and they’re harming our draft position?

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Who gives a #%^* if it fits your age group of your mediocre team?

If you acquire a decent young centre who improves your team right now, it hurts your ability to actually draft the centre that would drive the success of a top team.

Sequencing is massively important. Acquiring a middle six centre is a pretty achievable goal every season for any team. Acquiring a top line centre capable of carrying a team? Well, there’s been…two of those traded in the last quarter century (Thornton and Eichel)?

If you acquire that middle six centre before you draft your #1 centre, well…you’ve kinda screwed yourself.

Are we talking about selling tickets, or winning a Championship?

It is professional sports
So
It IS about selling tickets. This isn’t a best friend beer league, you should always try to improve.
But
As I said before, you convinced me. I simply overestimated you

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So should we trade Wolf, Zary, and Pospisil right now while their value is high and they’re harming our draft position?

No, absolutely not. We’ve have drafted those players, we have them already.

Acquiring someone else’s 25 year old Zary? That’d be the stupid thing to do in this situation.

We should be subtracting the veterans (Kuzmenko, Vladar, Mantha, Andersson) and hoping the team does bottom out while the youth do their best to prevent it.

To go back to the Leafs as an example, Zary should be our Kadri. We need a Matthews, and we absolutely should not go out and get a Tavares.

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

It is professional sports
So
It IS about selling tickets. This isn’t a best friend beer league, you should always try to improve.
But
As I said before, you convinced me. I simply overestimated you

The tickets sell whether this team is good or not.

You’ve yet to really argue anything of merit. You can’t bring up an example of a team (because there isn’t one) building a Championship team without drafting the type of player I’m talking about. You just keep pointing back to my “ridiculous” statement while changing the goal post from talking about a Stanley Cup Champion to “selling tickets”.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

The tickets sell whether this team is good or not.

You’ve yet to really argue anything of merit. You can’t bring up an example of a team (because there isn’t one) building a Championship team without drafting the type of player I’m talking about. You just keep pointing back to my “ridiculous” statement while changing the goal post from talking about a Stanley Cup Champion to “selling tickets”.

My last post just eloquently exhibited how you’ve been “moving the goalposts”
But, I can understand how you missed that now
You’ve been given multiple examples of how teams won championships without recent high draft picks that mattered (Boston, Florida, Vegas, i know you like counting 10 years back to support your absolute statement)
But, I can understand how you missed that now.

But considering your insistence of history to help support your position, I cannot understand how you forgot that many people didn’t know there was a third level in the dome at one time. No, tickets don’t sell no matter what

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree with this, but will say the obsession over draft position and where you “have” to have drafted is silly. It doesn’t matter how you get those stars, you just need them. And yes, it’s easier to get them at the top yourself, but “history says you need a top 5 pick” is just too overly simplified.

If Wolf stays on track and hits his potential (and damn he looks on his way)? Who cares where he was drafted.

Huberdeau is a top 5 pick. Doesn’t that move the needle for anyone? No? Then who cares where he was drafted.

If the Flames win the cup without a player they drafted in the top 5 while Huberdeau is still on the team, people can still use them as a reference point for “you have to pick top 5,” and that’s silly to me.

Drafted and developed. Massive doffernce. Getting the Wolf’s, Pastrnak’s later in the draft is a bonus and can alter your course, but isn’t a viable strategy.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Who gives a #%^* if it fits your age group of your mediocre team?

If you acquire a decent young centre who improves your team right now, it hurts your ability to actually draft the centre that would drive the success of a top team.

Sequencing is massively important. Acquiring a middle six centre is a pretty achievable goal every season for any team. Acquiring a top line centre capable of carrying a team? Well, there’s been…two of those traded in the last quarter century (Thornton and Eichel)?

If you acquire that middle six centre before you draft your #1 centre, well…you’ve kinda screwed yourself.

Are we talking about selling tickets, or winning a Championship?

Well that's the question you'd have to take to ownership. And I think we can see that Conroy has a plan but he's got to tow the line between tear it down rebuild and keeping something marketable on the ice because ownership wants it.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think is smart or stupid of the Flames to do something, it's their decision, they don't have to defer to us on that.

Rumors aside, Conroy from his own mouth has said they want a young "Zary" aged center. That means acquiring one via trade. Doesn't mean they're abandoning the drafting and developing of more players, it just means their not going full scorched earth, they're going to compete, they're going to make us dread every point they gain in the standings.

IMO, as long as they draft in the top ten, they'll get a good center. Or, this roster is going to eff it all up and make the playoffs and screw the draft pick conditions. Either way, it's going to be a fun ride this season.

