2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

It is not a given that two or three years on the bottom will lead to a good team. Teams like Edmonton, Arizona, Buffalo have been there more than a decade. That is probably just as common as the Pittsburg and Chicago stories.

No doubt. In a good draft year you have to take the chance. Especially widely accepted years like this coming offseason would really help the process quick.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The Flames have had some playoff success? Come on.

My argument is that the best way to win the championship in the NHL is to position your team for many years of success (i.e., runs at the Cup) because luck plays such a large role in the playoffs that the best teams don't always win it every year.

The best way to be competitive over several years is by building through the draft where you have cost controlled players on ELCs and during their RFA years. You should obviously be looking for efficiencies via trade and free agency, but true gamebreakers are rarely acquired this way.

Regardless of whether the team wins the Cup, it's still more entertaining for fans to see their team build towards something, build relationships with players, even if it's not a linear or guaranteed path to success.

Yes, you want to be competitive for several years to give yourself a chance to win the cup. No one is debating that.

The question is: does tanking increase your success? And that is far from a certainty.

Edmonton started in 2006. Buffalo started somewhere similar. Arizona has been rebuilding since they were in Wpg. Toronto hasn't won a playoff round. And there are more.

Sure, COL and TBL and CHI won cups. Someone has to. But tanking only guarantees that you're going to suck for several years, it doesn't guarantee anything else.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

It is not a given that two or three years on the bottom will lead to a good team. Teams like Edmonton, Arizona, Buffalo have been there more than a decade. That is probably just as common as the Pittsburg and Chicago stories.

It's MORE common

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, you want to be competitive for several years to give yourself a chance to win the cup. No one is debating that.

The question is: does tanking increase your success? And that is far from a certainty.

Edmonton started in 2006. Buffalo started somewhere similar. Arizona has been rebuilding since they were in Wpg. Toronto hasn't won a playoff round. And there are more.

Sure, COL and TBL and CHI won cups. Someone has to. But tanking only guarantees that you're going to suck for several years, it doesn't guarantee anything else.

I never said anything about tanking. That's another discussion but it's not what I am asking for.

I want the Flames to seriously ask themselves if they theepieces they have assembled have a legitimate chance to win the Stanley Cup at all over the next 3-4 years.

If the answer to that question is no, then they should begin immediately pivoting their direction and acquire long-term assets for the players were have been talking about (Lindholm, Toffoli, etc.)

While the loss of those players will likely lead to them falling in the standings, ensuring that they don't lose these assets for nothing and more importantly, ensuring that they aren't spinning their wheels waiting for nothing to happen while the years tick away.

[FlamesAddiction]

Not every team that tanks to rebuild will win the Stanley Cup, or even contend for it. But most teams that do win the Cup or are regular contenders have tanked at some point, not always on purpose of course. Again, just saying most, not all. There are always exceptions.

It's not like a team tanks, drafts a few times in the top 3, then just sits on their hands waiting for things to happen. There always has to be ongoing retooling and adjustments even after you built your core through the draft. I'd say that most rebuilds that fail don't do so because the theory behind top 3 draft talent is unsound, but rather because they sucked at managing what came next.

Building through lower round picks is putting a lot of your fate in dumb luck. It can work, but it isn't a strategy. Supplementing your team with expensive free agents to make up for it means the cap will likely hold you back. A big part of why Colorado won the Cup wasn't because they have a top 3 drafted talent like MacKinnon, but also because they were paying him well below market value for what he brought, which is not something free agents typically do or depth draft picks for that matter.

[Enoch Root]

Well every team is continually trying to improve their roster, including the Flames. But the conversation was about tanking.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Not every team that tanks to rebuild will win the Stanley Cup, or even contend for it. But most teams that do win the Cup or are regular contenders have tanked at some point, not always on purpose of course.

It's not like a team tanks, drafts a few times in the top 3, then just sits on their hands waiting for things to happen. There always has to be ongoing retooling and adjustments even after you built your core through the draft. I'd say that most rebuilds that fail don't do so because the theory behind top 3 draft talent is unsound, but rather because they sucked at managing what came next.

Building through lower round picks is putting a lot of your fate in dumb luck. I can work, but it isn't a strategy. Supplementing your team with expensive free agents to make up for it means the cap will likely hold you back. A big part of why Colorado won the Cup wasn't because they have a top 3 drafted talent like MacKinnon, but also because they were paying him well below market value for what he brought, which is not something free agents typically do or depth draft picks for that matter.

See, that's the thing. Every team will have down years, when things aren't working out. And during those down years, they will get high draft picks. Then, at some point, things will be better again. And fans say: look, they tanked, and now they're good.

