2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Gugstanley]

My view is simple if a veteran player can be traded or wants to be traded, move them as soon as the right value is there. I’d rather secure the assets now and start the rebuild than wait another one, two, or three years.
If guys like Kadri, Coleman, Weegar, or even Lomberg want out, then let’s get the draft picks or young assets and focus on building for the future. The longer we delay, the longer it’ll take to get back to playoff contention. This season’s already a loss, might as well maximize the draft position and reset properly.

Let’s stop being the same old Calgary Flames and actually build a team that can dominate.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by kehatch

The first is in 2027 and the second is in 2028. That hurts the value a fair bit. We will hopefully see what Whitecloud is worth, but I agree you probably get a second, assuming the Flames even trade him. I dont know enough about Wiebe, but in terms of value I don't think he is worth much, but hopefully I am wrong. The Flames used a retention spot to make the cap work, so it wasn't just Andersson going out.

It was decent value for a rental. The issue is he should have been traded a long time ago. The Flames keep holding on to players too long to try and stay competitive. It hurts the value of the trade, and it keeps us just good enough to get a middling pick.

They didn't say "equivalent of two 2026 first round picks"

They were well aware of the fact that half of the teams that would be looking at Andersson didn't have their 2026 first.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This idea that a pick in the future is worth less than a pick today is hogwash. People often try to equate it to the time value of money, but they are not at all alike. There is a real time value of money, because inflation erodes purchasing power. So a dollar tomorrow is worth less than a dollar today.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. An asset that becomes revenue-producing sooner than another has a greater net present value. For example, no one's buying a jersey with a name plate of "2029 2nd rounder" but Basha's will show up on one (hopefully) soon.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. An asset that becomes revenue-producing sooner than another has a greater net present value. For example, no one's buying a jersey with a name plate of "2029 2nd rounder" but Basha's will show up on one (hopefully) soon.

But every draft is different.

So the time value also has a variability of initial value.

So a 2026 1st would have more immediate value than a 2027 draft, but if 2027 is deeper or the team who acquired your asset has a worse year in 2027 than 2026 than the value of immediacy probably gets bested.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. An asset that becomes revenue-producing sooner than another has a greater net present value. For example, no one's buying a jersey with a name plate of "2029 2nd rounder" but Basha's will show up on one (hopefully) soon.

The revenue from merchandising is quite small compared to gate revenue and concessions, and what there is, unless sold through a team-owned outlet, is divided equally across the whole league. Unless you get a superstar with that pick, the money you're making from gear with his name on it is barely even a rounding error.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This idea that a pick in the future is worth less than a pick today is hogwash. People often try to equate it to the time value of money, but they are not at all alike. There is a real time value of money, because inflation erodes purchasing power. So a dollar tomorrow is worth less than a dollar today.

As for picks, every team drafts every year. There are only so many players available to be drafted each year, and some years have stronger draft pools than other years. Because of that, there is value in spreading picks over multiple years.

And specifically to 2027, it appears that it might be a deeper draft than 2026, and it is definitely stronger at C. So not only are the picks not less valuable, they might turn out to be more valuable.

Regarding waiting too long, it appears that the return was better than what they were seeing the prior year, so that would suggest that they did not wait too long, and actually improved the return by being patient.

If Conroy had the choice between a 2026 first and second vs a 2027 first and 2028 second which would he take? I think we both know it would be the 2026 picks. For the simple fact that the asset you draft with the pick is available one or two years sooner.

As for keeping Andersson resulting in a better return, that is unlikely. Andersson with term is worth more then Andersson without, especially given his value contract. Keeping him was also part of us finishing middle of the pack, giving our higher pick to Monahan, and reduced the teams interested to the ones that are likely going to be very competitive meaning the first we acquired is probably later. Trading players as rentals is rarely the best way to maximize a return.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But every draft is different.

So the time value also has a variability of initial value.

So a 2026 1st would have more immediate value than a 2027 draft, but if 2027 is deeper or the team who acquired your asset has a worse year in 2027 than 2026 than the value of immediacy probably gets bested.

