2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by Bonded

You need to read more carefully. All the NMC does is allow them to not go on waivers, it doesn't stop them from being bought out. They can agree to go unconditional waivers to see if someone claims them. That is the choice they have.


a player has a full no-move clause (NMC) in place then the player can agree to forgo clearing waivers before having their contract terminated.


"A player can only be bought out after clearing unconditional waivers. A waiver-claim by another team pre-empts the buyout process. If a player has a no-movement clause, the player can reject the option of waivers and proceed to the buyout process."

Another one from Sportsnet

An NMC prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless that player permits a move by one of these means. An NMC does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.

That would seem to violate the entire point of a NMC, but okay.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

That would seem to violate the entire point of a NMC, but okay.

The NMC is still intact. It prevents them from being waived but not from contract termination. The best way for a player to do that is singing bonuses.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

That would seem to violate the entire point of a NMC, but okay.

The no-movement clause is meant to protect the player from being traded to another team or assigned to the minors. It is not protection from buy-outs.

Seguin's bonus heavy contract structure is the bigger protection from buy-out as it prevents the team from freeing up any cap space in the process. He is very much in control of his career for the next 2 seasons.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

That would seem to violate the entire point of a NMC, but okay.

No, the entire point of an NMC is to protect a player from being traded, waived, or assigned to the minors without their consent. They offer no buyout protection.

That’s why they get to reject the waiver period and move straight to a buyout. It eliminates the risk of them being claimed by a team they don’t want to play for. Being bought out offers more control over a destination than an NMC, so there would be no logical reason for an NMC to protect from a buyout.

Player still gets their money and gets to play wherever they want. If they don’t want to play anywhere else, they can just not sign anywhere else.

There’s nothing that can force an NHL team to play a player, so this is way better.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

That would seem to violate the entire point of a NMC, but okay.

Brad Richards had a NMC when he was brought out by the Rangers. He didn't have to clear waivers before the buyout because his contract had a no-movement clause.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Brad Richards had a NMC when he was brought out by the Rangers. He didn't have to clear waivers before the buyout because his contract had a no-movement clause.

Yeah the NMC didn't stop Parise and Suter from being bought out either.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Why is San Jose moving a top 2 pick for a veteran, a mid 1st and a prospect? Teams never trade top 2 picks so for it to happen it needs to be insane.

Not saying I would do that trade but if someone says do whatever it takes I think it takes an offer like that for the team with the worst record in the league to move their 2nd overall pick

Look at the Sharks point of view.

• They have a solid group of forwards and more young centres than roster spots to play them all. They are already moving centres to the wings and they have more 1st round prospects like Bystedt and Musty that need a spot in the forward group (not to mention the handful of 2nd round prospects that they do not have spots for).
• They have Askarov ready to take over the net next year after they paid a pretty penny to the Preds to acquire him (essentially 2 1st round picks).
• But then you look at their D group... It is a disaster. There are no top pair D in the group and you are hoping Ferraro and Liljegren are functional as a second pair if someone else can take the big minutes. Dickinson looks great but is 19 and not ready to be a #1D in the NHL.

Everyone talks about how you draft BPA and then down the road if you end up with too much of one position and not enough of another then you make trades to fix the situation.... The Sharks are now in that position. The Sharks were scored on 315 times last season and drafting another high-end forward is not going to fix their D in 2025-26 or in the future.

Grier is entering his 4th season as GM and you have to think that his plan is to pull out of the basement and try for the playoffs this year but that doesn't happen without significant upgrades to that D group in the form of established vets that can play top pair minutes against the best players on other teams. He is also going to have to consider how his cap structure is going to work. If he goes down this path of being loaded up on forward then the Sharks are going to start looking like the Leafs with the "big 4" but a weak D group. It doesn't really feel like a winning formula.

I do not know if the Sharks are going to need an insane return as much as they need to address specific gaps in their org.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Yeah the NMC didn't stop Parise and Suter from being bought out either.

According to this, Parise and Suter had to waive their NMCs in order to make it happen.

The Minnesota Wild has made the first move in the NHL’s buyout window and will be parting ways with both Zach Parise and Ryan Suter.

Nine years after signing Parise and Suter to identical 13-year, $98M contracts, the Wild is buying out the remaining four seasons of their deals.

Parise and Suter will waive their no-move clauses to make this happen, according to The Athletic’s Michael Russo, and be able to bypass waivers to become unrestricted free agents on July 28.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nhl/news/w...uter-contracts

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by Royle9

It's probably pretty close, though hard to say because neither of these teams are competing anytime soon so no extension most likely.

