2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Read post 6225

Point is you can try and build a team with flawless trades and signings like Florida but even they needed high picks to land their top players. It's the easiest way to obtain them. So if Florida refused to get those picks they would never have a Cup. It's almost 100% a necessary part of building an elite team. So if the Flames refuse to do it they likely will never hoist a cup.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Point is you can try and build a team with flawless trades and signings like Florida but even they needed high picks to land their top players. It's the easiest way to obtain them. So if Florida refused to get those picks they would never have a Cup. It's almost 100% a necessary part of building an elite team. So if the Flames refuse to do it they likely will never hoist a cup *.

*again. They already did in 89.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The fact is, every team in the cap era (except Vegas and Seattle, which haven't been around long enough) has done a traditional rebuild, including the Flames. The Flames just never won a lottery, so they never picked higher than 4th in their rebuild.

Yet most of those rebuilding teams have not won a Cup.

Why don't people understand the concept of correlation? If you have a bin containing 30 black balls and two white balls and draw at random, of course most of the balls you draw will be black. If 30 out of 32 teams have done rebuilds, of course most of the Stanley Cup winners will be teams that have done rebuilds. It says absolutely nothing about causation one way or the other. The black balls didn't choose to be black so they would have a better chance of getting picked!

#1 is a fluke, I think everyone understands that.

Top 5, maybe top 3, is all a scorched earth rebuild can plan for, ideally more than one to get your anchor players.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The fact is, every team in the cap era (except Vegas and Seattle, which haven't been around long enough) has done a traditional rebuild, including the Flames. The Flames just never won a lottery, so they never picked higher than 4th in their rebuild.

Yet most of those rebuilding teams have not won a Cup.

Why don't people understand the concept of correlation? If you have a bin containing 30 black balls and two white balls and draw at random, of course most of the balls you draw will be black. If 30 out of 32 teams have done rebuilds, of course most of the Stanley Cup winners will be teams that have done rebuilds. It says absolutely nothing about causation one way or the other. The black balls didn't choose to be black so they would have a better chance of getting picked!

If you look at some of the best rebuilds, the actually have a lot in common with the current Flames build.

LA

2003 - 10 picks 3 1sts - D Brown & Brian Boyle best picks - no top 5
2004 - 9 picks 1 1st - no quality picks - no top 5
2005 - 9 picks 1 1st - Kopitar & Quick - no top 5
2006 - 9 picks 1 1st - Bernier & Lewis - no top 5
2007 - 10 picks 1 1st - Simmonds, A Martinez - 1 top 5 Hickey
2008 - 9 picks 2 1sts - Doughty - 1 Top 5 Doughty (Franchise Dman)
2009 - 10 picks 1 1st - Schenn - 1 Top 5 Schenn (Traded)

Rebuild over - picked top 5 3 times, got 1 franchise guy and traded 1 player with high end potential to acquire M Richards. 9 or 10 picks for 7 straight years.

Chicago

2001 - 13 picks - T Ruutu & C Anderson - no top 5 pick
2002 - 9 picks - Babchuk, Keith, Burish - no top 5 pick
2003 - 10 picks - Seabrook, Crawford, Byfuglien - no top 5 pick
2004 - 17 picks - Bolland, Bickell, Brouwer - 1 top 3 pick C Barker
2005 - 12 picks - Hjalmarsson - no top 5 pick
2006 - 9 picks - Toews - 1 top 5 pick Toews (Franchise Center)
2007 - 7 picks - Kane - 1 top 5 pick (Franchise Winger)

2008 rebuild over - 3 top 5 picks Toews and Kane and 1 bust in C Barker - traded to acquire Leddy. 7 years 77 picks.

Both teams started the rebuild without picking in the top 5. Both teams after drafting a ton of picks slowly had teams that slipped down the standings and got the top 5 pick. Good chance this happens to the Flames as very young teams with potential often lose more than they win, especially without a superstar.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

#1 is a fluke, I think everyone understands that.

Top 5, maybe top 3, is all a scorched earth rebuild can plan for, ideally more than one to get your anchor players.

2 of the best rebuilds had a deep farm system when they got their guys.