Yes, but wouldn't the farther out a draft was, the greater the uncertainty of how good or bad it will be? Further devaluing a pick made later.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The revenue from merchandising is quite small compared to gate revenue and concessions, and what there is, unless sold through a team-owned outlet, is divided equally across the whole league. Unless you get a superstar with that pick, the money you're making from gear with his name on it is barely even a rounding error.

I used jerseys as a small example of future revenues because that was a clear example tied directly to a player. Wouldn't a star picked in this year's draft start creating additional ticket revenue sooner than a star picked three years from now? Don't teams draft players hoping they will increase revenues from making their team better or maintaining their team if they already are good?

[Calgary4LIfe]

it is funny to me reading some opinions on the last little while ranging from "the Flames aren't truly rebuilding" to "they waited too long and lost a lot of value in assets". There is a certain level of grumpiness and people generally being argumentative.

I think back tot he 2012-13 where Feaster announced the rebuild after trading Iginla and Bouwmeester, and though there was a certain amount of consternation about the lack of value in those trades, as well as the feeling that Calgary 'hung on to the assets for way too long", there seemed to be much more acceptance and universal excitement about what was happening. Anybody remember that time? LOADS of bickering right before the rebuild commenced, but it certainly feels like most posters were on the same page - most everyone was happy and excited.

Let's look at those moves under Feaster/Burke/Treliving:
Out - In
Iginla - Agostino, Hanowski, 1st round pick
Bouwmeester - Cundari, Berra, 1st round pick
Comeau - 5th round pick
4th round pick - Corban Knight
Tanguay, Sarich - Jones, O'Brien
4th round pick - Galiardi
5th round pick - Russell
4th round pick - Colborne
Horak, Brossoit - Smid, Roy
6th round pick - 6th round pick
6th round pick - Macdermid
Nemisz - Wetstgarth
Stempniak - 3rd round pick
3rd round pick - Bollig
Knight - Shore
2nd + 3rd round pick - Glencross
Baertschi - 2nd round pick
1st, 2nd, 2nd - Dougie Hamilton

Really go through that list of trades, and note how few actual assets were gained over that time span. Note the timeline too: I chose to start it at the Iginla trade (Flames were buying up until that point) - March 27, 2013 - and ran it to the Hamilton acquisition where I think the flip got switched to 'compete now' - June 26, 2015. Some trades were really good, no question. Some were bad. LOTS of them went against the grain of a rebuild, and were much more of a retool or of a 'hockey-trade' nature.

What Conroy has done has been so much better and more thorough than the last rebuild. Sutter didn't leave Feaster with any ugly contracts either - say what you will about Sutter, but he didn't leave a mess behind, regardless of what you thought of his tenure as a GM. Treliving left a bunch of upcoming UFAs that had to be dealt with in a hurry, plus a very large contract, a first round pick that had so many conditions on it that did come to bite Conroy in the butt (it was the highest pick last season that Calgary parted with).


I like to think of it this way- what Conroy has been doing since he became GM is what Sutter should have started after the 2009-10 season. Conroy has acquired way more assets so far in this rebuild, and hasn't made weird trades trying to acquire players to fill holes - like TJ Galiardi (lol).


Conroy could have just did the easy think like Feaster did and tried to run it back, by stating that it was simply too much change in the core, and a personality clash with Sutter and the players, etc.,. but that the 'answers are in that room'. Instead, he essentially didn't negotiate with players (like Lindholm, Toffoli, Zadorov) and if he did, he stuck to this guns respective to dollars and terms, and simply started selling right away.


I think the Flames are ahead of the curve in terms of bringing in young assets than they were at the 2013 time-frame - much further ahead. The Flames only had a single year when they drafted more than once in the first round of that rebuild era (and they drafted 3 times in one draft). Grdin has already vastly out-produced Emilie Poirier + Morgan Klimchuk combined. Parekh is way further ahead of Brodie at their respective ages (and this is coming from a big fan of Brodie and what I thought he meant to this team).


