2024 Off-season trade rumours and speculation thread

[Sandman]

Wow, if you have a chance to pluck Justin Barron off waivers, I think you should definitely do it. Size, skating, and physicality. He may not have the offensive game he was projected to display in the NHL, but he can move the puck well enough and contribute in all 3 zones. Perhaps our Valimaki replacement, lol.

If he goes on waivers though, he’ll be picked up before he gets to us.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Wow, if you have a chance to pluck Justin Barron off waivers, I think you should definitely do it. Size, skating, and physicality. He may not have the offensive game he was projected to display in the NHL, but he can move the puck well enough and contribute in all 3 zones. Perhaps our Valimaki replacement, lol.

If he goes on waivers though, he’ll be picked up before he gets to us.

Yeah he's the type you'd probably be comfortable with moving a mid-late 2nd or 3rd for before he gets on waivers too.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah he's the type you'd probably be comfortable with moving a mid-late 2nd or 3rd for before he gets on waivers too.

Which MTL has to know too, so I'd bet if they decide to send him down they explore trade options first.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That implies that each team, on average, has 4 or 5 guys in the minors that are better than some of the roster players. Not a chance.

It implies that the average team has 4 or 5 guys in the minors, NCAA, CHL, or on the reserve list in Europe, that are better than some of the roster players somewhere in the NHL.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It implies that the average team has 4 or 5 guys in the minors, NCAA, CHL, or on the reserve list in Europe, that are better than some of the roster players somewhere in the NHL.

Yes, I should have said in the organization. The point remains, it isn't accurate.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, I should have said in the organization. The point remains, it isn't accurate.

No, you didn't get the point.

The point is not that each team has four or five players not on the roster who are better than four or five players on the roster. The point is that the average team has four or five players in the system who are better than some of the players on somebody's roster.

Are you prepared to take the position that all NHL teams have an equal amount of talent and equal depth?

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah he's the type you'd probably be comfortable with moving a mid-late 2nd or 3rd for before he gets on waivers too.

I think he is overrated on these pages. He has been pretty invisible in MTL and hasn’t stood out in the AHL. He is a tweener

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, you didn't get the point.

The point is not that each team has four or five players not on the roster who are better than four or five players on the roster. The point is that the average team has four or five players in the system who are better than some of the players on somebody's roster.

Are you prepared to take the position that all NHL teams have an equal amount of talent and equal depth?

Wow.

No, it's 18% league wide. So that's, on average, 4-5 per team. Pretty sure you know what 'on average' means.

18% of the league is 132 players. Do you honestly think there are roughly 132 players not in the NHL who are better than some NHL players?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Jay Feaster probably has a list.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wow.

No, it's 18% league wide. So that's, on average, 4-5 per team. Pretty sure you know what 'on average' means.

18% of the league is 132 players. Do you honestly think there are roughly 132 players not in the NHL who are better than some NHL players?

Not only that but they should all sign 9 year contracts where they don’t have to play in the ninth year and the money in the ninth year doesn’t count against the cap!!

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wow.

No, it's 18% league wide. So that's, on average, 4-5 per team. Pretty sure you know what 'on average' means.

18% of the league is 132 players. Do you honestly think there are roughly 132 players not in the NHL who are better than some NHL players?

I might be misinterpreting the argument, but I think that might be possible if we consider the 3 healthy scratches each team carries as a part of the roster. That's up to 96 players right there.

To start the year last year CGY had Zary, Pospisil, Coronato(?), Wolf, Solovyov and Kylington off the roster. With more injured guys like Rooney and Pelletier.

One could argue that they were better than the likes of: Dube, Ruzicka, Duehr, Greer, Vladar, and 2 of Oesterle/Gilbert/DeSimone. I'm pretty sure that Vladar is the only one that will play regular NHL games from that group this year.

I wouldn't be surprised if any of Lomberg, Rooney, Duehr, Hunt, Pelletier, Solovyov, Schwindt, Pachal, and/or Hanley start the year with the Flames then lose their job thought the year.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wow.

No, it's 18% league wide. So that's, on average, 4-5 per team. Pretty sure you know what 'on average' means.

You've made it clear that you don't.

18% of the league is 132 players. Do you honestly think there are roughly 132 players not in the NHL who are better than some NHL players?

Yes. Because there are some terrible teams in the NHL, and there are some players on those teams who shouldn't be there (and won't be once their contracts expire). At the other end, there are several teams that have very deep prospect bases and not enough NHL jobs for all of them, but they are not about to give away those prospects to bad teams out of the goodness of their hearts.

The other thing you don't seem to get is the distribution involved. It's not a bell curve; it's the extreme right-hand tail of a Pareto distribution. On the left you have masses and masses of beer leaguers and hockey-playing kids, who will never see the inside of a pro hockey game except by paying admission. On the right you have the tail of the distribution, which gets thinner as you reach the best players in the game. The difference in raw ability from the 82nd percentile to the 100th is much greater than from 0 to 18. McDavid, McKinnon, and Makar are miles better than the 100th-best player, but the 500th-best and 600th-best players (ignoring position) are pretty nearly interchangeable. In fact, a small change in the weighting of factors in the model could cause them to exchange places on the list. (This is why I wish JFresh included raw WAR scores as well as percentiles. You would then see just how close together the ratings of depth players are.)

