2024/2025 Season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Paulie Walnuts]

I like the model SuperMatt provided and it makes sense but I doing think Chicago cares for Andersson as a difference maker.

I think they want a star player. Trading away a potential #1C at that pick for a 2nd pair D who will be 29 and late picks probably isn’t what they want. I’d do the trade in a second from our end.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Teams at Chicago's stage of rebuilding don't dangle a top 3 pick for quantity that amounts to fair value.

That's a team that needs to boost the morale of its franchise player and start to see a resurgence as early as next season.

A top 3 pick should get them a frontline forward/D that will line up with the age of their young core. We don't have the horses to make a deal like that if it's not Coronato/Wolf/Parekh as anchors to the package.

The Blackhawks need immediate impact players to get out of the basement next season. This is why I think they will go hard after Marner.

Their current D situation is pretty terrible (same as the Sharks) but they actually have a number of great D prospects that will be fighting for roster spots over the next couple of seasons. It would make sense for them to go after Andersson as an immediate upgrade to their top pair and he can mentor Levshunov and Rinzel as they eventually pass him in the depth chart.

However, the Sharks would be a better fit as they do not have a RD prospect worth noting and they also need to show their young talent that they can get out of their rebuild.

[indes]

Typical over valuing of picks before the draft. 3rd Overalls since 2010:

Gudbranson - 4D
Huberdeau - 1st liner
Galchenyuk - Top 6
Drouin - Middle 6
Draisaitl - 1st liner
D. Strome - 1st line? Top6? - on his 3rd team
PLD - Top6
Heiskenan - Top D
Kotkaniemi - Middle 6
Kirby Dach - 3rd liner
Stutzle - Top C
Mason Mctavish - Potential top C?

50% chance of getting a player better than Andersson. Not saying it makes sense for Chicago because I don't think it does, but 3rd overall is definitely not a guarantee of a cornerstone player.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I like the model SuperMatt provided and it makes sense but I doing think Chicago cares for Andersson as a difference maker.

I think they want a star player. Trading away a potential #1C at that pick for a 2nd pair D who will be 29 and late picks probably isn’t what they want. I’d do the trade in a second from our end.

I don't see a fit with Chicago either - they haven't accumulated enough young talent yet to be moving that pick.

San Jose (and maybe Utah) are the teams IMO, and it probably depends on if Schaefer goes #1 or the NYI go a different way.

If Schaefer is there then the Sharks just take him...but if he's not then we know they have interest in Andersson, and also lack young RH dmen prospects.

Andersson (with an extension)
Mews or Brzstewicz
18
32

for

2

It's unlikely but the value is probably pretty close, and really depends on what the Sharks think of Misa, Desnoyers, Martone, etc.

I still also think it's more likely if you can move 18+32 for a pick in the 8-12 range first, as I think it's way more appealing to San Jose if they don't fall out of the top 10. Based on historical trade value 18+32 should be able to get you into that range.

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by indes

Typical over valuing of picks before the draft. 3rd Overalls since 2010:

Gudbranson - 4D
Huberdeau - 1st liner
Galchenyuk - Top 6
Drouin - Middle 6
Draisaitl - 1st liner
D. Strome - 1st line? Top6? - on his 3rd team
PLD - Top6
Heiskenan - Top D
Kotkaniemi - Middle 6
Kirby Dach - 3rd liner
Stutzle - Top C
Mason Mctavish - Potential top C?

50% chance of getting a player better than Andersson. Not saying it makes sense for Chicago because I don't think it does, but 3rd overall is definitely not a guarantee of a cornerstone player.

Draft picks always have outsized trade value, though. By your logic, the Flames moving a 5th rounder for Okhotyuk was a brilliant move rather than a borderline pointless one. Okhotyuk has played more NHL games than most players picked in the second round, obviously he's worth a 2nd!

It doesn't work that way. It's not about what the pick probably mathematically will be, it's about what it could be. Nobody thinks they're picking a bust.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

Draft picks always have outsized trade value, though. By your logic, the Flames moving a 5th rounder for Okhotyuk was a brilliant move rather than a borderline pointless one. Okhotyuk has played more NHL games than most players picked in the second round, obviously he's worth a 2nd!

