2022/2023 Trade Speculation and Rumours

[MrMike]

I don’t believe one player can ever push a team over the top. The key to winning a cup is having your goalie get/stay hot and avoiding injuries.

Treliving finds players with term, which is important in this market.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

With the trades & signings the Flames have made, their future is pretty much set to be San Jose's present.

So when it comes to our current picks and prospects, unless they are going to help the Flames win the cup in the next 2-3 years, they should all be traded for something that will.

There will be plenty of time to refill the prospect pool while when the team is filled with old players no longer worth their contract.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

With the trades & signings the Flames have made, their future is pretty much set to be San Jose's present.

So when it comes to our current picks and prospects, unless they are going to help the Flames win the cup in the next 2-3 years, they should all be traded for something that will.

There will be plenty of time to refill the prospect pool while when the team is filled with old players no longer worth their contract.

It's not quite that simple. While it's true that this team will likely be a non-playoff team 5 or 6 years from now, it's never too early to start thinking about the next upswing, in other words what the team will look like 10-12 years from now. Coronato for all we know could be a star player on that Flames team. Getting rid of potential future star players now could prolong the period of suckage that the Flames have to go through in the late 2020s.

That said, if the Flames are one of the top teams in the league heading into the trade deadline, it obviously makes sense to buy.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

With the trades & signings the Flames have made, their future is pretty much set to be San Jose's present.

So when it comes to our current picks and prospects, unless they are going to help the Flames win the cup in the next 2-3 years, they should all be traded for something that will.

There will be plenty of time to refill the prospect pool while when the team is filled with old players no longer worth their contract.

I've forgotten, which year did the Sharks win the cup?

[Paulie Walnuts]

I guess we could try to trade a bunch of old players on large contracts for 4th rounders to replenish the prospects like San Jose has.

[dammage79]

I'd prefer to keep picks and not buy rentals with them.

But if Tree waived his Jedi hand across and told another gm he could have these oicks for a cost controlled young asset, yup, trade the picks.

I don't like the all in aggro pick dumping some of you other posters are high up on. It's not high stakes poker and the next two or three years are already spoken for. Well one of them, which one is TBD. And that was used as a cap dump.

Plus, I don't think the farm in the next two years has a lot of meat left on the bone once this crop filters out.

To be a perennial contender, you have to mix in drafted players.

Flames are food for now. But if something came up with a cost controlled player I think tree will be all over it.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Obviously it is over simplifying things, but if trading Coranato+ for Kane meant a 50% of winning the cup, would you do it? I probably would.

At the end of last season, even the elite teams only had an 18% chance of winning the Cup.

Kane might move that a percentage point or two but it's not going up to 50%.

Right now Colorado and Calgary are at 8%.

[Sandman]

Would the Avs win the cup without MacKinnon, or Makar? How many cups would the Pens have without either Malkin or Crosby? How about the Hawks without Kane or Toews? One player absolutely CAN push you over the top. Again, just my opinion, but I say if you have a chance to land a difference-maker like Kane, you do it. That Stanley Cup will make us forget about Coronato.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Would the Avs win the cup without MacKinnon, or Makar? How many cups would the Pens have without either Malkin or Crosby? How about the Hawks without Kane or Toews? One player absolutely CAN push you over the top. Again, just my opinion, but I say if you have a chance to land a difference-maker like Kane, you do it. That Stanley Cup will make us forget about Coronato.

Yeah, posters are conflating deadline pick ups not leading to Cup wins with one player pushing a team way closer to winning a Cup. Put Kane on the Flames and we are absolutely a significant percentage closer to winning a Cup.

31 teams don't win the Cup each year, hell 4 of 5 strong contenders that could easily win the Cup...don't win the Cup each year. You simply cannot look at in simple terms like "your chances of winning the Cup don't go up enough to justify a hefty price for a rental".

You have to look it as "Are we all in for the next few years? Yes? Then don't be afraid to push those percentage chances of winning the Cup up by expending futures for the present". Especially with the way the Flames future is structured now. There's a huge, huge chance that any futures you hold back instead of acquiring pieces to push for a Cup will be playing through a bunch of rebuilding years with boat anchor vets taking up major cap space, while we're trying to tank for high picks.