Thanks Royle. If I were to adjust the trades based on no extension… maybe something like this:

Trade A:
To Detroit: Andersson (50% retained) + 32nd overall + 2026 2nd round pick
To Calgary: 13th overall + Kasper

Trade B:
To Columbus: Andersson (50% retained) + 32nd overall + 2026 2nd round pick
To Calgary: 14th overall + Sillinger

Even if those aren’t the actual trades… if the flames got 13th or 14th overall in an Andersson trade while keeping the 18th overall pick - I wonder what 13th overall + 18th overall could could get in a trade up scenario? I think if it doesn’t get you a pick in 7-8 range then I don’t think it would be worth trading 13th/14th + 18th. I’d even look at including some roster players like Coleman and/or Posposil with the picks if it got meant a pick in the 5-6th overall range. I doubt any of this will happen of course - teams just don’t trade picks very much at the draft any more.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Royle9

It's probably pretty close, though hard to say because neither of these teams are competing anytime soon so no extension most likely.

See...this is why he should have been traded last draft.

Last draft teams are less worried about the extension. He has 2 full years left, they can have the discussion with him, but he can't sign for another year so it's not as big of a thought yet.

With 1 year left the extension becomes a big part of the discussion, and limits your market more.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Thanks Royle. If I were to adjust the trades based on no extension… maybe something like this:

Trade A:
To Detroit: Andersson (50% retained) + 32nd overall + 2026 2nd round pick
To Calgary: 13th overall + Kasper

Trade B:
To Columbus: Andersson (50% retained) + 32nd overall + 2026 2nd round pick
To Calgary: 14th overall + Sillinger

Even if those aren’t the actual trades… if the flames got 13th or 14th overall in an Andersson trade while keeping the 18th overall pick - I wonder what 13th overall + 18th overall could could get in a trade up scenario? I think if it doesn’t get you a pick in 7-8 range then I don’t think it would be worth trading 13th/14th + 18th. I’d even look at including some roster players like Coleman and/or Posposil with the picks if it got meant a pick in the 5-6th overall range. I doubt any of this will happen of course - teams just don’t trade picks very much at the draft any more.

I don't think you get Kasper.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I think 50% retention with the cap going up is worth a lot this summer for teams who think they are in the mix. Adding a 2nd pair D who can play 2nd unit pp play pk jump up for 2.25M. That allows you to make a big splash as well.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

See...this is why he should have been traded last draft.

Last draft teams are less worried about the extension. He has 2 full years left, they can have the discussion with him, but he can't sign for another year so it's not as big of a thought yet.

With 1 year left the extension becomes a big part of the discussion, and limits your market more.

I agree, he probably had more value last offseason.
Especially with 50% for 2 years which the flames could easily afford.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I think we will get a lot more suitors for Andersson post-UFA frenzy. I don’t see him being dealt at the draft unless a team is betting they don’t have good odds at landing any of the big fish UFAs.

Andersson for a 2025 2nd + 2026/27 1st (+ a very good prospect if there’s 50% retention) is what I’d be looking for at the draft.

If it’s after the draft then the 2025 2nd changed to a roster player that can be flipped at the TDL in 2026.

[traptor]

Dumba + bourque + 27 1st


Cgy 1st + Beck


Pinto/greig + 2025 2nd



Belluz + wild 1st





All deals i would do. I think they're somewhat realistic, but we'll see how much the league actually values him

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Thanks Royle. If I were to adjust the trades based on no extension… maybe something like this:

Trade A:
To Detroit: Andersson (50% retained) + 32nd overall + 2026 2nd round pick
To Calgary: 13th overall + Kasper

Trade B:
To Columbus: Andersson (50% retained) + 32nd overall + 2026 2nd round pick
To Calgary: 14th overall + Sillinger

Even if those aren’t the actual trades… if the flames got 13th or 14th overall in an Andersson trade while keeping the 18th overall pick - I wonder what 13th overall + 18th overall could could get in a trade up scenario? I think if it doesn’t get you a pick in 7-8 range then I don’t think it would be worth trading 13th/14th + 18th. I’d even look at including some roster players like Coleman and/or Posposil with the picks if it got meant a pick in the 5-6th overall range. I doubt any of this will happen of course - teams just don’t trade picks very much at the draft any more.

I would be delighted with either of these scenarios, not sure we would get that caliber of pick and/or roster player….

[dammage79]

Well, Dallas just dealt Marchment to Seattle.

[Sandman]

For a 3rd and a 4th…

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by traptor

Dumba + bourque + 27 1st


Cgy 1st + Beck


Pinto/greig + 2025 2nd



Belluz + wild 1st





All deals i would do. I think they're somewhat realistic, but we'll see how much the league actually values him

All of these would be awful outside the Wild.

Only way I think 25 pick is valuable is if we can use it to jump into the top 5 with our other picks. Otherwise our aim should be 2026.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

That would never happen. Coleman is worth maybe a 2nd. Why would they also give a 1st and Bourque?

Coleman is aging and players who play his style drop off in play quickly usually.

Bourque is worth a 3rd and Seguin would cost at least a 1st to get rid of. Suspect Bourque, Seguin and a 1st is an underpayment for Coleman.