It doesn't work that way. It's not about what the pick probably mathematically will be, it's about what it could be. Nobody thinks they're picking a bust.

It works both ways. You can't value the 3rd overall as a franchise center either. I didn't mean that Andersson has as much value as the 3rd overall (he doesn't) I was just trying to point out that the above trade proposals aren't that out of line value wise as was shown with that Perri Pick value chart. Flames need assets all over and it would be a definite risk to trade Andersson + 18 + 32 + prospect for the 3rd overall instead of trading Andersson for futures. Maybe we end up with 25' 18, 25' 32, 26' 16, 26' 50 + prospect instead and that could pan out better than a Galchenyuk.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I don't see a fit with Chicago either - they haven't accumulated enough young talent yet to be moving that pick.

San Jose (and maybe Utah) are the teams IMO, and it probably depends on if Schaefer goes #1 or the NYI go a different way.

If Schaefer is there then the Sharks just take him...but if he's not then we know they have interest in Andersson, and also lack young RH dmen prospects.

Andersson (with an extension)
Mews or Brzstewicz
18
32

for

2

It's unlikely but the value is probably pretty close, and really depends on what the Sharks think of Misa, Desnoyers, Martone, etc.

I still also think it's more likely if you can move 18+32 for a pick in the 8-12 range first, as I think it's way more appealing to San Jose if they don't fall out of the top 10. Based on historical trade value 18+32 should be able to get you into that range.

I think you’re right and the same goes for Chicago. I think a team would be very hesitant to move a top 5 pick to drop into the mid teens just to add a 2nd pair defenceman. I think if you look at the NFL you are probably trading your first in 26 to make happen.

It’s more likely if they drop back 3-4 spots to add so they can still get a good player.

Pick 8 would they drop 10 spots to go to 18 to get an additional late round pick?

It’s such a big drop. I think it costs you extra.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by indes

Typical over valuing of picks before the draft. 3rd Overalls since 2010:

Gudbranson - 4D
Huberdeau - 1st liner
Galchenyuk - Top 6
Drouin - Middle 6
Draisaitl - 1st liner
D. Strome - 1st line? Top6? - on his 3rd team
PLD - Top6
Heiskenan - Top D
Kotkaniemi - Middle 6
Kirby Dach - 3rd liner
Stutzle - Top C
Mason Mctavish - Potential top C?

50% chance of getting a player better than Andersson. Not saying it makes sense for Chicago because I don't think it does, but 3rd overall is definitely not a guarantee of a cornerstone player.

You're also trading 1 year of Andersson for 7 years of team control of a good young player with 2/12 chance of getting a franchise player. I would probably trade 1 year of Andersson for anyone of those as an 18 year old not named Gudbranson, or Dach on an ELC. Even Galchenyuk was scoring at a 46 point pace at the NHL level in his D+1 year.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I think you’re right and the same goes for Chicago. I think a team would be very hesitant to move a top 5 pick to drop into the mid teens just to add a 2nd pair defenceman. I think if you look at the NFL you are probably trading your first in 26 to make happen.

It’s more likely if they drop back 3-4 spots to add so they can still get a good player.

Pick 8 would they drop 10 spots to go to 18 to get an additional late round pick?

It’s such a big drop. I think it costs you extra.

I don't think 8 would be the target.

I think it would be 9 and Buffalo.

9 for 18 + 32 to me has the structure of a fair trade with a small add from the Flames side.

Buffalo wants ammo to make some win now trades and bring in veterans.

You probably wouldn't want to move 9 straight up for a veteran, but if you use 18 & 32 in separate deals to bring in a couple of veterans that help you now then I think that makes sense for the Sabres.

Nothing they draft at 9 helps the Sabres right now.

Then I think Andersson + Mews + 9 for 2 looks really attractive to San Jose. Bring in two RH dmen to move back 7 spots...feels like a good move for San Jose.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I don't think 8 would be the target.