I am not thumbing my nose at anyone, or calling anyone out for their posts. It is just surprising how much different the overall feelings are now on these boards given the respective timelines. Yes, people complained about the trades that Feaster made and how poor value they were, but generally, everyone was more or less excited about the rebuild. Lots of arguments leading up to the rebuild in the 2010-13 seasons, but it really seemed to change once the rebuild was announced, even through the blunder of moves moving out picks for replacement level players (and a LOT of those).


I guess in retrospect, I just find it a little strange that there is so much arguing and negativity still happening. I am super excited for more rumours about players on the market, and then to see more trades. I am super excited about the upcoming few drafts, and of seeing the new kids start their NHL careers. Sure, the Flames are losing, and that sucks, no question. I just see so much reason for optimism, that's all. I am very excited to see what is just around the corner.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

it is funny to me reading some opinions on the last little while ranging from "the Flames aren't truly rebuilding" to "they waited too long and lost a lot of value in assets". There is a certain level of grumpiness and people generally being argumentative.

I think back tot he 2012-13 where Feaster announced the rebuild after trading Iginla and Bouwmeester, and though there was a certain amount of consternation about the lack of value in those trades, as well as the feeling that Calgary 'hung on to the assets for way too long", there seemed to be much more acceptance and universal excitement about what was happening. Anybody remember that time? LOADS of bickering right before the rebuild commenced, but it certainly feels like most posters were on the same page - most everyone was happy and excited.

Let's look at those moves under Feaster/Burke/Treliving:
Out - In
Iginla - Agostino, Hanowski, 1st round pick
Bouwmeester - Cundari, Berra, 1st round pick
Comeau - 5th round pick
4th round pick - Corban Knight
Tanguay, Sarich - Jones, O'Brien
4th round pick - Galiardi
5th round pick - Russell
4th round pick - Colborne
Horak, Brossoit - Smid, Roy
6th round pick - 6th round pick
6th round pick - Macdermid
Nemisz - Wetstgarth
Stempniak - 3rd round pick
3rd round pick - Bollig
Knight - Shore
2nd + 3rd round pick - Glencross
Baertschi - 2nd round pick
1st, 2nd, 2nd - Dougie Hamilton

Really go through that list of trades, and note how few actual assets were gained over that time span. Note the timeline too: I chose to start it at the Iginla trade (Flames were buying up until that point) - March 27, 2013 - and ran it to the Hamilton acquisition where I think the flip got switched to 'compete now' - June 26, 2015. Some trades were really good, no question. Some were bad. LOTS of them went against the grain of a rebuild, and were much more of a retool or of a 'hockey-trade' nature.

What Conroy has done has been so much better and more thorough than the last rebuild. Sutter didn't leave Feaster with any ugly contracts either - say what you will about Sutter, but he didn't leave a mess behind, regardless of what you thought of his tenure as a GM. Treliving left a bunch of upcoming UFAs that had to be dealt with in a hurry, plus a very large contract, a first round pick that had so many conditions on it that did come to bite Conroy in the butt (it was the highest pick last season that Calgary parted with).


I like to think of it this way- what Conroy has been doing since he became GM is what Sutter should have started after the 2009-10 season. Conroy has acquired way more assets so far in this rebuild, and hasn't made weird trades trying to acquire players to fill holes - like TJ Galiardi (lol).


Conroy could have just did the easy think like Feaster did and tried to run it back, by stating that it was simply too much change in the core, and a personality clash with Sutter and the players, etc.,. but that the 'answers are in that room'. Instead, he essentially didn't negotiate with players (like Lindholm, Toffoli, Zadorov) and if he did, he stuck to this guns respective to dollars and terms, and simply started selling right away.


