2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Maybe if we can trade Vegas 1st with protection? Not sure if we can top 10 protect another team's 1st without offering up our first if the pick is retained. Too risky.

I think Anaheim should give the Stars a 2nd and it might even out here. Robertson vs McTavish is pretty even IMO. Flames keep Vegas 1st.

To Stars: Andersson, Coleman (both 50% retained)
To Ducks: Robertson, Pospisil, 2nd Ana 2027
To Flames: McTavish

I don’t think that is near enough. Flames need to give some young future based assets to get a piece like McTavish. I would love your deal but I can’t see it working

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Maybe if we can trade Vegas 1st with protection? Not sure if we can top 10 protect another team's 1st without offering up our first if the pick is retained. Too risky.

I think Anaheim should give the Stars a 2nd and it might even out here. Robertson vs McTavish is pretty even IMO. Flames keep Vegas 1st.

To Stars: Andersson, Coleman (both 50% retained)
To Ducks: Robertson, Pospisil, 2nd Ana 2027
To Flames: McTavish

Personally I don't think the Ducks should be getting Robertson+. Robertson is the best player in this trade.

Robertson for McTavish seems pretty fair. It's the Stars that would need the add ons.

To Stars: Andersson , Coleman (50% retained), 2026 Flames 2nd
To Ducks: Robertson
To Flames: McTavish, Dumba (Cap Dump)

Probably still need a bit more going to Dallas - but that would save them $4.5M while adding a playoff tested winger and a top pairing RH dman.

It would also have to be contingent on Robertson and Andersson both being willing to re-sign with the Ducks and Stars respectively...which makes it tough too (although that's home for Robertson so probably not an issue).

[FanSince'01]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I don’t think that is near enough. Flames need to give some young future based assets to get a piece like McTavish. I would love your deal but I can’t see it working

Why though? Ducks are getting Robertson in that deal who is, right now, the best player of all the players that would be moving.

This is why the 3 way deal works: Ducks probably want either a top prospect or good young player for McTavish if they trade him. Stars need to get rid of his cap hit and reportedly want Andersson. Flames get the young centre they've been looking for.

Win-win-win

Edit: I like SuperMatt's deal better and think it's more fair for all sides

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by FanSince'01

Why though? Ducks are getting Robertson in that deal who is, right now, the best player of all the players that would be moving.

This is why the 3 way deal works: Ducks probably want either a top prospect or good young player for McTavish if they trade him. Stars need to get rid of his cap hit and reportedly want Andersson. Flames get the young centre they've been looking for.

Win-win-win

Edit: I like SuperMatt's deal better and think it's more fair for all sides

I do think the major pieces (Andersson, Robertson and Mcatavish) are a good fit for each team. So I think it’s a smart 3 team trade. It’s the extra pieces that would need to be fine tuned. Overall, I think those extra pieces make sense. Calgary is giving up the lowest value core piece (Andersson) and I think McTavish and Robertson are probably pretty close in value. I would hope Coleman and Posposil should be enough to offset the value sigference between Robertson/Mctavish and Andersson. Would not want to give up a 1st round pick.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by FanSince'01

Why though? Ducks are getting Robertson in that deal who is, right now, the best player of all the players that would be moving.

This is why the 3 way deal works: Ducks probably want either a top prospect or good young player for McTavish if they trade him. Stars need to get rid of his cap hit and reportedly want Andersson. Flames get the young centre they've been looking for.

Win-win-win

Edit: I like SuperMatt's deal better and think it's more fair for all sides

I would love to see a comparable trade where a team used a 29 year old with one year left and a 33 year old with 2 years left to get a top 3 pick coming out of ELC.

My deal had Dallas getting the Vegas 1st in a year they don’t have one. They give up the best player and get only aged veterans and cap space in return?

[Geeoff]

I was trying to work out a 3-way deal where Flames get Bowen Byram and Vegas gets Andersson but it is tough because all the guys I wanted to move to Buffalo like Blake Coleman or Sharangovich have trade protection and I think Buffalo is not gonna be looking for picks and prospects

[Andrew]

Some of these proposals are embarassing

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Sec214

"Leo" Carlson?

