Realistic (and unrealistic) Trades - 2024 Edition

[cross16]

18 hours ago, The_People1 said:

As some of us have been wondering, BUF is in a hurry to make it back to he playoffs.   It's been 13 years if I'm not mistaken and they simply have no appetite to draft and wait 2-5 years for this pick to make an impact.

 

Do the Flames have what BUF is looking for?  Can we make the best offer?

 

 

 

The other angle to this, if teams are willing to move picks that speaks to the quality of the draft. I don't think it's as simple as they want to move because they don't want to wait, they don't want to wait for the caliber of player they are likely to get. 

 

So while it sounds great to have 2 top 10/11 picks I think expectations of what that could mean for the Flames is getting very overblown. 

[JTech780]

12 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

The other angle to this, if teams are willing to move picks that speaks to the quality of the draft. I don't think it's as simple as they want to move because they don't want to wait, they don't want to wait for the caliber of player they are likely to get. 

 

So while it sounds great to have 2 top 10/11 picks I think expectations of what that could mean for the Flames is getting very overblown. 

I agree, while there is good players there, I just don’t think there is a lot of can’t miss 1st line/pairing type talent in the top 10.

[The_People1]

51 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

The other angle to this, if teams are willing to move picks that speaks to the quality of the draft. I don't think it's as simple as they want to move because they don't want to wait, they don't want to wait for the caliber of player they are likely to get. 

 

So while it sounds great to have 2 top 10/11 picks I think expectations of what that could mean for the Flames is getting very overblown. 

 

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. 

 

We haven't heard PHI, MIN, or OTT want to move their 1st.  In fact, the only two teams who have publicly made their 1st available are the two most desperate teams wanting to get back into the playoffs.

 

BUF's GM might be feeling the heat finally.

 

Another angle is, yes you can argue the cliff is around 7/8... After that, 9 through 20 has 2nd liners and 2nd pair D.

[JTech780]

My guess is that if NJ or Buffalo would move their 1st for Markstrom that it would be with the full 50% salary retention (2 years at $3m). I could see  Vancouver’s pick having to go with Markstrom as well.

[The_People1]

11 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

My guess is that if NJ or Buffalo would move their 1st for Markstrom that it would be with the full 50% salary retention (2 years at $3m). I could see  Vancouver’s pick having to go with Markstrom as well.

 

For some reason, BUF wants a top 6 forward and not Markstrom (per Friedman).

 

Kadri may interest them because BUF is a young team who could use a Cup vet to mentor them.  But Kadri might not waive for BUF.

 

I doubt Mange, Sharangovich, or Kuzmenko can move the needle considering their UFA status.

[robrob74]

19 hours ago, The_People1 said:

As some of us have been wondering, BUF is in a hurry to make it back to he playoffs.   It's been 13 years if I'm not mistaken and they simply have no appetite to draft and wait 2-5 years for this pick to make an impact.

 

Do the Flames have what BUF is looking for?  Can we make the best offer?

 

 

Mange and Coleman? Sharangovich? Don't wanna trade him, but he pulled a Lindholm and said he wasn't sure he'd re-sign. Would Kuz get the job done? He's very gifted offensively. 

[robrob74]

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

For some reason, BUF wants a top 6 forward and not Markstrom (per Friedman).

 

Kadri may interest them because BUF is a young team who could use a Cup vet to mentor them.  But Kadri might not waive for BUF.

 

I doubt Mange, Sharangovich, or Kuzmenko can move the needle considering their UFA status.

Buffalo is really close to Toronto. Maybe Kadri would welcome getting close to where he once lived? 

[sak22]

25 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. 

 

We haven't heard PHI, MIN, or OTT want to move their 1st.  In fact, the only two teams who have publicly made their 1st available are the two most desperate teams wanting to get back into the playoffs.

 

BUF's GM might be feeling the heat finally.

 

Another angle is, yes you can argue the cliff is around 7/8... After that, 9 through 20 has 2nd liners and 2nd pair D.

I think that is why Minnesota is listening on Rossi, they are in the final year of the cap hell from the Suter/Parise buyouts and even with the cap rise don't have a lot to play with this offseason.  Philly I think is sticking the course of getting younger.  Ottawa I think could shop the Boston pick, but I think the first pick of the new regime and the eventual forfeiture of a future first I don't see Ottawa moving the #7.  But with Buffalo and NJ lets not confuse actively shopping the pick vs. listening for best offers, but these higher picks tend to go for younger players and more control.  I really don't see the Flames pulling anything off.

