2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The Horvat deal is a blueprint for what the Flames should get for Lindholm

Agreed. Get something in the same ballpark and move on.

Traded from Vancouver Canucks to New York Islanders for Aatu Raty, Anthony Beauvillier and round 1 pick in the 2023 draft (Axel Sandin-Pellika)

The problem is the draft pick. A 1st rounder from the Bruins is not overly enticing seeing as they don't have a pick they can trade until 2026. That's three drafts away meaning the player would be six to eight years away from breaking into the NHL. I would want some more immediate.

What we are talking about here from the Bruins is almost identical.
Lysell>Raty
DeBrusk=Beauvillier

Obviously where the pick lands is the variable, but the Bs could be taking a step back without Bergeron and Krejci. And other key guys one year older.

I think the sticking point is the pick or the value of the pick. The 2023 1st had incredibly high value for a late 1st pick simply because of the strength of the draft it was from. We don't anticipate seeing a pick that strong for quite some time so that will knock the value of possible future picks down a bit. You then have the uncertainty of what the Bruins may be in the next three years. Add Lindholm definitely strengthens them and makes them that much more competitive. Makes the pick less attractive.

Not saying a trade with the Bruins is not possible, but I might be inclined to take an existing player/prospect and move on. If the Bruins were inclined to include Matthew Poitras or Mason Lohrei along with a mid round pick, then I could be convinced that would be a good deal for the Flames. Either of those prospects would likely find their way into the Flames lineup as both are at areas where we aren't exactly deep. Another right shooting skilled center would be great as would another big defenseman who possesses some offensive skill.

Lindholm for DeBrusk, Lysell, Poitras/Lohrei and a 4th rounder in 2024? I could get moderately excited for that. More of a retool trade.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The problem is the draft pick. A 1st rounder from the Bruins is not overly enticing seeing as they don't have a pick they can trade until 2026. That's three drafts away meaning the player would be six to eight years away from breaking into the NHL. I would want some more immediate.

Confused by this 2026 point - was their 2025 pick moved conditionally? There are no conditions attached to it on capfriendly.

This site also shows them as owning their 1st in 2025. Their 2024 is top-10 protected, bith no explicit condition stating their 1st in 2025 can't be traded, the Bruins option to shift to the 2025 1st round pick just goes away and they're guaranteed to lose their 2024 1st (in the Bertuzzi trade).

Looking at the Bruins...trading away 1st round draft picks for rentals or short term pain relief (like what we did with Monahan) is just not good business.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Confused by this 2026 point - was their 2025 pick moved conditionally? There are no conditions attached to it on capfriendly.

This site also shows them as owning their 1st in 2025. Their 2024 is top-10 protected, bith no explicit condition stating their 1st in 2025 can't be traded, the Bruins option to shift to the 2025 1st round pick just goes away and they're guaranteed to lose their 2024 1st (in the Bertuzzi trade).

Looking at the Bruins...trading away 1st round draft picks for rentals or short term pain relief (like what we did with Monahan) is just not good business.

Cap friendly shows the pick in 25 is conditional. If Boston implodes and picks in the top 10 this year they can keep their pick and move the 25 1st to the Wings instead which would make the earliest they could trade a pick being 2026 unless they want to gift the wings a top 10 selection next year? Obviously Boston is unlikely to pick in the top 10 but stranger things have happened.

[Monahammer]

I still think that sillinger+marchenko is both realistic and fair. Clb has a loaded prospect pool and lots of young talent. Lindy has proven chemistry with Johnny.
No picks but that haul would make me very happy.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I still think that sillinger+marchenko is both realistic and fair. Clb has a loaded prospect pool amd lots of young talent. Lindy has proven chemistry with Johnny.
No oicks but that haul would make me very happy.

Yup, if Lindholm would go to Columbus I think they will get the best value from them

[Scroopy Noopers]

Kent Johnson please.

[Poe969]

If a trade is made with the B's, I would push for their 2026 first. They're going to start to suck soon, a d I can see that pick being good.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Kent Johnson please.