[jayswin]

You don't know what that pick up will do. Maybe it's the difference between winning 4 rounds instead of 3 rounds, or winning 4 rounds instead of 3 rounds. A player like Kane? He could easily be the goals and assists that push a contender past another contender.

You cannot just say simple things like "deadline picks ups rarely lead to Cup wins". That's nonsense. Almost nothing any team in the NHL ever does at any level leads to a Stanley Cup due to 3.125% of teams winning the Cup each year.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I've forgotten, which year did the Sharks win the cup?

The Sharks played 29 playoff rounds in 17 years with their core, and managed to draft several very impactful players onto their roster in that time. They are pretty much the model for the type of success a sports team should want. Things ebb and flow, but the 2014 sharks a pretty much the example of why we shouldn't assume the flames will be rebuilding in 6 years.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by jayswin

You cannot just say simple things like "deadline picks ups rarely lead to Cup wins". That's nonsense. Almost nothing any team in the NHL ever does at any level leads to a Stanley Cup due to 3.125% of teams winning the Cup each year.

How is that nonsense when you just proved otherwise?

"Deadline pickups rarely lead to Cup wins" doesn't mean "Deadline pickups should never be attempted".

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by butterfly

How is that nonsense when you just proved otherwise?

"Deadline pickups rarely lead to Cup wins" doesn't mean "Deadline pickups should never be attempted".

I've had a few, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused. I was responding to the idea that picks and prospects shouldn't be expended for rentals because they rarely lead to Cup wins, aka rarely move the needle.

I was proving that of course you can point to rentals not leading to Cup wins because only one team wins the Cup. I want to spend right now on rentals because we're a Cup contender that could stand to push that much closer to winning it with additions.

EDIT: I was literally saying what you're saying in your response to me?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I've had a few, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused. I was responding to the idea that picks and prospects shouldn't be expended for rentals because they rarely lead to Cup wins, aka rarely move the needle.

I was proving that of course you can point to rentals not leading to Cup wins because only one team wins the Cup. I want to spend right now on rentals because we're a Cup contender that could stand to push that much closer to winning it with additions.

EDIT: I was literally saying what you're saying in your response to me?

Sure, I think it's fair to debate whether or not a team should trade prospects and/or draft picks at the deadline when they feel they're in contention. It depends on the prospect, pick, and return, as any other trade.

At the same time, it is true that "Deadline pickups rarely lead to Cup wins", as you demonstrated by the 3.125% figure.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Sure, I think it's fair to debate whether or not a team should trade prospects and/or draft picks at the deadline when they feel they're in contention. It depends on the prospect, pick, and return, as any other trade.

At the same time, it is true that "Deadline pickups rarely lead to Cup wins", as you demonstrated by the 3.125% figure.

Yes, but for the reasons that I stated. This isn't a standard "business looking for proper return on investment" odds scenario, you can't look at that way. You're looking to edge out 3 of 4 other teams if you're a contender, and we're a contender right now. There's obviously lots of nuance to each team's situation, but I just hate the dismissive "look at how rarely teams that add rentals win the Cup!!!, so let's not do it".

No ****, teams rarely win the Cup in general, so just not push the chips in because of the odds of winning a Stanley Cup then?

[Sandman]

"Deadline pickups rarely lead to cup wins"? Patrick Kane isn't your typical deadline pickup.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I will assume two things: Kane ends up in NY, as I am sure he will love it there and NYR have a lot of young talent to throw back at Chicago. However, if Kane wants to be in Calgary, you make it happen. Secondly, the acquisition cost will probably be high, on the sheer fact that the Rangers have a lot of young assets that they can throw away. They will try to land Kane and will try and out-bid anyone, I would think. I am ok with that. Why?

Basically I see two reasons why you get Kane:
1) What if Huberdeau gets injured? The guy that stirs the drink for the Flames being gone makes Lindholm and Toffoli have a more difficult time to score goals, and teams will have an easier time getting their best players to shut-down the Flames' remaining best players. I have always stated that I think you can win with Gaudreau and that core, but there weren't enough pieces to distribute through the lineup to make it hard on teams to match-up their defensive lines against Calgary. Kane becomes that insurance policy of sorts.

2) Huberdeau - Lindholm - Toffoli => Chemistry is really starting to come around, and I think this will be an elite #1 line.
Kane - Kadri - Mangiapane => This will be an elite #1 line also.