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Some of these proposals are embarassing

At this point how are we getting more than the Hanafin deal? If he starts camp as a Flame, isn't the Hanafin deal the blueprint?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

At this point how are we getting more than the Hanafin deal? If he starts camp as a Flame, isn't the Hanafin deal the blueprint?

Depends on a lot of factors. The risk of trading him after the season starts is the values can really change based on the market.

I think at that point you have to treat Rasmus as a rental and compare those offers v. whatever Vegas will give up for a re-signed Rasmus.

The rental market can generate really good returns some years (last year) and really poor returns other years (the year before) and it's a little hard to predict. So that's the risk you are taking.

But I also don't think we can say the return would only be similar to the Hanifin deal because we've seen rental deals where the return was quite a bit better.

[FanSince'01]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I would love to see a comparable trade where a team used a 29 year old with one year left and a 33 year old with 2 years left to get a top 3 pick coming out of ELC.

My deal had Dallas getting the Vegas 1st in a year they don’t have one. They give up the best player and get only aged veterans and cap space in return?

I do agree that the value is a little skewed in our favour but if all parties are happy, then I don't see why we would need to add a whole bunch more like a significant prospect or 1st round pick. Maybe a second or something like that. Anaheim also probably should add something going to Dallas given McTavish for Robertson straight up seems off value-wise.

I get that Dallas would be giving up Robertson as the best player and getting back Andersson and Coleman, but if those are the players they want and they also want to get rid of Robertson (reportedly) then it's probably fair value for them. Assuming Andersson comes with an extension.

It'd be a top 4 d-man and a top 9 winger who are both built for the playoffs, which seems like the direction Dallas wants to go in. Again, technically not enough value for Robertson but if the desire to offload him for cap space is a real thing, then they aren't going to get full value back.

It's a different matter if Dallas isn't actually looking to offload Robertson, in which case, I would agree more would need to be added. But hypothetically saying that this is the situation and it's closer to fair value.

[Ped]

Christian Fischer retires


https://www.tsn.ca/christian-fischer...sons-1.2331496

[Roof-Daddy]

If a "blow your socks off return" for Ras with an extension to LA was a 1st and a couple 2nds, I'd imagine all CC can get for him right now would be a 2026 lottery protected 1st and maybe a 3rd or some obscure prospect equivalent to Miromanov.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I would love to see a comparable trade where a team used a 29 year old with one year left and a 33 year old with 2 years left to get a top 3 pick coming out of ELC.

My deal had Dallas getting the Vegas 1st in a year they don’t have one. They give up the best player and get only aged veterans and cap space in return?

Matthew Tkachuk is pretty close... I don't know if I should laugh or cry

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by traptor

Matthew Tkachuk is pretty close... I don't know if I should laugh or cry

McTavish doesn’t have arb rights and the leverage that Tkachuk had to force his way out in a year if the Flames didn’t act. The Ducks have a lot of control in this situation

[traptor]

The Rasmus situation will probably fall somewhere with the range of the other returns we've had in Lindholm, Hanifin and Markstrom. It is feeling very Hanifin-esque though.


All those returns included a 1st + a worse roster player with some potential.
The roster player quality varied from Miromanov < Kuzmenko < Bahl.

Then obviously the lindholm deal had alot of addons.

Using these previous deals as frameworks:

Stars:

Bad deal (Hanifin equivalent): 2027 1st + Oscar Back

Better deal (Lindholm equivalent): 2027 1st + Bourque/Bischel + Dumba + 2nd



Golden Knights:

Bad deal (Hanifin equivalent): 2027 1st + Schwindt ()/Holtz?(feels like with Holtz this wouldn't be terrible)

Better deal (Lindholm equivalent): 2027 1st + Connelly/Ihs-Wozniak + Lauzon + Cataford

[Bingo Jr.]

If Mctavish is actually available, I don't know why he would be, you have to back the Brinks truck up for him.

[Toonage]

Zegras and Gibson trades had been percolating for what felt like forever but with Q in as coach I can’t see the Ducks gutting their roster more than they have.

[Tbull8]

Seattle now has
Beniers
Stephenson
Catton
O’Brien
Wright

Down the middle. Someone’s getting moved soon enough

[Flames67]

Assuming Sec has been sworn to secrecy?