[cross16]

38 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. 

 

We haven't heard PHI, MIN, or OTT want to move their 1st.  In fact, the only two teams who have publicly made their 1st available are the two most desperate teams wanting to get back into the playoffs.

 

BUF's GM might be feeling the heat finally.

 

Another angle is, yes you can argue the cliff is around 7/8... After that, 9 through 20 has 2nd liners and 2nd pair D.

 

I don't think it's a "cliff" but just a recogniztion of while I do thikn this is a quality draft the odds are your not getting a franchise changer player outside the top 10 and I think that's true. Good players for sure but I thikn at pick 11/12 your likely look at that, players that even if they hit are going to be good (ie 2nd liners/2nd pairing) but not really altering. In that sense makes perfect sense for those teams to be open to using their picks. 

 

Not suggesting the Flames shouldn't' be interesting but going "all in" to acquire them doesn't make sense to me as it's not likely going to fundamentally change their retool/rebuild. 

 

6 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

For some reason, BUF wants a top 6 forward and not Markstrom (per Friedman).

 

 

I think Buffalo is very confident with Levi and Luukkonen also played well last year. I wouldn't be targeting Markstrom if I were Buffalo either. Bigger needs elsewhere. 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

The other angle to this, if teams are willing to move picks that speaks to the quality of the draft. I don't think it's as simple as they want to move because they don't want to wait, they don't want to wait for the caliber of player they are likely to get. 

 

So while it sounds great to have 2 top 10/11 picks I think expectations of what that could mean for the Flames is getting very overblown. 

yup! I can see that. But if you're getting a Middle 6 forward or a few top 4 D, maybe with our pick we can get a high calibre D that is a 2/3? I'm just theorizing. I think we are all just having fun pretending to be GM's in the NHL game. 

[robrob74]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

I don't think it's a "cliff" but just a recogniztion of while I do thikn this is a quality draft the odds are your not getting a franchise changer player outside the top 10 and I think that's true. Good players for sure but I thikn at pick 11/12 your likely look at that, players that even if they hit are going to be good (ie 2nd liners/2nd pairing) but not really altering. In that sense makes perfect sense for those teams to be open to using their picks. 

 

Not suggesting the Flames shouldn't' be interesting but going "all in" to acquire them doesn't make sense to me as it's not likely going to fundamentally change their retool/rebuild. 

 

 

I think Buffalo is very confident with Levi and Luukkonen also played well last year. I wouldn't be targeting Markstrom if I were Buffalo either. Bigger needs elsewhere. 

 

I think of Vegas when I think of this draft, mostly that if you can get guys who fill spots throughout the lineup, then it's golden, like getting another Zary, but you have him either a 2nd or 3rd liner. On D we get another Andersson or Weegar? Maybe a better version of Hanifin? I'm using them as examples, but maybe a D is a first line D. 
 

After this draft we'd be missing the Elite guys, and who knows if one of them end up elite? How many guys surprise?  I think of Bergeron, Marchand, Pastranak. To keep with Boston, they probably the last team to win without a top pick. Seguin was a young player who wasn't fully developed. I think of having a Kreji. Maybe there's a Kopitar there.

 

There might not be elite talent per se, but I'm looking at value for the draft might have in drafting impactful players that fill the middle six or top 4. Sometimes those holes are hard to fill and while we've drafted well, we've had a tough time filling specific needs. 
 

its yet to be seen if Conroy will be able to do a better job of filling needs, and if not, we will know it's the scouts that can't target the right pros later one.

[The_People1]

35 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Mange and Coleman? Sharangovich? Don't wanna trade him, but he pulled a Lindholm and said he wasn't sure he'd re-sign. Would Kuz get the job done? He's very gifted offensively. 

 

Mange, Sharangovich, and Kuz are pending UFA rentals.  I think BUF can do better with the 11oa than to get rentals.

 

34 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Buffalo is really close to Toronto. Maybe Kadri would welcome getting close to where he once lived? 

 

Trues.  I mean, at the end of the day, Kadri signed here because we were close to Cup contender status.  Now that we have an exodus of star players, maybe he wants out too.  He gets to control where he goes.  But I can see BUF interested.  They could use a gritty vet like him.  Kadri allows Cozens to play first line with Thompson or Kadri can be checking line Center to give BUF 3 good Centers.