The cutoff – that is, the worst player in the NHL, the poor schlub who rates 0% – is far out on that tail: miles better than rec hockey players, but he's only in the league because he fills a specific role, or because he used to fill it and is hanging on until his contract runs out. The face-puncher (a dying breed but not yet extinct), the fourth-line PK specialist, the 7th D who knows his principal job is to munch popcorn – these are your typical sub-replacement-level players.

There is also the fact that JFresh's data include players who aren't full-time NHLers. Players below replacement level can get a cup of coffee in the NHL as a reward for good play in the minors. They can be called up as injury replacements, and sometimes stay on the roster for quite some time. Prospects on the cusp go up and down frequently during the season. Some of those players are better than replacement value and are sent back down for contract reasons or because the team just doesn't need another player at that position. Some of them are worse than replacement value, and are, in fact, being used as replacements simply because they are already under contract and can be called up without complications.

Basically, the bottom 20% of JFresh's distribution are tweeners, and it's a matter of individual circumstance which ones get an NHL roster spot and for how long.

[BaconGuy]

If anybody has 5 minutes to waste. This drivel certainly not warranting its own thread

Exploring a Huberdeau for Trouba swap

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl...36ac5a6f&ei=11

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by BaconGuy

If anybody has 5 minutes to waste. This drivel certainly not warranting its own thread

Exploring a Huberdeau for Trouba swap

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl...36ac5a6f&ei=11

It's actually not that bad. Huberdeau is easily a $5.25M player, and could become a bargain if he regains form. Trouba isn't an $8M player but there's only 2 more seasons of it and Calgary can afford it. The draft picks are what Calgary needs. $5.25 of dead cap could hurt but losing the other $5.25 evens it out.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's actually not that bad. Huberdeau is easily a $5.25M player, and could become a bargain if he regains form. Trouba isn't an $8M player but there's only 2 more seasons of it and Calgary can afford it. The draft picks are what Calgary needs. $5.25 of dead cap could hurt but losing the other $5.25 evens it out.

6 years of 5 million in dead cap or 6 years of 10 million in Huberdeau is the question. I would be really tempted do it. this team has some tearing down to do yet and I never thought we would be able to include Huberdeau in the exodus. We might be in a good position to contend in 6 years too just as the dead cap is coming off the books.

[Enoch Root]

I don't see the point in moving him now, and tying up that much cap space for that long, with zero flexibility.

With each year that passes on his contract, moving him will become easier, and (likely) cheaper. The current roster is irrelevant anyway, and there is no downside to being patient. So I think it makes more sense to ride it out for a while, and let the clock tick.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You've made it clear that you don't.



Yes. Because there are some terrible teams in the NHL, and there are some players on those teams who shouldn't be there (and won't be once their contracts expire). At the other end, there are several teams that have very deep prospect bases and not enough NHL jobs for all of them, but they are not about to give away those prospects to bad teams out of the goodness of their hearts.

The other thing you don't seem to get is the distribution involved. It's not a bell curve; it's the extreme right-hand tail of a Pareto distribution. On the left you have masses and masses of beer leaguers and hockey-playing kids, who will never see the inside of a pro hockey game except by paying admission. On the right you have the tail of the distribution, which gets thinner as you reach the best players in the game. The difference in raw ability from the 82nd percentile to the 100th is much greater than from 0 to 18. McDavid, McKinnon, and Makar are miles better than the 100th-best player, but the 500th-best and 600th-best players (ignoring position) are pretty nearly interchangeable. In fact, a small change in the weighting of factors in the model could cause them to exchange places on the list. (This is why I wish JFresh included raw WAR scores as well as percentiles. You would then see just how close together the ratings of depth players are.)

The cutoff – that is, the worst player in the NHL, the poor schlub who rates 0% – is far out on that tail: miles better than rec hockey players, but he's only in the league because he fills a specific role, or because he used to fill it and is hanging on until his contract runs out. The face-puncher (a dying breed but not yet extinct), the fourth-line PK specialist, the 7th D who knows his principal job is to munch popcorn – these are your typical sub-replacement-level players.

There is also the fact that JFresh's data include players who aren't full-time NHLers. Players below replacement level can get a cup of coffee in the NHL as a reward for good play in the minors. They can be called up as injury replacements, and sometimes stay on the roster for quite some time. Prospects on the cusp go up and down frequently during the season. Some of those players are better than replacement value and are sent back down for contract reasons or because the team just doesn't need another player at that position. Some of them are worse than replacement value, and are, in fact, being used as replacements simply because they are already under contract and can be called up without complications.

Basically, the bottom 20% of JFresh's distribution are tweeners, and it's a matter of individual circumstance which ones get an NHL roster spot and for how long.

Engaging in a discussion with you is simply not worth the bother.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

6 years of 5 million in dead cap or 6 years of 10 million in Huberdeau is the question. I would be really tempted do it. this team has some tearing down to do yet and I never thought we would be able to include Huberdeau in the exodus. We might be in a good position to contend in 6 years too just as the dead cap is coming off the books.

That's why I think it's not a bad deal. It also removed the distraction of getting Huberdeau going. The main risk is the annoyance of seeing Huberdeau rebound feeding Fox.

[Sandman]

Anything that gets us out of that Huberdeau contract, I think should at least be looked at. Huby ain’t the greatest skater in the world as it stands, so he may decline sharper than others as he gets older.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1833530500952236145