2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[FanSince'01]

Originally Posted by Solstice

I meant if we got the 4th OA from Utah somehow. Then traded 4th OA and 18th OA, along with Mews or something.

I brought this up in the Raz thread, and I’m not criticizing your thought process, but I think adding 18th OA to 4th would be a sizable overpay already to get to #2. I know trading up to the top of the draft usually requires overpay but this year there isn’t much difference between #2 and #4.

So, me personally, I’d want something back if we were hypothetically trading #18 along with #4. Say #30 or #33. Definitely wouldn’t add anything on top, at the very least.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I keep coming back to trading Kadri while he still has good value.

And I know, he has a no trade clause blah blah blah. I still think you have to at least ask him to waive. He is worth alot today and in a year or 2 is going to have negative value. He might be worth a 1st today, and in a couple years you would probably need to include a 1st to get rid of him.

This is the absolute best time to trade an aging player. This is also another reason why you shouldn't give no trade clauses to retirement contracts. Save those for players like Parekh and Wolf.

They could have asked him if he open to waiving. You really have no idea

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Bonded

They could have asked him if he open to waiving. You really have no idea

I thought they did and he wasn’t interested, I could be wrong though.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Bonded

They could have asked him if he open to waiving. You really have no idea

Very well said
The Kadri discussion is a dead end which is exasperated by some who are totally unopened to the possibility of the organization honouring the agreement they signed.
Kind of like Trump and the Canada/Mexico/US free trade agreement he once called the greatest trade agreement ever negotiated

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by FanSince'01

I brought this up in the Raz thread, and I’m not criticizing your thought process, but I think adding 18th OA to 4th would be a sizable overpay already to get to #2. I know trading up to the top of the draft usually requires overpay but this year there isn’t much difference between #2 and #4.

So, me personally, I’d want something back if we were hypothetically trading #18 along with #4. Say #30 or #33. Definitely wouldn’t add anything on top, at the very least.

Depends on a number of things.

Many think their is a sizable ledge at #2, so the difference between 2 and 3 may be big.

[dammage79]

Getting 2 to get Misa would be mega, but getting 4 to get the remaining player of either Hagens or Frondell, that's a really big get as well.

I don't foresee the Flames being the recipient of such trade though. But if they did I'd be just as excited for who was left for the Flames at 4 than I would be snagging Misa.

[FanSince'01]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Depends on a number of things.

Many think their is a sizable ledge at #2, so the difference between 2 and 3 may be big.

True it usually is, but if the rumours of San Jose willing to move off #2 but stay in the top 5 or 6 are true, then it might not be the gap it normally is.

It’s all probably moot anyways as there probably won’t be much movement like usual lol

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Depends on a number of things.

Many think their is a sizable ledge at #2, so the difference between 2 and 3 may be big.

Perhaps I’m wrong but I just don’t think 18OA is going to be all that enticing for other teams, especially the ones picking ahead of the Flames. Perhaps the Flames could move up to 13 or so but if they want to get into the top 10 it’s going to take considerably more.

This draft is widely considered to be average, or worse. It is not a deep draft. So what does that 18OA equate to in a strong year? Probably late first or second round. Consider the team picking ahead of the Flames value the pick they already have I think for them to move that they likely would want a young player or prospect that offers more of a sure thing, particularly if you’re talking top 10.

I mentioned this a few days ago but this talk of the Flames getting into the top 5 in an Andersson trade smacks of discussions two years ago when Lindholm 3OA was hotly discussed. Remember how much sense that made? People were convinced it was as good for Columbus as it would have been for the Flames. A perfect match. Two years later and that trade would have been disastrous for Columbus.

[iloveicedhockey]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Let’s not rehash this argument again.

A million times this. Jesus Christ.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

Very well said
The Kadri discussion is a dead end which is exasperated by some who are totally unopened to the possibility of the organization honouring the agreement they signed.
Kind of like Trump and the Canada/Mexico/US free trade agreement he once called the greatest trade agreement ever negotiated

Kadri does not seem interested in waiving, but let's be honest - players with NMC or NTC are traded all the time, and players under contract request to be traded quite a bit too. And it probably happens more often than we know.

Asking a player to waive a clause is not dishonouring the contract. It's a request that a player can say no to. It's not a clause saying the player cannot be moved, it's a clause saying they cannot be moved to a destination they don't want to.

Especially with longer contracts, the situation that existed when the contract is signed is usually not same further in, so quite often one or both parties will look for a change.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I would have zero issues with the Flames signing Jeannot. He is tough as nails, and he skates well. He isn't as good as he looked like that one season in Nashville, but I also don't think he is as bad as he has been lately. Calgary has the cap room, so give him a 1 year deal on a high salary. If he rebounds somewhat and finds a little offence as well as bringing his very difficult to play against style, you can definitely flip him at the deadline for something worthwhile.


Flames have too many forwards, however. I would like them to thin it out a bit. No point in bringing Jeannot in to an already overloaded team on the wings. If Conroy doesn't trade a couple of bodies out, then there is zero point.


Aside from the possibility of Jeannot being flipped at the deadline for something - Flames would instantly become one of the nastiest teams to play against. Having Klapka-Pospisil-Jeannot-Lomberg spread across 3-4 different lines, and every team would hate playing them. Jeannot would go a long way in protecting the kids, and these types of players really help to gel a team. If he just finds the right chemistry and system, he can really turn into an asset at the deadline.. and boy would it be fun watching Calgary vs Edmonton.