Have fun matching up against that. Kane and Huberdeau are both players that can lead their lines. They are the ones that generate offence. They are the ones that make their linemates better. They have shown this time and time again in their respective careers. You aren't just getting Kane - you are getting Kane, and improving an already very good Kadri and very good Mangiapane.

3) Power Play: Overloaded 1st unit PP with Kane, Huberdeau, Lindholm, Kadri and Andersson. Or you can spread it out and have Kane and Huberdeau QB their own units. Do not take a penalty against the Flames.

4) Overloaded 3rd line. Dube I think is going to be a legitimately good 2nd line player this year. I really think he has it in him. Backlund is a legitimate 2nd line center, and is one of the league's best defensive centers at that. Coleman's numbers are better than an average 3rd liner. I think it becomes a bit of an overloaded 3rd line. Together they are faster with a faster transition game, they are more offensive, and they are even more smothering. I like Lewis, and he is a very smart player out there, but Dube at this stage is simply an upgrade.

Once again, I don't think it happens, but that's how I view the addition of Kane. There are only a handful of players in the NHL that can legitimately make any line they are on work as a 1st line - players who have always stirred the drink on their line, and made average offensive linemates earn contracts that they should never have been in line for. Huberdeau and Kane are both like that. Kane also has that track record of being an incredibly strong playoff performer.

SIdenote: I bet that if Treliving had traded Tkachuk for the package that he ended up getting, there is probably a better chance that Gaudreau would have ended up staying (maybe.. who knows). This team would have been ridiculously difficult to match-up against and shut down. Would have needed to move Lucic as well as Monahan, but this team would probably be 'the favourites' for the cup, or at least part of the conversation with Colorado, Tampa and Carolina. Getting Kane gets the Flames to that conversation.


You don't improve your team this much by upgrading a piece somewhere in your top 9, and another depth defencemen. This is how you set yourself up as best as you can to win a cup. No guarantees, and there most certainly have been huge prices paid for complete flops (almost every year), but this is a risk I would want the Flames to take IF it is ever on the table.

[jg13]

I just can't see Kane to NYR their cap space is nearly impossible to work with.

Pat Kanes cap hit is 10.5M (5.25 at 50% retained).

Rangers deadline cap space is 808K

Ranger players that could possibly be moved out to make him fit at 50% retained

Kreider (not happening), Zibanejad (not happening), Panarin (not happening), Trouba (Good luck), Adam Fox (not happening)

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Would the Avs win the cup without MacKinnon, or Makar? How many cups would the Pens have without either Malkin or Crosby? How about the Hawks without Kane or Toews? One player absolutely CAN push you over the top. Again, just my opinion, but I say if you have a chance to land a difference-maker like Kane, you do it. That Stanley Cup will make us forget about Coronato.

I get what your saying and completely agree one player can put you over the top but this isn't relative to the conversation as Patrick Kane is a UFA at the end of the year and if he doesn't resign, would give you one crack at it. If its a sign and trade absolutely. If i'm trading a boat load of high end assets that would leave us thin, I want a player that will have multiple cracks with this squad. Thus I like BTs philosophy of getting players with term at the deadline if we have to deal multiple top prospects/1st rounders.

Too many different variables in hockey that would make me ok with taking that big of a risk and I don't think its particular necessary with the new core signed to long term deals.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Would the Avs win the cup without MacKinnon, or Makar? How many cups would the Pens have without either Malkin or Crosby? How about the Hawks without Kane or Toews? One player absolutely CAN push you over the top.

None of those players were deadline acquisitions. They were foundational pieces.

Hockey players are not machine parts; they are not plug-and-play. There is a long history of teams acquiring big names at the deadline, only to have them contribute very little because they weren't on the team long enough to mesh with the roster.

If Kane had term left, I wouldn't mind acquiring him; but if he did, his cap hit would be prohibitive, and the price to acquire him would be outrageous. As it is, this team's window is open for several years to come, and it's not worth slamming that window shut for an extra (maybe) 5% chance of winning this year.

Early signs are that Coronato is likely to pan out. If he does, he's a sniper on an ELC for two years during the team's window. That's far more valuable than a sniper on a high-priced contract for six weeks plus one year's playoffs. Of all the picks and prospects in the Flames' system, he is the one I would be most reluctant to part with.