At some point the Flames will play more and more young players with potential and I think we will have 1 rough year and get a top pick.

If we trade Ras and bring in Parekh and Kuznetsov, is it not possible this team slips a fair number of games? IMO, they overachieved last year anyways.

If we struggle the 1st half of the season and sell Coleman, maybe we get a top 5 pick?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Drafted, traded and signed as a UFA.

Toronto's 3 best players were all drafted higher then any drafted player the Flames currently have, then supplemented with trades (not really) and a UFA signing of Tavares


Matthews 1OA
Marner 4OA
Nylander 8OA

We haven't picked a single player that high in the current rebuild. I am not sure how people think we will get to a contender without the home grown stars.

You don't need to tank per se - but you need top picks to get good an extremely large % of the time in this league

The last Flames rebuild had picks at 4-5-6 OA

We haven't had any (maybe 1 at 9OA) of these high picks.

It seems people want to skip this step and have Frost's and Farabees as the next generation of players. Or expect late first to all hit despite the fact they have a 10-15% chance historically

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Toronto's 3 best players were all drafted higher then an drafted player the Flames currently have, then supplemented with trades (not really) and a UFA signing of Tavares


Matthews 1OA
Marner 4OA
Nylander 8OA

We haven't picked a single player that high in the current rebuild.

Calgary has drafted higher than Nylander a few times and equal to Marner once. And they are losing Marner.

I see only forwards count as "best players" for you. How did they get Ekman-Larsson, Tanev and McCabe? How did they get their goalie?

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Does Florida win without Barkov though? You can say it's ONLY one player yet it's their best and most important player.

It also took a third overall to land Tkachuk.

Remove Barkov and Tkachuk and I'm pretty confident they don't win the Cup.

They don't win without Forsling or Bobrovsky, either.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Toronto's 3 best players were all drafted higher then any drafted player the Flames currently have, then supplemented with trades (not really) and a UFA signing of Tavares


Matthews 1OA
Marner 4OA
Nylander 8OA

We haven't picked a single player that high in the current rebuild. I am not sure how people think we will get to a contender without the home grown stars.
y

Once again, no one is saying this.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

2 of the best rebuilds had a deep farm system when they got their guys.

At some point the Flames will play more and more young players with potential and I think we will have 1 rough year and get a top pick.

If we trade Ras and bring in Parekh and Kuznetsov, is it not possible this team slips a fair number of games? IMO, they overachieved last year anyways.

If we struggle the 1st half of the season and sell Coleman, maybe we get a top 5 pick?

I think this is a distinct possibility.

I think it is worth acknowledging that the margin between good teams and bad is quite small. If the Flames make a few changes to their roster, Andersson seems inevitable, the back up position is not as strong as it was last year, a few tight games go the other way, the Flames could easily be in top 5 pick territory.

I’m not sure what the consternation is with team tank. The ship has been point in that direction for a least a year now.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

2 of the best rebuilds had a deep farm system when they got their guys.

At some point the Flames will play more and more young players with potential and I think we will have 1 rough year and get a top pick.

If we trade Ras and bring in Parekh and Kuznetsov, is it not possible this team slips a fair number of games? IMO, they overachieved last year anyways.

If we struggle the 1st half of the season and sell Coleman, maybe we get a top 5 pick?

This is exactly where I think the Flames can be. You have 24 kids drafted over the last 3 years. There is a lot to be excited for as the Flames more than likely also still get that top 10 pick in the next couple years. If they don't, then they are still adding multiple 1st round picks in the next few drafts to the prospect pool. Building a contender is about amassing and developing talent. I think it is too early to tell where the Flames land as it may take a couple years to see what comes out of the pile of picks.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by CFO

After the 2026 draft (another couple 1st round picks) the flames will essentially be year 3 into rebuild. Drafting 6 first round players in that span plus a ton of other young assets either drafted or acquired through trades. This team will look night/day different in 2 years from now.

Will they? Non top drafted players usually take a long time to make an impact.

Cornato was drafted 13th in 2021
Zary was drafted 24th in 2020

The Flames had 2 picks similar to these spots this season (Although worse)

Both the Cornato and Zary picks for their draft spot look like very good picks/successes and it's taken 4 and 5 years for them to make the lineup consistently / start to make impacts.