I think the Flames are ahead of the curve in terms of bringing in young assets than they were at the 2013 time-frame - much further ahead. The Flames only had a single year when they drafted more than once in the first round of that rebuild era (and they drafted 3 times in one draft). Grdin has already vastly out-produced Emilie Poirier + Morgan Klimchuk combined. Parekh is way further ahead of Brodie at their respective ages (and this is coming from a big fan of Brodie and what I thought he meant to this team).


I am not thumbing my nose at anyone, or calling anyone out for their posts. It is just surprising how much different the overall feelings are now on these boards given the respective timelines. Yes, people complained about the trades that Feaster made and how poor value they were, but generally, everyone was more or less excited about the rebuild. Lots of arguments leading up to the rebuild in the 2010-13 seasons, but it really seemed to change once the rebuild was announced, even through the blunder of moves moving out picks for replacement level players (and a LOT of those).


I guess in retrospect, I just find it a little strange that there is so much arguing and negativity still happening. I am super excited for more rumours about players on the market, and then to see more trades. I am super excited about the upcoming few drafts, and of seeing the new kids start their NHL careers. Sure, the Flames are losing, and that sucks, no question. I just see so much reason for optimism, that's all. I am very excited to see what is just around the corner.

This is well thought out.

The treliving era always seemed like we were living life on credit cards constantly borrowing. For me the last vestiges i had of belief in him went out the door with the Monahan trade.

As a flames fan since the 80’s i have never seen the team have so many assets with possibly and probably more on the way.

I cant ever recall ever having half a dozen youngsters in the line up. A respected prospect base and after a couple of years of having multiple picks we have a couple of more years of multiple first round picks? I mean this is unheard of for this team?

I fully respect what Conny has done but i also think the next year and what he does is critical.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Yes, but wouldn't the farther out a draft was, the greater the uncertainty of how good or bad it will be? Further devaluing a pick made later.

Uncertainty is actually an advantage when trading with contenders. You know their picks this year will be late in the round, but in future years they really have nowhere to go but up.

I used jerseys as a small example of future revenues because that was a clear example tied directly to a player. Wouldn't a star picked in this year's draft start creating additional ticket revenue sooner than a star picked three years from now? Don't teams draft players hoping they will increase revenues from making their team better or maintaining their team if they already are good?

What drives ticket revenue is a winning team. There have been in-depth studies on this – it’s one of the principles behind the Moneyball approach that has completely taken over in baseball. With rare exceptions, winning teams elevate their players to stardom, and with no exceptions at all, teams draw better when they’re good.

There is a positive advantage to delaying picks so that the team will have a longer asset-building period (since one non-playoff team draws about as well as another), and then maximizing the length and quality of the competitive window after. The big profits come from selling playoff tickets at astronomical prices. There’s a monetary cost to improving too little, too soon.

No team goes into a rebuild voluntarily, but once you’re there, it’s essential to take maximum advantage of it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. An asset that becomes revenue-producing sooner than another has a greater net present value. For example, no one's buying a jersey with a name plate of "2029 2nd rounder" but Basha's will show up on one (hopefully) soon.

That's only true if both assets have the same long-term revenue generating potential.

Mark Jankowski was the Flames' 2012 first round pick. By the time he played his first NHL game, the Flames' 2013, 2014, and 2016 first round picks were all established NHL players.

[Finger Cookin]

This talk of revenue generation and net present value would be dull even if we were talking about building a retirement portfolio. Which, last I checked, is different than building a competitive team of hockey players. I think we've gone beyond any meaningful use of this players=assets metaphor.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Yes, but wouldn't the farther out a draft was, the greater the uncertainty of how good or bad it will be? Further devaluing a pick made later.



I used jerseys as a small example of future revenues because that was a clear example tied directly to a player. Wouldn't a star picked in this year's draft start creating additional ticket revenue sooner than a star picked three years from now? Don't teams draft players hoping they will increase revenues from making their team better or maintaining their team if they already are good?

Chances are that a 2027 second rounder might beat a 2026 second rounder to the NHL anyway. Random example: Kavin Bahl made it to the NHL the same year as the guy drafted in his spot one year later.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

This talk of revenue generation and net present value would be dull even if we were talking about building a retirement portfolio. Which, last I checked, is different than building a competitive team of hockey players. I think we've gone beyond any meaningful use of this players=assets metaphor.