[cross16]

31 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think of Vegas when I think of this draft, mostly that if you can get guys who fill spots throughout the lineup, then it's golden, like getting another Zary, but you have him either a 2nd or 3rd liner. On D we get another Andersson or Weegar? Maybe a better version of Hanifin? I'm using them as examples, but maybe a D is a first line D. 
 

After this draft we'd be missing the Elite guys, and who knows if one of them end up elite? How many guys surprise?  I think of Bergeron, Marchand, Pastranak. To keep with Boston, they probably the last team to win without a top pick. Seguin was a young player who wasn't fully developed. I think of having a Kreji. Maybe there's a Kopitar there.

 

There might not be elite talent per se, but I'm looking at value for the draft might have in drafting impactful players that fill the middle six or top 4. Sometimes those holes are hard to fill and while we've drafted well, we've had a tough time filling specific needs. 
 

its yet to be seen if Conroy will be able to do a better job of filling needs, and if not, we will know it's the scouts that can't target the right pros later one.

 

Wont' dispute the value of players like that. Just dispute the logic that the Flames should aggressively acquire picks 10/11. If they can fantastic but there should be a reasonable price associated with it. 

 

[The_People1]

41 minutes ago, sak22 said:

I think that is why Minnesota is listening on Rossi, they are in the final year of the cap hell from the Suter/Parise buyouts and even with the cap rise don't have a lot to play with this offseason.  Philly I think is sticking the course of getting younger.  Ottawa I think could shop the Boston pick, but I think the first pick of the new regime and the eventual forfeiture of a future first I don't see Ottawa moving the #7.  But with Buffalo and NJ lets not confuse actively shopping the pick vs. listening for best offers, but these higher picks tend to go for younger players and more control.  I really don't see the Flames pulling anything off.

 

Yes I think some teams are content to draft and those desperate to get into the playoffs are trying to leverage their draft picks on draft day to sell high.  I think the Flames should be interested due to being in year one of a major retool.

[The_People1]

47 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not suggesting the Flames shouldn't' be interesting but going "all in" to acquire them doesn't make sense to me as it's not likely going to fundamentally change their retool/rebuild. 

 

Might be philosophical/tactical difference here.  I don't see an issue bottoming out hard all at once.  Vs, save some assets and slow bleed over the next three drafts.  At the end of the day, we are trading the whole farm for a new one anyways.  Just a question of how fast we want to do it.

[The_People1]

49 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I think Buffalo is very confident with Levi and Luukkonen also played well last year. I wouldn't be targeting Markstrom if I were Buffalo either. Bigger needs elsewhere. 

 

Well BUF exactly had Levi and Luukkonen last season and it failed them.  Goaltending was a reason they missed the playoffs again.

 

Having Markstrom shelter and bridge Levi over to a starter in 3 years is a better plan... But not sure if they want to spend an 11oa to do that.

[conundrumed]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Might be philosophical/tactical difference here.  I don't see an issue bottoming out hard all at once.  Vs, save some assets and slow bleed over the next three drafts.  At the end of the day, we are trading the whole farm for a new one anyways.  Just a question of how fast we want to do it.

But you'll blow all of your assets for one, rather modest, draft. Those are assets that you can squeeze more from later. Because, undoubtedly, we'll all be raving about players in next year's draft, and the year after. Need assets to pick up more picks/prospects. We have cap to try to do some relevant adds in the meantime.

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Well BUF exactly had Levi and Luukkonen last season and it failed them.  Goaltending was a reason they missed the playoffs again.

 

Having Markstrom shelter and bridge Levi over to a starter in 3 years is a better plan... But not sure if they want to spend an 11oa to do that.

 

They were in the top half of 5 on 5 save %, bottom half in virtually all other metric. Really poor in defending and generated high danger chances. 

 

I'm not suggesting goaltending can't be improved, just from what I can see it's not their top priority and i don't blame they. They are not a very good team with holes all over their roster. 

[cross16]

16 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Might be philosophical/tactical difference here.  I don't see an issue bottoming out hard all at once.  Vs, save some assets and slow bleed over the next three drafts.  At the end of the day, we are trading the whole farm for a new one anyways.  Just a question of how fast we want to do it.