We are looking 3-5 years down the road for the guys we've been drafting to make an impact/reshape the team assuming they turn out - which is a big IF and statistically low probability

People also tend to overestimate the likelihood that their teams players will work out and how effective they will be.

This is a great article for showing the % of events by draft position (and also shows the huge difference between a top 2 pick being a superstar vs picks 3-4-5 OA historically

https://thehockeywriters.com/success...l-draft-picks/

To put into historical perspective the 32 OA pick only has a 18% chance to play 500 games (I would say an average career) and a 10% chance to play 750 games.

It is why they need to continue to get way more bullets (draft picks). An extra late 1st for 3 seasons in a row isn't even close to cutting it - especially if their other 1st round pick is landing in the mid 1st round.

To get an average NHLer at picks 25-32 (500 games) you are looking at ~25% , so you need 4 1sts to average 1 average player. In the 2nd round its 17%.

Even with great drafting and development a lot of the players the Flames have picked these last 2 years are never going to develop in all likelihood.

The Flames have not been running enough of a draft pick surplus IMO to be at the start of a rebuild. This combined with also not getting a top pick means the odds of finding stars in the draft is going to be low.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I think this is a distinct possibility.

I think it is worth acknowledging that the margin between good teams and bad is quite small. If the Flames make a few changes to their roster, Andersson seems inevitable, the back up position is not as strong as it was last year, a few tight games go the other way, the Flames could easily be in top 5 pick territory.

I’m not sure what the consternation is with team tank. The ship has been point in that direction for a least a year now.

My sense, and anyone can correct this if I'm mis-representing things, is that "team tank" wants to see the Flames more proactively strip the team down, by removing some of the well performing vets...both to maximize the return of those assets and so that their 1st can be a higher one, including to maximize the chances of landing McKenna this year.

I think that's basically it?

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The fact is, every team in the cap era (except Vegas and Seattle, which haven't been around long enough) has done a traditional rebuild, including the Flames. The Flames just never won a lottery, so they never picked higher than 4th in their rebuild.

Yet most of those rebuilding teams have not won a Cup.

Why don't people understand the concept of correlation? If you have a bin containing 30 black balls and two white balls and draw at random, of course most of the balls you draw will be black. If 30 out of 32 teams have done rebuilds, of course most of the Stanley Cup winners will be teams that have done rebuilds. It says absolutely nothing about causation one way or the other. The black balls didn't choose to be black so they would have a better chance of getting picked!

First, all I said is arguing against a rebuild because there are examples of rebuilds that didn't result in a cup is silly. Second, these aren't random unrelated points. Teams that won cups had elite talent. A lot of that elite talent was the result of drafting high and often during a rebuild.

We lack the elite talent needed to be a contender. The most probable way of getting that elite talent is in the draft. Having higher and more picks gives you a better chance of getting that elite talent. The fact that it isnt a guarantee of winning a cup doesnt change the fact that its our best chance of winning a cup.

[Sylvanfan]

I'd like to know what the Flames have done to try and improve the team over the past two seasons? Who did they sign to long term contracts as Free Agents, who did they bring in via trade? The team overachieved last year, and it's basically the second year of a rebuild.

If the team was to underachieve expected by 10 points instead of outkick that level of play like they did last year...they probably end up with 76 points and inside the top 5 bad teams.

As much as the Flames are going to claim it's a retool and they want to be better in two years...any real rebuild of a roster is going to be at least a 5 year project and closer to 8. If we're here next July and both picks in the 26 draft, the first in 27, and the other futures have been traded for immediate help, then sure people will have a legitimate gripe. But as of today, I think you need to have the patience that many fans claim they have for a rebuild...but don't seem to be excercising on this board because they have dreams of McKenna, Dupont, and two number one Centers picked in the top 5 being Flames within the next two years which is completely unrealistic.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

To put into historical perspective the 32 OA pick only has a 18% chance to play 500 games (I would say an average career) and a 10% chance to play 750 games.

I think that's way too high for average. 300 games is basically 4 seasons in the NHL, and that's more inline with Average. 500 would be more your journeyman type as it likely means the player was pro for close to 10 seasons.

