2024 Off-season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Monahammer]

I like the idea of limiting the amount of NMC/NTC a team can offer... but functionally, would that prevent them from acquiring a player with an NMC if their slots are full? Or would the rule just surround signing them? Perhaps it would also come with harder rules around the transference of NMCs once they are waived?

The other big effect this would have is making the NMCs much more valuable for players. Rather than being a contract throw in, they become a huge bargaining tool for retaining drafted players.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Playes will never give it up but I'd love if a team could only have three of them or something. Would make trade dynamics a lot more interesting

This just add another layer of complicating trades. Which reduces their frequency.

[dammage79]

NTCs should be one per team akin to a franchise player tag.
Then you can have unlimited no movement clauses for core players but the max a NMC can block is 50 percent of the teams.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Not sure how it works in the NBA but only a handful of players have ever had it.

What if they tied a NTC/NMC to performance. You only qualify for 1 of them if you have scored over a certain amount of points. Or maybe age bracket?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This just add another layer of complicating trades. Which reduces their frequency.

How so? Less NTCs would open up trades.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I like the idea of limiting the amount of NMC/NTC a team can offer... but functionally, would that prevent them from acquiring a player with an NMC if their slots are full? Or would the rule just surround signing them? Perhaps it would also come with harder rules around the transference of NMCs once they are waived?

The other big effect this would have is making the NMCs much more valuable for players. Rather than being a contract throw in, they become a huge bargaining tool for retaining drafted players.

Can’t see players agreeing to it. Some teams would start out full, which means they couldn’t give out any more. The strongest teams would never agree to it.

For the most part, neither the players nor the strongest teams would want it.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Bonded

How so? Less NTCs would open up trades.

I actually seem to have significantly underestimated how many NTCs there are currently in the league. Holy cow. Detroit is insane.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

they got Kane and Toews 1st and 3rd overall, and the Flames refuse to be bad enough to accomplish that

You mean the Flames refuse to win the lottery?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I actually seem to have significantly underestimated how many NTCs there are currently in the league. Holy cow. Detroit is insane.

Yeah, even the Flames have 9 right now. There are a lot of em

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You mean the Flames refuse to win the lottery?

No, they refuse to increase their odds of winning the lottery

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I like the idea of limiting the amount of NMC/NTC a team can offer... but functionally, would that prevent them from acquiring a player with an NMC if their slots are full? Or would the rule just surround signing them? Perhaps it would also come with harder rules around the transference of NMCs once they are waived?

If the cap on NMCs was hard, it would make teams think twice about handing one out.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The other big effect this would have is making the NMCs much more valuable for players. Rather than being a contract throw in, they become a huge bargaining tool for retaining drafted players.

Exactly. I don't think any player takes a discount these days to get an NMC. It's just become a standard expectation at this point. It used to be that a team could entice a player to sign by offering them one, but not anymore.

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Can’t see players agreeing to it. Some teams would start out full, which means they couldn’t give out any more. The strongest teams would never agree to it.

For the most part, neither the players nor the strongest teams would want it.

Of course the players would never want it. And there are team, like Florida and NYR who love them because they know players will use them to limit their market and they benefit from that.

I can't see it happening, but it would be nice. NMCs are a pretty big limitation on a lot of teams.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You just don't get it do you? You and Paulie both. There is no rebuild, there won't be a rebuild, I don't know how many more times Conroy and the organization have to say that for it to sink into your heads. It isn't happening. The Flames are not going to tank, they are not going to strip it down, they are going to try and reload for the playoffs next year, period. They are going to make trades for early to mid 20's players but not older vets and they are going to try and retool on the fly. Whether it is the right way to go about it or not, no matter what you or I or Joe Blow thinks is irrelevant.

Then we're destined for more decades of mediocrity, I guess. Because without fully committing to a rebuild, you ain't becoming a contender.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Then we're destined for more decades of mediocrity, I guess. Because without fully committing to a rebuild, you ain't becoming a contender.

Nm

[traptor]

Funny there is three common naritives going around here and battling here consistently.


