2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Andersson?

When is peak value?

Was it a week ago? This week? Next week? Before the Olympics? After the Olympics? At the deadline?

You seem to know when the peak value is.

Peak value was probably 2024 draft.

Best value now is likely sometime between Jan 15 and Feb 6

[PepsiFree]

Peak value is January 7th, everybody knows that. If Andersson isn’t traded on January 7th they should fire everyone and, honestly, fold the franchise.

[Jason14h]

IF the Flames are one of the teams Anderson is willing to sign with you could always sign him and deal Weegar

Or …. Handshake agreement with Anderson to come back in offseason and deal them both 😏

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So you don't have a return level that says hold? At all?

And I wouldn't equate now with "next couple of months". The trade deadline is three months away. They should probably trade them before then if they want to do it this year.

Yeah I meant this season, ideally sooner then later because I do associate some value with the draft position.


Regarding return value, not really, because if you project value based on performance, age and contract, they're at peak value. They're the youngest they'll ever be, with the most term and playing essentially at their ceilings.

I mean sure, if you're getting a 2nd for a retained Kadri and a 4th for Coleman you might as well keep them, but that seems extremely unrealistic to me based on how valuable everyone says they are. I have a hard time thinking that there's not a team out there that is not on Kadri's NTC that wouldn't give you a 1st tomorrow for him, which sets the market floor.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by traptor

Yeah I meant this season, ideally sooner then later because I do associate some value with the draft position.


Regarding return value, not really, because if you project value based on performance, age and contract, they're at peak value. They're the youngest they'll ever be, with the most term and playing essentially at their ceilings.

I mean sure, if you're getting a 2nd for a retained Kadri and a 4th for Coleman you might as well keep them, but that seems extremely unrealistic to me based on how valuable everyone says they are. I have a hard time thinking that there's not a team out there that is not on Kadri's NTC that wouldn't give you a 1st tomorrow for him, which sets the market floor.

Right so if you can get a 1st for him, from a team where it projects to be a late 1st (25+) do you pull the trigger now? Or do you believe you can get more?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

IF the Flames are one of the teams Anderson is willing to sign with you could always sign him and deal Weegar

Or …. Handshake agreement with Anderson to come back in offseason and deal them both 😏

I’m into it.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Right so if you can get a 1st for him, from a team where it projects to be a late 1st (25+) do you pull the trigger now? Or do you believe you can get more?

I would hold, but not past the trade deadline this season.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Roko

Gotta think Rasmus has to be dealt before the Olympics. Can’t risk him getting injured and lose that trade chip. The other two it feels like our management is going to hold until trade deadline likely unless they are blown out of the water

Early to mid January is my guess.

We're close to Christmas and they don't want to upend any families during the holidays. I think January 2 is the earliest we'll see a trade for Anderson.

Kadri and Coleman, if either are dealt, could be much closer to the deadline.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Peak value was probably 2024 draft.

Best value now is likely sometime between Jan 15 and Feb 6

I think the qualifiers kind of prove my point no?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by traptor

I would hold, but not past the trade deadline this season.

Which is certainly a call I could understand.

Appreciate the civil discussion.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Bingo

.

I mean if he has to delete that Locke and Reggie would have their post counts cut in half.

That would still be 50 posts a day, his signature alone his typically 75% of his posts.

And you missed the point of me telling the man from Dissen to delete it. It's just funny how he didn't get the cake and eat it too thing.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think the qualifiers kind of prove my point no?

Might as well close down the site...can't have any discussion about things we will never know about with certainty.

Seems pretty obvious to me that if you traded Andersson at the 2024 draft, coming off back to back 50 point seasons, with 2 years left, and retained 50% that it would be peak value.

Don't know that as a fact but it seems like it would obviously be the case.

[5abi]

Nvm

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Might as well close down the site...can't have any discussion about things we will never know about with certainty.

Seems pretty obvious to me that if you traded Andersson at the 2024 draft, coming off back to back 50 point seasons, with 2 years left, and retained 50% that it would be peak value.

Don't know that as a fact but it seems like it would obviously be the case.

Most things that "seem obvious" usually....aren't.


If that had been so, and had an offer emerged that was suitable, the Flames probably would have gone there. They didn't. "Seems obvious" that the deals offered weren't that good.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Might as well close down the site...can't have any discussion about things we will never know about with certainty.

Seems pretty obvious to me that if you traded Andersson at the 2024 draft, coming off back to back 50 point seasons, with 2 years left, and retained 50% that it would be peak value.

Don't know that as a fact but it seems like it would obviously be the case.

Come on man ... you're better than that.

Someone suggested it's bad asset management to not trade Andersson at peak value.

I'm certainly discussing things by pointing out that we don't know when that is.

