2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Jason14h was referring to players the Flames currently have in regard to drafting.

I know, but as an example of tanking to somehow create success, it shows that having a similar run as Toronto doesn't guarantee anything. Just look at 2013, when Calgary truly was bad, and was divesting Jaybo, etc.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

If the Flames tanked for the next 2 years, you're looking at a minimum of 6 years from today to even get into the playoffs. Wolf is then 30, soon due for another contract, and seriously thinking if he can win anything here.

.

Who are you afraid of the Flames trading that would havehad any impact on the team in 3 years

Kadri ? Coleman ? Backlund ? UFA Anderson who looks like he isn’t signing

Would not having Shags and Frost in 3 years be the difference between Wolf staying and leaving (both would be gone /not acquired in my ideal world)

Our best players are going to get worse no matter what we do because they are OLD! There is no option to avoid that situation

This isn’t trading Cornato and Weegar and (well that’s really all we have for an established long term core)

Waiting 5 years for 32 overall picks to have a 15% chance to become a 500 games played nhl career isn’t going to convince wolf to stay either when he’s 30!

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think people are underestimating the timeline of even an optimistic time-to-recovery after a couple of seasons of tanking.

Look at the Sharks. I think it's fair to say people are excited about the prospects they have drafted from being bad/tanking. San Jose last made the playoffs in 2019, and were 8th in the pacific in 2019-2020. So they're already about 6 years into their tank, and likely not seeing their first playoff taste for another 3/4 years. They were still 40+ points outside of a playoff spot last year.

Next year they're what, 15-20 points out at best? And the following year? We know from the Red Wings trajectory that you can be right around that line without making it for a few years. Then you get into the playoffs and figure out that's a different beast on top of it.

If the Flames tanked for the next 2 years, you're looking at a minimum of 6 years from today to even get into the playoffs. Wolf is then 30, soon due for another contract, and seriously thinking if he can win anything here.

It's easy to discount the timeframe because we're not emotionally following those other teams year in and year out. It seems like San Jose is looking all exciting now because we're just tuning in, but it's pretty much been misery for 6 straight years.

That's bad.

Oh, and if the tank does 'work' for San Jose and they miraculously win a cup in the next 6 or so years, then it likely means that the tank didn't work for another poster child of tanking in the west: Chicago.

And in San Jose's case they didn't really tank or do what people are asking the Flames which is trade all their vets over night.

Look at the 18-19 roster:"

Burns - Traded July 13 2022
Hertl - Traded March 8 2024
Couture - LTIRetired
Meier - Traded Feb 26 2023
Pavelski - Left as UFA (2019)
Thornton - Left as UFA (2020)
Karlsson - Traded Aug 6 2023
Vlasic - Buyout (2025)
Kane - Released (2019)
Lebanc - Left as UFA (2024)
Donskoi - Left as UFA (2019)

Jones - Left as UFA
Dell - Left as UFA

It took the Sharks 5 seasons (2019 to 2024) to tear down most of the remaining pieces from their prior playoff team, doesn't just happen overnight.

And they didn't initially plan to tank...they traded for Karlsson and Kane in 2018, and then 18 months later were moving on from veterans because they just sucked.

And it's funny people use the Sharks as the example, because actually the Flames traded more pieces in their re-building effort than the Sharks did (Lindholm, Hanifin, Tanev, Markstrom, Toffoli, Mangiapane, Zadorov vs Meier, Hertl, Karlsson, Burns)

What the Sharks were able to do this past season though was acquire guys like Walman, Blackwood, and Granlund that they acquired as cap dumps, but then turned them into 1st / 2nd round picks.

Personally think that's kind of what has alluded the Flames to this point more than not tearing down the old roster fast enough.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

And in San Jose's case they didn't really tank or do what people are asking the Flames which is trade all their vets over night.