It's not a metaphor. In case you missed it, professional hockey is a business.

If you find it dull, don't read it.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's not a metaphor. In case you missed it, professional hockey is a business.

If you find it dull, don't read it.

Yes it's a business. Where success is measured in championships. Not ROI. Where success happens on the ice. Not in a spreadsheet.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Yes it's a business. Where success is measured in championships. Not ROI.

Wrong. A given team can expect to win three championships per century. Nobody would ever go into business for that.

It's about the ROI. The business consists in selling hope to fans so they will pay ridiculous prices for tickets and choose to identify themselves with a team of total strangers. The existence of the championship gives the fans something to hope for, and therefore helps the league hoover money out of their pockets… but it's not what the business is about.

If the business of hockey was simply about the Stanley Cup, it would never have expanded beyond six teams. Every team added reduces the odds of winning.

[Finger Cookin]

You're missing my point. So you win. Respect to the always online and detatched from reality crowd.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This idea that a pick in the future is worth less than a pick today is hogwash. People often try to equate it to the time value of money, but they are not at all alike. There is a real time value of money, because inflation erodes purchasing power. So a dollar tomorrow is worth less than a dollar today.

The same works with draft picks as they are an asset that has a finite shelf life and the value changes each year. Take the Hanifin trade. We should have gone for a draft pick in the 2024 draft, as we pretty much knew what the picks would look like. the variability and change after the deadline is minimal so you kind of know what you're getting. That pick from Vegas would have been 19th, the pick used for Trevor Connolly, or gone for the next available center, Michael Hage. But somehow McCrimmon talked Conroy in skipping the 2024 pick, and then also the 2025 pick, which was used to acquire Hertl and was the 26th pick, and have the Flames take the 2026 1st. The Knights got substantially stronger with the additions of Hanifin and Hertl, and then of course adding Marner, which has made the 2026 pick likely to be even weaker. That has made the value of the picks much worse as they have moved in the wrong direction. Oh, and we let the Knights have a couple seasons to use Hanifin before they ultimately have to pay up? They're playing with the Flames' house money. Must be nice,

As for picks, every team drafts every year. There are only so many players available to be drafted each year, and some years have stronger draft pools than other years. Because of that, there is value in spreading picks over multiple years.

And there is value in getting earlier picks and not kicking them down the road where the team that has to give up those picks has time to get stronger by make other additions, like Hertl and Marner. You should be targeting the best picks possible and go in with certainty.

And specifically to 2027, it appears that it might be a deeper draft than 2026, and it is definitely stronger at C. So not only are the picks not less valuable, they might turn out to be more valuable.

Only if they are earlier picks. Just because there are more of one type of player does not mean the pick is going to be better. A pick will only be better if the pick is earlier and you hit on a player.

Regarding waiting too long, it appears that the return was better than what they were seeing the prior year, so that would suggest that they did not wait too long, and actually improved the return by being patient.

Conroy got the price he wanted. I just think his ask was flawed. Going in and saying I want two 1sts and not being particular is kind of dumb. Teams that have had successful rebuilds through the draft have done so by clustering their picks over a period of two or three years. Spreading them over five drafts feeds into the Edwards narrative of rebuilds taking too long and the team floundering. Considering we heard they were targeting having those players ready for the opening of the new barn, a bunch of picks in 2027 and 2028 doesn't seem to meet that window. I would have preferred that he get the picks in the immediate draft when you have more certainty and don't drag these things out.

[Flamescuprun2018]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

it is funny to me reading some opinions on the last little while ranging from "the Flames aren't truly rebuilding" to "they waited too long and lost a lot of value in assets". There is a certain level of grumpiness and people generally being argumentative.