You replied with probably and likely proving my point.

We don't know.

So don't call something potentially poor asset management when we don't have a clue when that was.

I've never shut down discussion on this site, and you know that. I do call people for stating facts that aren't fact however.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Might as well close down the site...can't have any discussion about things we will never know about with certainty.

Seems pretty obvious to me that if you traded Andersson at the 2024 draft, coming off back to back 40 point seasons, with 2 years left, and retained 50% that it would be peak value.

Don't know that as a fact but it seems like it would obviously be the case.

You could be right, but to play Devil's advocate look at what OTT got for a pretty similar D-men to Andersson in Chychrun on July 1st 2024. They got Nick Jensen + 3rd. A big part of that was the market over correcting itself after OTT paid a 1st + 2 x 2nds for Chychrun in March of 2023.

You could argue that Chychrun had only 1 year left at that point, but Ottawa was trying to shop him in the previous season as well, and there was no market.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

You could be right, but to play Devil's advocate look at what OTT got for a pretty similar D-men to Andersson in Chychrun on July 1st 2024. They got Nick Jensen + 3rd. A big part of that was the market over correcting itself after OTT paid a 1st + 2 x 2nds for Chychrun in March of 2023.

You could argue that Chychrun had only 1 year left at that point, but Ottawa was trying to shop him in the previous season as well, and there was no market.

This is the problem the Flames ran into with Andersson this offseason TBH

Nobody wants to pay a premium for a player with 1 year left on their deal in the offseason, especially if they don't want to commit to re-signing.

When guys have term left, like the first Chychrun trade they will command a premium.

Once guys have 1 year or less left, you're probably better off waiting until in the season like the Flames did here, because if they won't sign an extension you're probably better off waiting until closer to the deadline to try to get a bidding war between a couple teams.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

This is the problem the Flames ran into with Andersson this offseason TBH

Nobody wants to pay a premium for a player with 1 year left on their deal in the offseason, especially if they don't want to commit to re-signing.

When guys have term left, like the first Chychrun trade they will command a premium.

Once guys have 1 year or less left, you're probably better off waiting until in the season like the Flames did here, because if they won't sign an extension you're probably better off waiting until closer to the deadline to try to get a bidding war between a couple teams.

I agree with this. It seems like the worst time to trade the player is when the only teams interested are those who want an extension, but the player won't extend. So the value comes down, and the "rental market" has yet to develop.

With that said I think we are now entering the time of the season where that market should start to develop, particularly with how well he's playing.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Come on man ... you're better than that.

Someone suggested it's bad asset management to not trade Andersson at peak value.

I'm certainly discussing things by pointing out that we don't know when that is.

You replied with probably and likely proving my point.

We don't know.

So don't call something potentially poor asset management when we don't have a clue when that was.

I've never shut down discussion on this site, and you know that. I do call people for stating facts that aren't fact however.

Just my opinion but I feel like the people that are always positive about the Flames (Dino7C, GioForPM) don't seem to get the same reactions from you in terms of calling out facts or requiring proof of things that the people that are more questioning the Flames tactics get.

Roko actually never said it was a mistake and that they missed trading him at peak asset value.

Just that it would be a mistake not to deal him. He never put a timeline on it either in his initial post, but then added they should likely trade him before the Olympics to minimize injury risk (which has to be another concern that is factored in)

And he's right because it would be a mistake not to trade Andersson at peak asset value, and as of right now that peak asset value falls at some point between now and the deadline. We don't know when that is, but at the same time it's up to the Flames to generate that market and establish when that peak value is.

If Andersson is the premier rental d-man on the market, then they play a role in setting that market and dictating when peak value is.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Just my opinion but I feel like the people that are always positive about the Flames (Dino7C, GioForPM) don't seem to get the same reactions from you in terms of calling out facts or requiring proof of things that the people that are more questioning the Flames tactics get.

Certainly possible!

We all have our biases and I'm worn out from all the negative bitching lately. Has to be a trigger.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Roko actually never said it was a mistake and that they missed trading him at peak asset value.

Just that it would be a mistake not to deal him. He never put a timeline on it either in his initial post, but then added they should likely trade him before the Olympics to minimize injury risk (which has to be another concern that is factored in)

And he's right because it would be a mistake not to trade Andersson at peak asset value, and as of right now that peak asset value falls at some point between now and the deadline. We don't know when that is, but at the same time it's up to the Flames to generate that market and establish when that peak value is.

If Andersson is the premier rental d-man on the market, then they play a role in setting that market and dictating when peak value is.

So the trade him at peak value (which no one knows when that is or was) was just saying don't let a UFA walk?

Doesn't seem like much of a statement if that's the purpose.