 

I've never advocated for saving assets, nor do I have an issue if the Flames want to bottom out. The argument hat I don't like or agree with is that the Flames should do whatever they can to acquire a pick in the 10-12 range because it will help accelerate the rebuild. I don't think your getting that type of player in that range. 

 

If you want to rebuild it should be about asset accumulation so use your assets intelligently and acquire a higher amount of good assets and not just 1.

 

I also find it interesting that the Flames have been criticized for doing the rebuild too fast last time and now the discussion is they should speed it up again. 

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

But you'll blow all of your assets for one, rather modest, draft. Those are assets that you can squeeze more from later. Because, undoubtedly, we'll all be raving about players in next year's draft, and the year after. Need assets to pick up more picks/prospects. We have cap to try to do some relevant adds in the meantime.

 

I don't see how we can acquire another top 10 pick in next year's draft.  If we have an opportunity to do so this year, then we should.  Best we can do next year and move a bunch of assets for late 1sts and early 2nds. 

 

Look at historical stats, top 10 picks are like 75% chance to hit a good player.  Late 1sts, not so much.

[The_People1]

24 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I've never advocated for saving assets, nor do I have an issue if the Flames want to bottom out. The argument hat I don't like or agree with is that the Flames should do whatever they can to acquire a pick in the 10-12 range because it will help accelerate the rebuild. I don't think your getting that type of player in that range. 

 

If you want to rebuild it should be about asset accumulation so use your assets intelligently and acquire a higher amount of good assets and not just 1.

 

I also find it interesting that the Flames have been criticized for doing the rebuild too fast last time and now the discussion is they should speed it up again. 

 

Okay so it really just comes down to who is still there at 10-12.  We're looking at Catton, Eiserman, Helenius, Yakemchuk, etc.

 

I understand these guys are not McDavid/MacKinnon but you also don't get McDavid/MacKinnon unless we tank hardcore mofo in the correct year.  Like 2026 McKenna.

 

Another thing to consider is what are we trading away?  Who are we talking about?  To get the 10oa, what is even going all in?  Markstrom+ what?  If the price is right, then I'm sure we both will be happy with it.

[sak22]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes I think some teams are content to draft and those desperate to get into the playoffs are trying to leverage their draft picks on draft day to sell high.  I think the Flames should be interested due to being in year one of a major retool.

Never arguing against testing the waters, but for top 6 forwards I don't see a match, Kuzmenko isn't going from being a throw in to worth a #11 based on a strong 3 weeks of meaningless games, plus NTC and unlike waiving to get out of Vancouver I don't know if he would be as eager to waive again.  Sharangovich has nothing to prevent from being traded to Buffalo, but has a dislike for Lindy Ruff so that would be a risk I'm sure they wouldn't want to take.  Kadri has the NMC I don't care if it is close to home its still Buffalo and considering the GTA produces a large portion of the league and it is still an undesired location for free agency and on the majority of trade clauses tells me that being close to the GTA is not that important, besides that I'm sure they can do better than a 33 year old.  So besides that maybe there are packages that can be made, but I still don't like the all eggs in one approach I think we still need to be wary of being a middling team and losing a better pick to Montreal, so don't be afraid to look to 2025.  Were not building a future core with #9 and #11. 

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't see how we can acquire another top 10 pick in next year's draft.  If we have an opportunity to do so this year, then we should.  Best we can do next year and move a bunch of assets for late 1sts and early 2nds. 

 

Look at historical stats, top 10 picks are like 75% chance to hit a good player.  Late 1sts, not so much.

Every draft isn't the same. To quote Elvis, lol, "wise men say only fools rush in".

I actually love my acoustic version of that song, @Heartbreaker.

Kicks around anything that I've seen on youtube. Really fun song to finger pick around the melody. I like mixing Journey's "Lights" into it sometimes for a mashup to keep it fun.

 

But yeah, why are we racing to rebuild? I thought we didn't want that?

[cross16]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Okay so it really just comes down to who is still there at 10-12.  We're looking at Catton, Eiserman, Helenius, Yakemchuk, etc.

 

I understand these guys are not McDavid/MacKinnon but you also don't get McDavid/MacKinnon unless we tank hardcore mofo in the correct year.  Like 2026 McKenna.