I think it would be 9 and Buffalo.

9 for 18 + 32 to me has the structure of a fair trade with a small add from the Flames side.

Buffalo wants ammo to make some win now trades and bring in veterans.

You probably wouldn't want to move 9 straight up for a veteran, but if you use 18 & 32 in separate deals to bring in a couple of veterans that help you now then I think that makes sense for the Sabres.

Nothing they draft at 9 helps the Sabres right now.

Then I think Andersson + Mews + 9 for 2 looks really attractive to San Jose. Bring in two RH dmen to move back 7 spots...feels like a good move for San Jose.

I would make these trades. We do we take 2? It’s between Misa and Hagens for me.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I would make these trades. We do we take 2? It’s between Misa and Hagens for me.

No way the Flames can resist Misa. They love those brother connections and have a history of bringing in the brother of one of the roster players into the organization or at least to camp.

Didn't Parekh's brother come out to skate with the camp just last summer?

[HitterD]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I think you’re right and the same goes for Chicago. I think a team would be very hesitant to move a top 5 pick to drop into the mid teens just to add a 2nd pair defenceman. I think if you look at the NFL you are probably trading your first in 26 to make happen.

It’s more likely if they drop back 3-4 spots to add so they can still get a good player.

Pick 8 would they drop 10 spots to go to 18 to get an additional late round pick?

It’s such a big drop. I think it costs you extra.

While I agree with your post overall, its worth noting that calling Andersson a "2nd pair defenceman" is a bit misleading. Yes, he played on a different pair from Weegar, but that was due to the Flames deciding to spread out their 2 top defenseman to have different partners. Andersson was 18th in the league for TOI/game for defenseman. Weegar was 16th. Both are top pairing defenseman, and in Andersson's case, he would get top pairing minutes in Chicago, or SJ as well

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by HitterD

While I agree with your post overall, its worth noting that calling Andersson a "2nd pair defenceman" is a bit misleading. Yes, he played on a different pair from Weegar, but that was due to the Flames deciding to spread out their 2 top defenseman to have different partners. Andersson was 18th in the league for TOI/game for defenseman. Weegar was 16th. Both are top pairing defenseman, and in Andersson's case, he would get top pairing minutes in Chicago, or SJ as well

I doubt Chicago has any interest in Anderson or the 8 year contracxt he would require.

Their best prospects are dmen.

They have Rinzel and Levchenov, both RH dmen who look ready for full time duty.

Would Andreson make them better right now? Of course he would. But I can't see them investing a 30a on a position they have the future already covered.

They need a forward. Moving the 30a for Robertson may make sense, if they don't want to wait.

[Tbull8]

Getting up to 9 would be huge imo.
Gives a lot more options if someone’s guy gets taken and they’re willing to move down a couple spots. And if you stay at 9 you’re still getting a top tier player (Craig says it’s a top 10 draft)

[TheIronMaiden]

Sucks that Andersson isn't worth a high first but Hamonic is worth 1st and two 2nds.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Sucks that Andersson isn't worth a high first but Hamonic is worth 1st and two 2nds.

26/27 year old with 3 years term under $4M vs a 28/29 year old with 1 year left.

It was also a terrible trade by the flames so what is your point?

[Poe969]

Just because someone overpays for something, doesn't .can it's worth that. Someone paid 6.2 million for a banana taped to a wall, yet no one will give me 1 million for 2 bananas taped to a wall that I did!

[traptor]

While we're revisiting Flames trades, I would LOVE for someone to send us a 1st to take Monahan for a year.

Or maybe send us a superstar RFA for x2 pending UFAs and a late 1st.

[Vinny01]

We gotta lock this sucker up and move on to the new thread

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by traptor

While we're revisiting Flames trades, I would LOVE for someone to send us a 1st to take Monahan for a year.

Or maybe send us a superstar RFA for x2 pending UFAs and a late 1st.

Think they could throw in a Conn Smythe winner for a late 2nd and a C prospect?