Not a chance. Asking for a recent top 5 pick for a player in the last year of his deal will not happen.

[Toonage]

I keep looking at the trade proposals from the Score.
Lindholm to Columbus for Sillinger, Boqvist and a 1st.
Hanifin to Dallas for Bourque, Faksa and a 1st.

Both would be ideal and are realistic to me. Hanifin is leaving regardless and if they can't sign Lindholm thats completely acceptable IMO.

[OutOfTheCube]

I think you guys would love Peyton Krebs, personally. It's easy to just look at stat lines and say "Oh yeah just 'X' # of points" -- but I've actually watched a lot of Sabres games (more than the average poster here, I'd say) and the kid has non-stop motor, great vision on the ice, awesome attitude, and isn't afraid to take a hit or get into a fight. He's a player that's ready to pop off, if you ask me, and just might not get the ice time to do it in Buffalo behind Thompson and Cozens. Plus he's a local Calgary-area kid.

[Toast_Man]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

They already have Josi, McDonagh, and Lauzon on the left side signed long-term.

Nashville is a great landing spot for Hanafin. Josi is 33, McDonagh is 34, and Lauzon is terrible. Nashville also has 11 picks in the 2024 draft, some good prospects, and too many RD. Lots to work with.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If a trade is made with the B's, I would push for their 2026 first. They're going to start to suck soon, and I can see that pick being good.

First round picks traded are always protected from lottery anyway.

Not sure why you think the Jackets are going to suck soon, they have exceptional prospects, I see them going the other way?

And getting the pick in 2026 only make sense for the Flames if they are doing a scorched earth rebuild and already have lots of picks in 24 and 25 and want to space them out.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

First round picks traded are always protected from lottery anyway.

Not sure why you think the Jackets are going to suck soon, they have exceptional prospects, I see them going the other way?

And getting the pick in 2026 only make sense for the Flames if they are doing a scorched earth rebuild and already have lots of picks in 24 and 25 and want to space them out.

Bruins.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If a trade is made with the B's, I would push for their 2026 first. They're going to start to suck soon, a d I can see that pick being good.

But timing wise I don't see us doing that. First of all Boston knows where they're likely headed, so zero chance you get that pick without them top 10 protecting it.

Secondly, unless you hit a homerun, you're likely looking at a player that is NHL ready by 2028ish, if we hit on the pick at all.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

I think you guys would love Peyton Krebs, personally. It's easy to just look at stat lines and say "Oh yeah just 'X' # of points" -- but I've actually watched a lot of Sabres games (more than the average poster here, I'd say) and the kid has non-stop motor, great vision on the ice, awesome attitude, and isn't afraid to take a hit or get into a fight. He's a player that's ready to pop off, if you ask me, and just might not get the ice time to do it in Buffalo behind Thompson and Cozens. Plus he's a local Calgary-area kid.

I like all of this.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by jayswin

But timing wise I don't see us doing that. First of all Boston knows where they're likely headed, so zero chance you get that pick without them top 10 protecting it.

Secondly, unless you hit a homerun, you're likely looking at a player that is NHL ready by 2028ish, if we hit on the pick at all.

I also think that GMs are not ignorant of the way that past deals for other teams worked out. Most GMs know that Colorado got a steal of deal in the Duschene transaction. After that transaction, it seemed to me that most GMs added conditions to any 1st round pick that they traded. So, the odds of getting an unprotected 1st round pick multiple years in the future is very low in my opinion.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

I think you guys would love Peyton Krebs, personally. It's easy to just look at stat lines and say "Oh yeah just 'X' # of points" -- but I've actually watched a lot of Sabres games (more than the average poster here, I'd say) and the kid has non-stop motor, great vision on the ice, awesome attitude, and isn't afraid to take a hit or get into a fight. He's a player that's ready to pop off, if you ask me, and just might not get the ice time to do it in Buffalo behind Thompson and Cozens. Plus he's a local Calgary-area kid.

