2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

He’s exactly the kind of asset the Flames could use to boost the rebuild, but I don’t know if we have the assets. If Nemec is dealt, it will probably only be for another blue-chip young player/prospect, like the Gauthier-Drysdale deal. But you never know - maybe Coleman and a pick would get it done.

Pospisil + NJD 1st for Nemec.
Done.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So what is that worth to you? As a thought exercise what price needs to be met to trade him now. If someone offers a 2nd do you make the trade because the value of getting that higher pick is so high? What if it's just a 1st?

What's the tipping point to you in terms of the return such that you would make the deal now?

We've already had this conversation.

I doubt the difference in return would be high. And the delta between picking top 10 or not is huge. The question is: what is the likelihood of success (if we can call it that). We don't know. But I think it's high enough that the chance of it, times the return, is greater than the likely difference in return between now and the deadline (which I doubt is significant at all).

To your hypothetical example, if the return was that low, you don't do it. I think that goes without saying. But that seems very unlikely to me.

[blankall]

If Andersson is moved, I'd like to see a center that is better than Zary, Coronato, and Pelletier coming back. Not really sure the Flames have room in the lineup for another guy on that level. Unless you move Coleman and Backlund out, where are the Flames planning on playing all of these guys in the lineup?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We've already had this conversation.

I doubt the difference in return would be high. And the delta between picking top 10 or not is huge. The question is: what is the likelihood of success (if we can call it that). We don't know. But I think it's high enough that the chance of it, times the return, is greater than the likely difference in return between now and the deadline (which I doubt is significant at all).

To your hypothetical example, if the return was that low, you don't do it. I think that goes without saying. But that seems very unlikely to me.

But you haven't answered the question. What is the minimum type of return you need to make that deal now.
It's easy to say "The Flames should trade Rasmus now". Ok. For what? What's the ROI you are expecting to get now such that making that deal makes sense.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well yeah then the argument will be "see they should have traded Andersson 2 weeks earlier!"

And if the Flames ended up 11th, they'd probably be right.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But you haven't answered the question. What is the minimum type of return you need to make that deal now.
It's easy to say "The Flames should trade Rasmus now". Ok. For what? What's the ROI you are expecting to get now such that making that deal makes sense.

You're convoluting two issues here.

One issue is: what is the minimum return we should accept, in order to trade Andersson (at any time). For example, if we can only get a 1st, then let's re-sign him.

The other issue, the one I am debating, is: does it make sense to trade him earlier vs later? There is an inherent assumption that the 1st hurdle has already been passed, or we wouldn't trade him at all. So the only question here is: what is the difference in returns? We don't know, but I suspect it's small. The only way to find out though, is for Conroy to see what he can get for him, which he seems reluctant to do.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Or Conroy does know what he can get for him, and it's not enough.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But you haven't answered the question. What is the minimum type of return you need to make that deal now.
It's easy to say "The Flames should trade Rasmus now". Ok. For what? What's the ROI you are expecting to get now such that making that deal makes sense.

Putting the GM hat on - The Chychrun return is the minimum return I need to trade Andersson now(with retention). 1st + 1st ( conditional turns into a 2nd if the team doesn't win a round with Andersson) + 2nd.

I think we would be able to get at least a 1st + 2nd for Andersson in the offseason, so the conditional 1st is for this year's playoff run.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Well, wouldn't this illustrate that he needn't be signed to a long term contract, if he's been good value without one?

But the question isn’t whether a guy needs to be signed to an 8, it’s whether there should be exceptions to never signing guys over 24 who aren’t elite for 8. Longer term generally equates to lower AAV. Especially for guys over 25, or when you compare it against two four year contracts.

Based on the last 8 years, would it have been better to sign Jarnkrok to 8 at a slightly reduced AAV (or even just 2M, if we don’t want to guess at whether he’d take less), or a 6 at 2M and a 4 at 2.1M?

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

Exactly. I feel the Weegar one is a smart call. I think Andersson, depending on the AAV, could be smart as well.

I'd also be okay with trading Andersson if the team gets blown away by an offer or if they can't figure something out this summer, but teams need to take some risks.

Same. Keep him or trade him for a haul. Both good options with tons of upside that I’d be happy with.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The only way to find out though, is for Conroy to see what he can get for him, which he seems reluctant to do.

It’s been suggested he’s reluctant to trade him. There’s been no suggestion he’s reluctant to see what he can get for him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Putting the GM hat on - The Chychrun return is the minimum return I need to trade Andersson now(with retention). 1st + 1st ( conditional turns into a 2nd if the team doesn't win a round with Andersson) + 2nd.

I think we would be able to get at least a 1st + 2nd for Andersson in the offseason, so the conditional 1st is for this year's playoff run.

I think the question I always have is "who wants him" followed by "what do they have". It's fine to set abstract targets but you need that willing buyer.

So who wants/needs Andersson and what do they have?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Pospisil + NJD 1st for Nemec.
Done.

Pass. We already have a logjam of RHD in the organization.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Pass. We already have a logjam of RHD in the organization.

What about Silayev?

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But the question isn’t whether a guy needs to be signed to an 8, it’s whether there should be exceptions to never signing guys over 24 who aren’t elite for 8. Longer term generally equates to lower AAV. Especially for guys over 25, or when you compare it against two four year contracts.

Based on the last 8 years, would it have been better to sign Jarnkrok to 8 at a slightly reduced AAV (or even just 2M, if we don’t want to guess at whether he’d take less), or a 6 at 2M and a 4 at 2.1M?

Easier to say in hindsight, but I'd still say no, because of the risk you're taking on. Your example highlights good value, but if he falls into replacement level, which is very plausible with this type of player, you've attached way too much term to an average player that's relatively easy to replace in today's NHL especially with so many young players in the league.

Obviously, no exceptions is a hard line, and trust your performance coaches and analytics that certain players will age and their skillsets will develop well, but I've never been a believer in attaching big term to 3rd line type players. The upside just isn't there.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think the question I always have is "who wants him" followed by "what do they have". It's fine to set abstract targets but you need that willing buyer.

So who wants/needs Andersson and what do they have?

Winnipeg makes the most sense. They could use one of Perfetti / Lambert / Yager as a base to get it done.

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by boogerz

Hopefully Nemec requests a trade and Conroy can pry him out of NJ.

Meh. Don't get the wrong idea, Nemec is great and all, but how many right-shot defenders does an organization need?

Spending assets to add to a position of strength seems kind of pointless, no? Save the trade capital for a center.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Tkachukwagon

Nemec unhappy with the Devils

https://twitter.com/user/status/1879913515965919538

If true, this is something the Canucks should be exploring considering how bad their D is... have Pettersson in the deal and fix the drama and D in one move

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Pospisil + NJD 1st for Nemec.
Done.

Love it.
Allows us to definitively make a decision to move Anderson.
Hope that two of Nemec, Parekh, Brz or Mews become top 4 D men. If more become legitimate NHLers, sell them while they are young.

Could end up being Anderson, Pospisil, NJD 1st for Nemec, XXX 1st, top C prospect, +++

[EDMONTONisNG]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Winnipeg makes the most sense. They could use one of Perfetti / Lambert / Yager as a base to get it done.

I like Perfetti but we need a C if we are trading Rasmus. Not convinced enough on Yager but that might be the gamble we are forced to do to get a Centre.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Pass. We already have a logjam of RHD in the organization.

Get Nemec and trade Andersson. That would be ideal asset management