But no one is able to show any direct lines between tanking and winning.

Every team is continually trying to improve their roster. And every team is subject to a hard cap. There are all kinds of ways to try and improve, under the cap. Obviously, drafting well is key. It also requires luck.

As to the MacKinnon example, that is what I mean - MacKinnon being on a good contract allowed them to acquire more players. There are lots of ways to build your team. For some reason, fans are fixated on one way

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, I think it’s sort of a “fan ego” thing when people assume that teams aren’t evaluating whether they have the pieces to contend for a cup. The conversation is how far they are and how best to close the gap. Where the Flames are, there isn’t a clear answer. They are absolutely close enough to having the right pieces where they could avoid a major retool, let alone a rebuild, and it would still be a logical and fair move.

Even just from the limited view of figuring out what’s wrong by watching the games, they don’t look far away. That doesn’t mean it’s an easy gap to address and it may need a full rebuild despite how close they are, but it could also be as simple as 1-2 acquirable players or a coach.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The other thing against any rebuild is the age of the defensemen:

Kylington 25
Andersson 26
Hanifin 26
Zadorov 27
Weegar 29

When you have a D core like that, right in their prime, you don't rebuild. And then you add Wolf to that. IMO, that means you look for a quick and ongoing retooling with the forwards

This is exactly the problem; our management thinks like you.
The reality is that the assembled d core has sucked all year. If we can get value for the separate pieces, we should do that. The assembled whole is less than the sum of it's parts here.

That, or we need to get rid of our goalies immediately.

Or, we need to get rid of the coach.

But you, my friend, believe all three of these things are currently ok.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

See, that's the thing. Every team will have down years, when things aren't working out. And during those down years, they will get high draft picks. Then, at some point, things will be better again. And fans say: look, they tanked, and now they're good.

But no one is able to show any direct lines between tanking and winning.

Every team is continually trying to improve their roster. And every team is subject to a hard cap. There are all kinds of ways to try and improve, under the cap. Obviously, drafting well is key. It also requires luck.

As to the MacKinnon example, that is what I mean - MacKinnon being on a good contract allowed them to acquire more players. There are lots of ways to build your team. For some reason, fans are fixated on one way

It seems like the Flames should have hit hard with Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk and Gaudreau all on decent RFA deals. And they arguably tried but missed on UFA signings (Neal). The luck was in not having a Makar fall into their lap, or a goalie getting really hot.

I guess the question in hindsight would be - without the Neal deal, what do the Flames do. Who could they have signed to put them over the top instead. They needed, at the time, a goalie and a guy who would do what Neal was supposed to do.

[Monahammer]

The conversation isn't always about Tanking either. Tanking implies that we would purposely lose games. Trading the older roster players and playing mostly rookies would likely result in picking high for a few seasons while not Tanking.

The reality is still that for some reason, you need a self drafted top 4 pick on the roster to win the cup. "oh, but half the teams have that" yes and those half the teams thus have a shot at winning the cup. Acquiring this player doesn't work- the answer to this is probably in contract make up/team building development pace post high draft pick, but it's esoteric and unimportant. Boston, 08 redwings, these are examples of teams that massively buck the trend, not positive examples to build after. It's similar to saying that no one should go to college because Bill Gates dropped out. Objectively true but super stupid.

Arguing that half the league has a player like this is also confusing. You're essentially arguing that the flames have a smarter or better strategy than the majority of the league, when the results bear out that we most certainly do not if the goal is to win the stanley cup. We frankly want to do the opposite of what we've been doing for the last 30 years.

[Sylvanfan]

Most teams go into a rebuild because the on ice results drag them into it. I mean Chicago qualified for the Bubble playoffs, than were in the Central for the Covid year and were in the mix. They made the Jones and Fleury trades to get better....than boom...Taylor Raddish is leading them into their next game.

To me rebuilds are more about organizational behavior and the types of trades made. Colorado tried to accelerate things before getting MacKinnon and it went sour. This forced them into moving Duchene and O'Reilly. But they had the right mindset in those deals and stayed the course. Even last year their main adds in Manson, Cogliano, and Lekkonen are still there.

Calgary got too excited with the Hamilton trade which was a good result...but than got burned in deals for Elliott and Hamonic. I think Ottawa has made a similar error recently. Canadian teams change their behavior too soon aggressively going after established guys after a couple younger guys show promise.