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by Ped

Kadri does not seem interested in waiving, but let's be honest - players with NMC or NTC are traded all the time, and players under contract request to be traded quite a bit too. And it probably happens more often than we know.

Asking a player to waive a clause is not dishonouring the contract. It's a request that a player can say no to. It's not a clause saying the player cannot be moved, it's a clause saying they cannot be moved to a destination they don't want to.

Especially with longer contracts, the situation that existed when the contract is signed is usually not same further in, so quite often one or both parties will look for a change.

Yes
But
Some refuse to consider the possibility that the flames may have asked

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Ped

Kadri does not seem interested in waiving, but let's be honest - players with NMC or NTC are traded all the time, and players under contract request to be traded quite a bit too. And it probably happens more often than we know.

Asking a player to waive a clause is not dishonouring the contract. It's a request that a player can say no to. It's not a clause saying the player cannot be moved, it's a clause saying they cannot be moved to a destination they don't want to.

Especially with longer contracts, the situation that existed when the contract is signed is usually not same further in, so quite often one or both parties will look for a change.

You have to understand the reason why a player blocks a trade. In this instance it’s because Kadri has relocated his entire family to Calgary. This is more than just a place he plays, it is home for his family.

I doubt, very much, getting traded when he signed his deal was something he wanted to entertain.

People should move on. It’s not happening. At least not in the immediate future.

[Bingo Jr.]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Meeting with a source this afternoon, I hope to have a update on Rasmus and it's current status.

[Solstice]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

If we got 4th overall why would we move up? Frondell, Desnoyers are just as good as Misa why would you add a kindel/Cootes/Reschny and Mews to get the same tier of player?

Fair point but it just depends how high Connie and Co are on Misa. And if they think the Misa-Misa-Parekh connection is important long term for culture and camaraderie.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I would have zero issues with the Flames signing Jeannot. He is tough as nails, and he skates well. He isn't as good as he looked like that one season in Nashville, but I also don't think he is as bad as he has been lately. Calgary has the cap room, so give him a 1 year deal on a high salary. If he rebounds somewhat and finds a little offence as well as bringing his very difficult to play against style, you can definitely flip him at the deadline for something worthwhile.


Flames have too many forwards, however. I would like them to thin it out a bit. No point in bringing Jeannot in to an already overloaded team on the wings. If Conroy doesn't trade a couple of bodies out, then there is zero point.


Aside from the possibility of Jeannot being flipped at the deadline for something - Flames would instantly become one of the nastiest teams to play against. Having Klapka-Pospisil-Jeannot-Lomberg spread across 3-4 different lines, and every team would hate playing them. Jeannot would go a long way in protecting the kids, and these types of players really help to gel a team. If he just finds the right chemistry and system, he can really turn into an asset at the deadline.. and boy would it be fun watching Calgary vs Edmonton.

Agree.

Bear in mind Lomberg is a pending UFA. He could very well be the piece to move at the TDL.

I don’t mind Jeanotte at even 2-3 years on a relatively low cap hit. He is only 28.

Time and again, we’re reminded that intimidation is part of the DNA of the game.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I keep coming back to trading Kadri while he still has good value.

And I know, he has a no trade clause blah blah blah. I still think you have to at least ask him to waive. He is worth alot today and in a year or 2 is going to have negative value. He might be worth a 1st today, and in a couple years you would probably need to include a 1st to get rid of him.

This is the absolute best time to trade an aging player. This is also another reason why you shouldn't give no trade clauses to retirement contracts. Save those for players like Parekh and Wolf.

In a year or two he's going to have negative value, eh? Says who? You? People love to criticize aging players, but Kadri has never had a bad year in the NHL. He's one of the most consistent players, much like Pavelski and Duchene.

I am not going to piss him off and ask him to waive his NMC when he deserves it. If we are bad after the 25/26 season then you'll get your wish, because he then only has a 13 team NTC.

[FanSince'01]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

In a year or two he's going to have negative value, eh? Says who? You? People love to criticize aging players, but Kadri has never had a bad year in the NHL. He's one of the most consistent players, much like Pavelski and Duchene.

I am not going to piss him off and ask him to waive his NMC when he deserves it. If we are bad after the 25/26 season then you'll get your wish, because he then only has a 13 team NTC.

This exactly.

We literally only have to wait one more season and then we no longer have to ask his permission for a trade (as long as the team is on his list). And it’s not like his value is going to decline drastically between now and next year.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

You don’t sign 7 goal scorers who suck at everything to flip lol.

Most teams add 3rd and 2nd liners. I guess while Treliving is a gm you have some hope

Who suck at everything, lol. You're just a joy.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I wonder if Flames and Sabres could do something around Farabee and Samuelsson.

Farabee is 25, has 3 x $5 left and is from Syracuse NY

Samuelsson is 25, has 5 x $4.3 left

Flames could use another defensive LH shot dman and have too many wingers.

Samuelsson fell out of favour in Buffalo last year and they have too many LH dmen

Sabres probably wouldn't mind getting a guy who is from the area (they like their local kids) and does have 20 goal and 40 point pedigree.

All kinds of red flags around Samuelsson. He's injury-prone, his on-ice play has been declining for years, and for a big guy he's not physical. There's a reason a team that's looking to get better defensively and harder to play against is giving up on him.