 

Another thing to consider is what are we trading away?  Who are we talking about?  To get the 10oa, what is even going all in?  Markstrom+ what?  If the price is right, then I'm sure we both will be happy with it.

 

sure, who wouldn't be. Markstom and 28 for 10, i've got no issues with that. 

 

Markstrom plus Anderson for 10? Crazy talk. 

[sak22]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't see how we can acquire another top 10 pick in next year's draft.  If we have an opportunity to do so this year, then we should.  Best we can do next year and move a bunch of assets for late 1sts and early 2nds. 

 

Look at historical stats, top 10 picks are like 75% chance to hit a good player.  Late 1sts, not so much.

Challenge accepted.  Though I'm only going back to 2000 and doing a cutoff on 2018 and using only going for who I would consider a core player (based on your belief that the Flames could pick 9&10 and be off to a good start).

 

#10 - Yakubov, Blackburn, Nystrom, A. Kostitsyn, Valabik, Bourdon, Frolik, Ellerby, Hodgson, Paajarvi, McIlrath, Brodin, Koekkoek, Nichushkin, N. Ritchie, Rantanen, Jost, Tippet, Bouchard.  2/19 = 10% some unfortunate ones there with Blackburn and Bourdon, argument can be made that Nichushkin now belongs in that category, but not doing it with the team that drafted him and let him go to UFA early eliminates him.

 

#9 - Krahn, Ruuru, Taticek, Phaneuf, Smid, Lee, Sheppard, Couture, Bailey, Cowen, Granlund, Hamilton, Trouba, Horvat, Ehlers, Meier, Sergachev, Rasumssen, Kravtsov.  This one was hard, lots of good, but not many that I'd say are the type to get excited about starting a rebuild with went with Phaneuf because he made greater immediate impact.  Running total 5/38= 13%.

 

#8 - Alexeev, Leclaire, PM Bouchard, Coburn, Picard, Setoguchi, Mueller, Hamill, Boedker, Glennie, Burmistrov, Couturier, Pouliot, Ristolainen, Nylander, Werenski, Mittelstadt, Boqvist.  6/54 = 11%.

 

#7 - Jonsson, Komisarek, Lupul, Suter, Olesz, Skille, Okposo, Voracek, Wilson, Kadri, Skinner, Scheifele, Dumba, Nurse, Fleury, Provorov, Keller, Andersson, Q. Hughes.  11/72 = 15%

 

#6 - Hartnell, Koivu, Upshall, Michalek, Montoya, Brule, Brassard, Gagner, Filatov, OEL, Connolly, Zibanejad, H. Lindholm, Monahan, Virtanen, Zacha, Tkachuk, Glass, Zadina.  13/90 = 14%

 

#5 - Torres, Chistov, Whitney, Vanek, Wheeler, Price, Kessel, Alzner, Schenn, Schenn, Niederreiter, Strome, Rielly, E. Lindholm, Dal Colle, Hanifin, Joulevi, Pettersson, Hayton.  18/108 = 17%

 

#4 - Klesla, Weiss, Pitkanen, Zherdev, Ladd, Pouliot, Backstrom, Hickey, Pietrangelo, Kane, Johansen, Larsson, G. Reinhart, Jones, Bennett, Marner, Puljujarvi, Makar, Tkachuk. 23/126= 18%

 

#3 - Gaborik, Svitov, Bouwmeester, Horton, Barker, Johnson, Toews, Turris, Bogosian, Duchene, Gudbranson, Huberdeau, Galchenyuk, Drouin, Draisaitl, Strome, PLD, Heiskanen, Kotkaniemi.  30/144 = 21%

 

#2 - Heatley, Spezza, Lehtonen, Staal, Malkin, Ryan, Staal, JVR, Doughty, Hedman, Seguin, Landeskog, Murray, Barkov, Reinhart, Eichel, Laine, Patrick, Svechnikov.  39/162 = 24%

 

#1 - Dipietro, Kovalchuk, Nash, MAF, Ovechkin, Crosby, Johnson, Kane, Stamkos, Tavares, Hall, RNH, Yakupov, Mackinnon, Ekblad, McBandaid, Matthews, Hischier, Dahlin. 53/180 = 29%

 

So by my math there is a 29% chance of getting a strong core player just by picking top 10, there are some up for debate but not that many.  9 and 10 alone don't present great odds as is.  So this is why I don't support going too crazy to make a move for #10 or #11.