A: think the flames need to rebuild. Voicing concern because it feels like the flames might rush this again.

B: the flames ARE rebuilding. Look at the moves they've made. Stop crying. What do people want geeze.

C: the flames will NEVER rebuild. Stop crying and accept it.


I think its fair to say it's still a little ambigous what the Flames are doing.
Yes they sold key players. But they were UFAs and they tried to re-sign them to very fair contracts first.
They traded them for packages that included more retool then rebuild components e.g. underutilized mid 20 years old.
Looking at what they've done and what theyve said, it does feel more like a retool. They're not planning on scraping bottom. They're trying to find 20-25 year olds to play in the top half of the roster.


We should have a clearer picture after draft day and free agency I hope.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by traptor

Funny there is three common naritives going around here and battling here consistently.


A: think the flames need to rebuild. Voicing concern because it feels like the flames might rush this again.

B: the flames ARE rebuilding. Look at the moves they've made. Stop crying. What do people want geeze.

C: the flames will NEVER rebuild. Stop crying and accept it.


I think its fair to say it's still a little ambigous what the Flames are doing.
Yes they sold key players. But they were UFAs and they tried to re-sign them to very fair contracts first.
They traded them for packages that included more retool then rebuild components e.g. underutilized mid 20 years old.
Looking at what they've done and what theyve said, it does feel more like a retool. They're not planning on scraping bottom. They're trying to find 20-25 year olds to play in the top half of the roster.


We should have a clearer picture after draft day and free agency I hope.

Retooling with a Kuzmenko and Miramanov? Who seem to be filler players to get us through these times.

Who would we be retooling around ? I’m curious no one has said so far.

Backlund? Huberdeau ? Kadri? Coleman?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Yeah I think you need to take advantage of a top 10 pick becoming publicly available when you have what they're seeking.

These opportunities are what help to fast track replenishing your talent base.

I would easily and happily add to Markstrom for that 10th overall.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Giving Flames fans a trade would be a mercy at a time like this.

10th overall or Necas, I don't care. Do it!

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I would easily and happily add to Markstrom for that 10th overall.

Same here.

We have plenty of "now" pieces and cap flexibility that NJ can make use of if they need the pot sweetened. We're hitting reset so there are very few must-keeps on the roster at the current time.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Same here.

We have plenty of "now" pieces and cap flexibility that NJ can make use of if they need the pot sweetened. We're hitting reset so there are very few must-keeps on the roster at the current time.

Markstroms last two years retained at 50% would be automatic for me, but astonishingly I feel that may not even be on the table with this damn team, based on rumours from the deadline.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by traptor

Funny there is three common naritives going around here and battling here consistently.


A: think the flames need to rebuild. Voicing concern because it feels like the flames might rush this again.

B: the flames ARE rebuilding. Look at the moves they've made. Stop crying. What do people want geeze.

C: the flames will NEVER rebuild. Stop crying and accept it.


I think its fair to say it's still a little ambigous what the Flames are doing.
Yes they sold key players. But they were UFAs and they tried to re-sign them to very fair contracts first.
They traded them for packages that included more retool then rebuild components e.g. underutilized mid 20 years old.
Looking at what they've done and what theyve said, it does feel more like a retool. They're not planning on scraping bottom. They're trying to find 20-25 year olds to play in the top half of the roster.


We should have a clearer picture after draft day and free agency I hope.

A retool trade is Gary Suter, Ted Drury and Paul Ranheim for Zarley zalapski, James Patrick and Michael Nylander

A rebuild trade is Hanifin for a 1st, a conditional 3rd and a 25 year old guy you think can perform but has not done it yet in the NHL.

A retool trade is Robert Reichel for Marty McInnis

A rebuild trade is Elias Lindholm for Kuzmenko, a 1st, a conditional 4th and two prospects under 21.

The Flames have done retool trades before, their most recent trades IMO are most definitely of the rebuild variety. Conroy is trying to find players who might possibly be able to play in the top half of the roster. A retool would be finding players who can definitely play in the top half of the roster.