2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Flamesfan05]

I am sure Dallas would love to have Coleman and or Pospilsil. They’ll give a boatload of picks and B/C prospects for them

I mean it took Rantanen to get their top prospects…

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Niemo

I agree on Pospisil. He's the type of player I try to hang onto. Seems like he can be a mini X Factor in the playoffs. We should be collecting that type unless he is the deal breaker on a true difference maker.

He was alsoa bit snakebitten last year. I thought he started the year on a tear at C with Huby and Mantha. He just got a bit lost with the switches between wing and center, and the coaches trying to tone his game down to reduce his penalty minutes. I expect a big year from Pospisil, love his work ethic, him taking Honzek under his wing, and the tenacity he brings.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Sofa GM

We should also be realistic that Andersson alone does not even get us close to acquiring Robertson.

Originally Posted by Royle9

Right, but with both teams interested (Dallas more so) in the other teams player, there’s a deal to be made somewhere.

I do wonder if Andersson moved triggers Coleman to also explore the idea, hometown boy who Dallas has had interest in for a few deadlines now. With that said Coleman is another guy who’s very committed to CGY but I could see him potentially going home in a scenario like this.

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Andersson + Coleman, 50 % and 25 % retained and Andy extended should carry some significant value; also speaks to why this negotiation seems to be dragging out. I’d love to get Bischel somehow as well but what else would the flames have to add to return a Robertson + Bischel?

I'd imagine Andersson 50% retained + Coleman 50% retained + a 1st round pick could potentially land Robertson. You guys are undervaluing what Robertson would go for if they trade him.

Like others have said though, This is the type of player you want to acquire about 3 years from now when you hopefully have an established core that's starting to contend. If we pay the high price to acquire plus sign him to a massive deal and his prime years are before we've got a solid playoff/contending team together then what are we doing?

[dissentowner]

If we are paying that for Robertson he better come with a long term commitment.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If we are paying that for Robertson he better come with a long term commitment.

He'll be a 26 year old RFA for his next contract after this season. His last three seasons have been 46, 29 and 35 goals, and 109, 80 and 80 point seasons. He's probably going to come it at $9-$10mil AAV if you want to sign him long term (whether it's at the time of the trade or later). To me there's just so much downside to trading for him compared to upside.

- You're not getting favorable years of contract, in fact you're under pressure right away to sign him to massive dollars

- He's on the extreme high end of Conroy's plan to look for under 25 players to acquire (I mean he's 25 when you acquire him, but 26 when he starts his major pay day contract that you MUST sign him to if you're expending assets to get him)

- You're expending huge assets to acquire him

- He's produced as a winger with great talent around him. He may or may not be able to produce the same in Calgary with lesser talent around him.

[HitterD]

Originally Posted by jayswin

- He's produced as a winger with great talent around him. He may or may not be able to produce the same in Calgary with lesser talent around him.

Great post overall. I would like to point out, that 3 seasons ago, he outscored his next closest teammate by 31 points. 2 seasons ago, 13 points. Last season he seemed to have a lot more support but he has shown he can be a top producer on teams with far less talent than last years stars team

I think he is more of a play driver than he is getting credit for by many. You don’t outscore your whole team by 31 points without driving play

[dino7c]

Robertson is less than 2 years older than Wolf...his age is being exaggerated a bit here. You would be getting most of his prime years and likely all good years.

Players are in better shape than ever, Marchand just signed until 43 and we are worried about 33 lol.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Robertson is less than 2 years older than Wolf...his age is being exaggerated a bit here. You would be getting most of his prime years and likely all good years.

Players are in better shape than ever, Marchand just signed until 43 and we are worried about 33 lol.

The Flames have Wolf, though. If they didn't, there would be a legitimate question whether he would be a good acquisition - at high cost - at this point on their retool.