That's why I say a rebuild needs a 8 year commitment at least. Sure you might have a year or two getting to the playoffs. But it's the time frame to flush out all the existing contracts and have the next group of players in place to be an elite team.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

As to the MacKinnon example, that is what I mean - MacKinnon being on a good contract allowed them to acquire more players. There are lots of ways to build your team. For some reason, fans are fixated on one way

And the most reliable way to get cost controlled star caliber talent is to draft them with the top few picks of a draft.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This is exactly the problem; our management thinks like you.
The reality is that the assembled d core has sucked all year. If we can get value for the separate pieces, we should do that. The assembled whole is less than the sum of it's parts here.

That, or we need to get rid of our goalies immediately.

Or, we need to get rid of the coach.

But you, my friend, believe all three of these things are currently ok.

The season has been tough, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - the D core is solid.

Also, just because it isn't the best in the league, doesn't mean that you trade everyone and start over. There are good pieces there - build on it. Maybe you trade one out and try a different player. But when there is that much talent in a group, at a good age, you don't just start over because you had a bad year.

The goaltending didn't help us much either.

[traptor]

We're in a pickle. Losing Tkachuk and Gaudreau in the same off season and having huberdeau come in and be a dud has really neutered our forward core.

I agree with other posters that we have a solid d core entering their prime and the top goalie prospect in the league about to make the jump.

Question becomes, how do you rebuild your forward core without high draft picks.
Feels like the flames need to make reverse chucky trade to bring in a young elitw forward talent or they need to get really hit ot out of the park with one of their forward prospects.

Both seem like tall orders which will require some luck, but fiala, debrincat, tkachuk and meier have all been traded in recent memory.

I think the flames need to make a similar move. Maybe a guy like bratt becomes available this off season.

[Enoch Root]

Getting more from Huberdeau will be like acquiring another player. Hopefully they can also get more from Kadri.

I think Lindholm is a candidate for a trade because I don't see how they can sign him to a big contract.

Pelletier, Coronato, Zary and Duehr add some low-cost depth to the forward lines, but they are going to have to find another good center somewhere. Maybe they get lucky with their #19 overall pick this summer.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Getting more from Huberdeau will be like acquiring another player. Hopefully they can also get more from Kadri.

I think Lindholm is a candidate for a trade because I don't see how they can sign him to a big contract.

Pelletier, Coronato, Zary and Duehr add some low-cost depth to the forward lines, but they are going to have to find another good center somewhere. Maybe they get lucky with their #19 overall pick this summer.

I wonder if Chandler Stephenson comes available somehow - he's a solid underappreciated player. He's pending UFA like Lindholm next year. I could see Roslovic being moved but he's kind of inconsistent.

There's a bunch of decent ones who might get moved - Nylander, Teravainen, Reinhart, but they probably end up costing as much as Lindholm so why?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I wonder if Chandler Stephenson comes available somehow - he's a solid underappreciated player. He's pending UFA like Lindholm next year. I could see Roslovic being moved but he's kind of inconsistent.

There's a bunch of decent ones who might get moved - Nylander, Teravainen, Reinhart, but they probably end up costing as much as Lindholm so why?

That's the thing - they cost just as much, so might as well re-sign Lindholm.

The problem that the Flames have right now is that you can only afford so many expensive fere agents. And that's why I think Lindholm has to go, because they have Huberdeau and Kadri already.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That's the thing - they cost just as much, so might as well re-sign Lindholm.

The problem that the Flames have right now is that you can only afford so many expensive fere agents. And that's why I think Lindholm has to go, because they have Huberdeau and Kadri already.

Yeah, and they have to strike gold with a cheaper centre because Kadri can't play with Huberdeau it seems and Backlund is not the man I want him with long term either.

But a guy like Stephenson who's played with some higher end wingers? Maybe.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It seems like the Flames should have hit hard with Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk and Gaudreau all on decent RFA deals. And they arguably tried but missed on UFA signings (Neal). The luck was in not having a Makar fall into their lap, or a goalie getting really hot.

I guess the question in hindsight would be - without the Neal deal, what do the Flames do. Who could they have signed to put them over the top instead. They needed, at the time, a goalie and a guy who would do what Neal was supposed to do.

Neal and Brouwer were wastes of money but they didn't really cost opportunities apart from using cap space. The Hamonic trade on the other hand, wasted a 1st and second pick. The 1st could have added Dobson or Farabee, the seconds who knows. Those are free adds to the team if they pan out and add youth without breaking the bank.

Edit: the biggest fallacy is that were at the point where signing a cup-winning veteran would put them over the top. A) they weren't ready, and B) UFA's are an expensive way to go. For contrast, the Kings loaded up on picks and prospects for years and when they time came they could trade blue chip prospects for prime Richards and Carter.