[Enoch Root]

Some thoughts I have on acquiring a young C, in response to some posts in this thread:

• Acquiring a young C likely doesn't move the needle at all, for this year (it is not going to push them up to the middle of the league)
• Acquiring one has a cost, likely someone like Andersson - this would push the needle more, in the other direction.
• So it likely means getting younger, and adds depth in a position that we lack depth, but we probably get worse in the short term.
• Our best Cs are 34 and 35 - so any growth from the young, newly acquired C, in the short term, is going to be offset by the fact that our current Cs are on the back 9, and have eroding skills.
• Also, acquiring said middle-6 C now, allows for them to learn from our current, older Cs.

I think adding a young C now is exactly what Conroy should be doing, and I think it fits the plan perfectly.

The fan over-reactions to acquiring players can be pretty ridiculous. And the absolutely binary reasoning displayed by many of the tear-it-downers, is also ridiculous - "the ONLY way to build a winner is to draft top 5!" <evidence to the contrary> "that doesn't count!" Also, if Conroy were to acquire a young C, it doesn't change the likelihood of a top 5 draft pick, at all.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

No, absolutely not. We’ve have drafted those players, we have them already.

Acquiring someone else’s 25 year old Zary? That’d be the stupid thing to do in this situation.

We should be subtracting the veterans (Kuzmenko, Vladar, Mantha, Andersson) and hoping the team does bottom out while the youth do their best to prevent it.

To go back to the Leafs as an example, Zary should be our Kadri. We need a Matthews, and we absolutely should not go out and get a Tavares.

OK, but if the idea is to pick at the very top of the draft and hope for that franchise player, and we don’t want players that stop us from doing that, and having middle six players come up before you’ve drafted your top tier players is bad… why are we keeping Zary exactly? And hell, why Wolf?

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Drafted and developed. Massive doffernce. Getting the Wolf’s, Pastrnak’s later in the draft is a bonus and can alter your course, but isn’t a viable strategy.

Prioritizing scouting and development so you stand a better chance of hitting on later picks is absolutely a viable strategy.

But the point remains that it doesn’t really matter where guys were picked when you’re looking backwards. You think it matters that Vegas traded for Eichel? or that Point was a late round pick? or that McDavid was taken first overall? At the end of the day it’s not about how you got those players, it’s that you got them. So, sure, it’s easier to get them at the top of the draft. But we already have Wolf and we didn’t draft top 5 to get him, so why pretend that whether or not we draft in the top five is really going to be the difference maker or that we will won’t have top talent without it when it looks very much like we have at least one franchise piece acquired without it.

Plus, at the end of the day, the NHL changes a lot in 10 years. If you’re forming your strategy based on what teams that won did 10 years before they won, so you can win in 10 years too? That’s doomed to fail.

[My2Cents]

You need to win with above average players in the league. The statistically best way to do this is to draft high. Top players are rarely traded or hit UFA. If they do hit UFA they often are past their prime and are no longer cost effective.

So if you can pull a roster of stars from the 4th round you could build a dynasty. But at this point no one has proven they can consistently do this. Which comes back to the best way to get top talent is to draft at the top.

There are teams that have won or gone deep by working hard and playing a team game (Calgary comes to mind), but they are few and far between and are not consistently vying for a cup.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by My2Cents

You need to win with above average players in the league. The statistically best way to do this is to draft high. Top players are rarely traded or hit UFA. If they do hit UFA they often are past their prime and are no longer cost effective.

So if you can pull a roster of stars from the 4th round you could build a dynasty. But at this point no one has proven they can consistently do this. Which comes back to the best way to get top talent is to draft at the top.

There are teams that have won or gone deep by working hard and playing a team game (Calgary comes to mind), but they are few and far between and are not consistently vying for a cup.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't also try and acquire players in other ways

[My2Cents]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't also try and acquire players in other ways

Absolutely, sharky is a good example. But typically you need to draft and develop the main roster. Even if you are trading for players you need capital to trade, and upcoming prospects are valuable.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't also try and acquire players in other ways

It's hard to balance multiple priorities at once and you may end up doing non well.

Acquiring a NHLer, albeit on the younger side, will cost us future prospects + a top roster spot + it will make us better in the near future giving us a worse draft position and therefore a smaller chance at drafting an elite player.

I've moved away from the burn it down camp, but it would be nice if they could keep half their roster under 25 and get a couple bottom 10 draft picks with a lottery chance over the next couple of years.


We need star talent to be a serious contender. It hasn't emerged in our system yet.

[Hockey_Ninja]

With how well Kerins is playing in the A right now, Conroy may not need to make a trade for a center

[Junglist]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

With how well Kerins is playing in the A right now, Conroy may not need to make a trade for a center

I’d rather not trade for a center, unless it’s an AHL winger and just alllow Kerins to cook in the AHL for now.