He was great at the worlds.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is a common argument that teams need to pick top 4 (or top 3, or whatever) in order to win the cup. And it is often quoted that almost every cup winner has top 4 picks on the roster (well yeah, because almost every team has top 4 picks on their roster), so I thought I would run some numbers.

In order to try and minimize bias, I chose a 20-year drafting period (1999-2018), with a 5-year lag for cup winners (2004-2023). First, I summed the total number of top 4 picks during the first period, then correlated that against the cup winners from the second period. Some findings:

Average number of picks: 2.58
Correlation: 0.036 -no correlation whatsoever
Most picks: FLA:7, WIN: 7, EDM: 6, CBJ: 6 - zero cups between them!
Fewest picks: DET: 0, SJS: 0, VGS: 0 - two cups between them
There were 6 more teams with 1 pick, 2 cups (ANA and BOS), so 20% of the cups were won by teams with 1 or 0 top 4 picks

CHI (3 picks, 3 cups), PIT (4 and 3) and TBL (4 and 3) are the examples that support the argument, but I think what we're really seeing here are the 3 examples where teams managed to acquire significant elite talent. And it isn't about the number of picks, it's about the good fortune of having several elite talents gel together, because the counter-argument is that the 4 teams with the most picks have had no success at all.

I then decided to weight the picks (because a 1OA is worth more than a 4OA) giving 4 pts to a 1OA, 3 to a 2OA, 2 for a 3OA and 1 for a 4th, and re-ran the correlation. This time there was some correlation, at 0.125 - but still not very significant, but at least something. The teams with the most pts were as follows:

WIN (and ATL): 20, 0 cups
EDM: 19, 0
FLA: 16, 0
PIT: 14, 3
CBJ: 12, 0
TBL, 11, 3
COL: 10, 1
BUF: 10, 0

And at the other end:
DET: 0, 1
SJS: 0, 0
VGS: 0, 1
CGY: 1, 0
NAS: 2, 0
NYR: 1, 0
DAL: 2, 0

This all begged the question: what if I use the top 3 picks? And the correlations were as follows (first with the number of picks, then valuing the top picks more): 0.168 and 0.167, so they were a little higher. Not sure if that tells us anything new, however.

Then I did the top 2 picks: 0.171 and 0.152

Then just the 1OAs: 0.105

All of this suggests that there is only the weakest of cases that more high draft picks will increase your odds of winning the cup (almost no evidence at all). Certainly not enough to make a tear-down a very enticing argument, either for the fans or the organization.

I would like to see something like this focused purely on the cap era. By starting your drafting period in 1999, you're including 4-5 years of rich teams being able to buy players instead of having to rely on the draft.

I'm not even sure starting in 2005 (the first cap season) is good enough, since it still took quite a few years to get to the point we're at today, which is almost entirely about drafting (being able to trade for a Tkachuk or sign a Gaudreau doesn't come along very often).

Edit: Also, Vegas is a massive anomaly. Saying they won a Cup without a top 3 or 4 draft pick, while technically accurate, doesn't meet the spirit of what you're looking for. No other team in history was able to be built the same way they were, as previous expansion drafts were notoriously bottom of the barrel drafts - and even Seattle's was reined in to be much less "broken" than Vegas' was.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I'm just not a fan dealing with Boston unless they're trading for Backlund. I've said this time after time, but a third-party team would have to come in and get DeBrusk. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to get another winger. We should be getting decent picks/prospects for any of the pending UFAs.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I keep looking at the trade proposals from the Score.
Lindholm to Columbus for Sillinger, Boqvist and a 1st.
Hanifin to Dallas for Bourque, Faksa and a 1st.

Both would be ideal and are realistic to me. Hanifin is leaving regardless and if they can't sign Lindholm thats completely acceptable IMO.

If those deals are truly on the table, Conroy should be running to the fax machine to get it done!!!

Those are auto accept deals!!!