[Ped]

[QUOTE=jayswin;9480596]H
- He's on the extreme high end of Conroy's plan to look for under 25 players to acquire (I mean he's 25 when you acquire him, but 26 when he starts his major pay day contract that you MUST sign him to if you're expending assets to get him)
QUOTE]



I think Rantanen showed it is possible to turn around and flip a player for some pretty good assets if you don't sign him.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Robertson is less than 2 years older than Wolf...his age is being exaggerated a bit here. You would be getting most of his prime years and likely all good years.

Players are in better shape than ever, Marchand just signed until 43 and we are worried about 33 lol.

Remember, we should not acquire anything other than prospects and picks. That way we can spend a good decade sucking the root.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Remember, we should not acquire anything other than prospects and picks. That way we can spend a good decade sucking the root.

Remember we are in a rebuild. So we shouldn't be trading prospects and picks for assets that help you win innediately.

If Robertson is available for Andersson absolutely do it. But he likely isnt available for the type of assets the Flames should be trading at this stage of a rebuild.

You might not agree, which is fine. But it isn't an unreasonable take. No need to be condescending.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by D as in David

The Flames have Wolf, though. If they didn't, there would be a legitimate question whether he would be a good acquisition - at high cost - at this point on their retool.

What?? You'd balk at acquiring a star goalie because the's the ripe old age of 24?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Remember, we should not acquire anything other than prospects and picks. That way we can spend a good decade sucking the root.

so stupid after a decent breakdown I provided. You may not agree but you two are insufferable when anyone doesnt agree with blind "always go for it" optimism with the Flames, lol.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I can’t believe some are opposed at the thought of acquiring Robertson.

Dude is one of the best wingers out there, and they’re not usually for sale. I still doubt that he’s available.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by D as in David

The Flames have Wolf, though. If they didn't, there would be a legitimate question whether he would be a good acquisition - at high cost - at this point on their retool.

Goalies often last well into their 30's.

You can's always say the same about position players.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

I can’t believe some are opposed at the thought of acquiring Robertson.

Dude is one of the best wingers out there, and they’re not usually for sale. I still doubt that he’s available.

If you can get him for Andersson you do it from an asset management POV. But I just don't think it's going to move the needle for the Flames, which would mean getting a #1C or a #1D.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

What?? You'd balk at acquiring a star goalie because the's the ripe old age of 24?

If I already have another 7 years remaining on a 32-year-old goaltender whom I'm paying an elite-level salary? A slightly underperforming one whom I'm unlikely to trade for the foreseeable future?

Yes, I'd have some questions about whether I should use my most valuable trade asset for him.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Saqe

If you can get him for Andersson you do it from an asset management POV. But I just don't think it's going to move the needle for the Flames, which would mean getting a #1C or a #1D.

It doesn’t hurt to see what is going on with Anaheim. I am convinced they haven’t signed McTavish yet because they probably want Gauthier to start playing as a center. McTavish would be a dream scenario if we could flip Robertson over for him straight up. Would be the one and only time McTavish could get an 8 year deal.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by D as in David

If I already have another 7 years remaining on a 32-year-old goaltender whom I'm paying an elite-level salary? A slightly underperforming one whom I'm unlikely to trade for the foreseeable future?

Yes, I'd have some questions about whether I should use my most valuable trade asset for him.

Moving goalposts much? How is Andersson Calgary's most valuable asset anyway?

[kehatch]

If you look at modern cup champions they have a group of elite stars that includes a minimum of 2 centers, 1 defense, and a scoring winger. A star goalie doesn’t hurt either. They are supported by very good players that including a 3C, a couple more D, etc. But it starts with those elite players.

The Flames just don't have those players. Wolf might have you covered in net. Maybe Parekh fills the 1D role at some point. Maybe Kadri can find the level he had in Colorado for another season, but at 34 he is running out of runway.

The Flames have too much uncertainty at some positions, and clear holes in others. You might be able to trade for Robertson and fill one hole, but at the cost of the assets you need to fill others. Plus, starting the clock now doesnt make sense given the other holes.

The Flames need to build via the draft. There isnt a magic shortcut that is going to make us anything better then mediocre. Especially in a non destination city. The exception might be if a player like McTavish is available. But starting with a winger doesn't make sense.