I think back tot he 2012-13 where Feaster announced the rebuild after trading Iginla and Bouwmeester, and though there was a certain amount of consternation about the lack of value in those trades, as well as the feeling that Calgary 'hung on to the assets for way too long", there seemed to be much more acceptance and universal excitement about what was happening. Anybody remember that time? LOADS of bickering right before the rebuild commenced, but it certainly feels like most posters were on the same page - most everyone was happy and excited.

Let's look at those moves under Feaster/Burke/Treliving:
Out - In
Iginla - Agostino, Hanowski, 1st round pick
Bouwmeester - Cundari, Berra, 1st round pick
Comeau - 5th round pick
4th round pick - Corban Knight
Tanguay, Sarich - Jones, O'Brien
4th round pick - Galiardi
5th round pick - Russell
4th round pick - Colborne
Horak, Brossoit - Smid, Roy
6th round pick - 6th round pick
6th round pick - Macdermid
Nemisz - Wetstgarth
Stempniak - 3rd round pick
3rd round pick - Bollig
Knight - Shore
2nd + 3rd round pick - Glencross
Baertschi - 2nd round pick
1st, 2nd, 2nd - Dougie Hamilton

Really go through that list of trades, and note how few actual assets were gained over that time span. Note the timeline too: I chose to start it at the Iginla trade (Flames were buying up until that point) - March 27, 2013 - and ran it to the Hamilton acquisition where I think the flip got switched to 'compete now' - June 26, 2015. Some trades were really good, no question. Some were bad. LOTS of them went against the grain of a rebuild, and were much more of a retool or of a 'hockey-trade' nature.

What Conroy has done has been so much better and more thorough than the last rebuild. Sutter didn't leave Feaster with any ugly contracts either - say what you will about Sutter, but he didn't leave a mess behind, regardless of what you thought of his tenure as a GM. Treliving left a bunch of upcoming UFAs that had to be dealt with in a hurry, plus a very large contract, a first round pick that had so many conditions on it that did come to bite Conroy in the butt (it was the highest pick last season that Calgary parted with).


I like to think of it this way- what Conroy has been doing since he became GM is what Sutter should have started after the 2009-10 season. Conroy has acquired way more assets so far in this rebuild, and hasn't made weird trades trying to acquire players to fill holes - like TJ Galiardi (lol).


Conroy could have just did the easy think like Feaster did and tried to run it back, by stating that it was simply too much change in the core, and a personality clash with Sutter and the players, etc.,. but that the 'answers are in that room'. Instead, he essentially didn't negotiate with players (like Lindholm, Toffoli, Zadorov) and if he did, he stuck to this guns respective to dollars and terms, and simply started selling right away.


I think the Flames are ahead of the curve in terms of bringing in young assets than they were at the 2013 time-frame - much further ahead. The Flames only had a single year when they drafted more than once in the first round of that rebuild era (and they drafted 3 times in one draft). Grdin has already vastly out-produced Emilie Poirier + Morgan Klimchuk combined. Parekh is way further ahead of Brodie at their respective ages (and this is coming from a big fan of Brodie and what I thought he meant to this team).


I am not thumbing my nose at anyone, or calling anyone out for their posts. It is just surprising how much different the overall feelings are now on these boards given the respective timelines. Yes, people complained about the trades that Feaster made and how poor value they were, but generally, everyone was more or less excited about the rebuild. Lots of arguments leading up to the rebuild in the 2010-13 seasons, but it really seemed to change once the rebuild was announced, even through the blunder of moves moving out picks for replacement level players (and a LOT of those).


I guess in retrospect, I just find it a little strange that there is so much arguing and negativity still happening. I am super excited for more rumours about players on the market, and then to see more trades. I am super excited about the upcoming few drafts, and of seeing the new kids start their NHL careers. Sure, the Flames are losing, and that sucks, no question. I just see so much reason for optimism, that's all. I am very excited to see what is just around the corner.

Great post thank-you! Puts things is much better perspective for sure. Most of the those trades did nothing to improve the prospect pool and many don't even look like rebuild trades.

[transplant99]

Hey rumour thread.....you have become a