But your point about the number of picks who do play that many games is definitely valid. Many people are flush full of optimism with picks from the past couple of years. 8 years down the road the number that end up playing 200 games for the Flames will most likely be a lot lower than what people think will happen today. In a way I think the Flames are laying a foundation to have a few good better than average support players to eventually take on the Journeyman roles. But at some point they'll need a couple guys picked higher to help a Parekh if they want to become an upper echelon team.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

My sense, and anyone can correct this if I'm mis-representing things, is that "team tank" wants to see the Flames more proactively strip the team down, by removing some of the well performing vets...both to maximize the return of those assets and so that their 1st can be a higher one, including to maximize the chances of landing McKenna this year.

I think that's basically it?

More or less.

Not all of the vets can move/will agree to moving right now, so that might sort itself by the deadline.

In the case of Ras, I've been of the mindset that a big part of moving him IS the ripple effect it should have on the team. I think there's an argument that he's perhaps the final domino that puts them down the rebuild path, so doing it this offseason is important to solidify that direction. Holding on to him until the deadline MAY maximize the return of him as an asset, but it may also prevent the team from being further along that rebuild path by the time the deadline comes, and perhaps even at the expense of a potentially 'better' draft position.

But, not making really any moves is a direction in itself, I won't argue otherwise. If the Flames were keen on making the playoffs this year and that's the mandate, more win now moves would have been made. A regression to what management expected, regardless of an outlier/overachievement of a season, might very well be the direction...and the other dominoes will fall just a little later than 'team tank' has pined for.

[really?]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

My sense, and anyone can correct this if I'm mis-representing things, is that "team tank" wants to see the Flames more proactively strip the team down, by removing some of the well performing vets...both to maximize the return of those assets and so that their 1st can be a higher one, including to maximize the chances of landing McKenna this year.

I think that's basically it?

Sounds like you’re on the track, but it seems to be a two sided coin. I hear some of what you’re saying, but I also hear a desire to avoid being two years down the road holding a hand of veteran players who have not achieved any post season success, and who would at the point likely be post peak value. Of course this rationale assumes that the Flames don’t make the playoffs over the course of a couple of seasons, but I hear this concern being as real in some posts as the sentiment to just give everyone over 30 a one way ticket to elsewhere in an effort to score some lottery windfall.

Other than the Frost/Farrabee deal the Flames have done little to nothing to suggest they aren’t future oriented, so there’s that, but there is a potential cost to simply remaining agnostic. If there has been no success over the next 2-3 years , and there are a number of veterans who are regressing I would imagine most on this board would question the team’s decisions.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Calgary has drafted higher than Nylander a few times and equal to Marner once. And they are losing Marner.

I see only forwards count as "best players" for you. How did they get Ekman-Larsson, Tanev and McCabe? How did they get their goalie?

Not during this rebuild... We aren't talking franchise history.

If the Flames draft 1 OA and 4OA in the next 2 years I would agree they have set them up for a good path forward/have good odds of coming out of the rebuild in a contenders path

And yes all of Toronto's best players are forwards. Its one of their main issues

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by really?

Sounds like you’re on the track, but it seems to be a two sided coin. I hear some of what you’re saying, but I also hear a desire to avoid being two years down the road holding a hand of veteran players who have not achieved any post season success, and who would at the point likely be post peak value. Of course this rationale assumes that the Flames don’t make the playoffs over the course of a couple of seasons, but I hear this concern being as real in some posts as the sentiment to just give everyone over 30 a one way ticket to elsewhere in an effort to score some lottery windfall.

I think the trading of the remaining vets will happen at the natural times. I understand the argument to just do it now, but I think it will happen over time in the following approximate order

Rasmus: Before the season or during the season
Backlund: Potentially this TDL, depending on team performance and his desire to be a Flame forever v. chase a cup.
Coleman: This TDL or next TDL
Kadri: After this upcoming season, when he moves to a modified NTC (13 team list so it's still pretty restrictive)
Huberdeau: I still don't think his contract is moveable. He's here for the long haul.
Weegar: No real sense in moving him. He's a stabilizing force across the team, and if Backlund moves on, probably the next captain.