Look at the 18-19 roster:"

Burns - Traded July 13 2022
Hertl - Traded March 8 2024
Couture - LTIRetired
Meier - Traded Feb 26 2023
Pavelski - Left as UFA (2019)
Thornton - Left as UFA (2020)
Karlsson - Traded Aug 6 2023
Vlasic - Buyout (2025)
Kane - Released (2019)
Lebanc - Left as UFA (2024)
Donskoi - Left as UFA (2019)

Jones - Left as UFA
Dell - Left as UFA

It took the Sharks 5 seasons (2019 to 2024) to tear down most of the remaining pieces from their prior playoff team, doesn't just happen overnight.

And they didn't initially plan to tank...they traded for Karlsson and Kane in 2018, and then 18 months later were moving on from veterans because they just sucked.

And it's funny people use the Sharks as the example, because actually the Flames traded more pieces in their re-building effort than the Sharks did (Lindholm, Hanifin, Tanev, Markstrom, Toffoli, Mangiapane, Zadorov vs Meier, Hertl, Karlsson, Burns)

What the Sharks were able to do this past season though was acquire guys like Walman, Blackwood, and Granlund that they acquired as cap dumps, but then turned them into 1st / 2nd round picks.

Personally think that's kind of what has alluded the Flames to this point more than not tearing down the old roster fast enough.

1. I haven't seen anyone say we should emulate the Sharks tear down. In fact they waited WAY to long to tear down and it's one of the reasons it's taken so long. People are saying look at the prospect base they are exiting their rebuild with and thats what the Flames need to aspire too/what we will be competing with

2. They couldn't trade Burns - He's the Huberdeau. Lets see if we eventually can move Huberdeau

2b. They couldn't trade EK until his surprise season and moved him ASAP after that

3. Meier is 28. Hertl is 31. In 18/19 they were 22 and 25. No one (i have seen) is asking the Flames to trade Cornato and Zary for futures to tank. They did that after they got into years 4/5 and realized they are years away still and holding players that will be post apex when you start competing is silly and might cost you the top draft pick / best lottery chance and guaranteed top 3.

SJ has missed playoffs for 6 years. Flames 3. SJ should be coming out of their rebuild and start upswinging next year. Flames should be aiming to come out of their rebuild in ~3 years and on to upswing into the new building.

So the issue is SJ got some elite prospects in years 4-5-6 of the rebuild/missing playoffs.

If the Flames were to get three elite prospects the next few seasons they would be looking fantastic in 3 years for potential. If they get some 13-14-15th overall picks they will have a pretty weak looking roster and guys like Cornato will start approaching the age that SJ decided to trade Meier and Hertl...

[The Yen Man]

Yup, Mantha could have fit that mould, but he was hurt before we could potentially get any value for him at the deadline. That's just how the Flames always lucked out though.

I'll say this. When the Flames win the cup next time around, it won't be because lady luck gifted them anything. I'd argue Flames have probably the worst off ice hockey luck in the league.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Who are you afraid of the Flames trading that would havehad any impact on the team in 3 years

Kadri ? Coleman ? Backlund ? UFA Anderson who looks like he isn’t signing

Why are you afraid to frame your question in a reasonable way that is rooted in logic and facts? This is not about other people's fears and emotions but you have to go straight to those angles to disconnect from reality.

Lots of people like the idea of trading Kadri but almost everyone posting here acknowledge the fact that he has a full NMC and cannot be traded unless he wants to be. The 3-4 of you who cannot accept that fact just keep beating the drum in dumber and dumber ways to try to demean everyone into your way of thinking.

Do you think you have convinced anyone that Kadri can be traded without his permission? I think the answer is solidly "No". Maybe you should accept the fact and move on.

[Jason14h]

Question : For the non tank crowd / or slower rebuild/retool crowd -

What is the argument for keeping Coleman, Backlund, Kadri (for arguments assuming he was willing to go or once his trade protection changes) , Andersson and Weegar ?

Outside of Weegar non of these players will be on the team/have any real impact when the Flames expect to compete

1. You think the Flames will compete in the next 3 seasons and we need these guys?
2. You believe the culture will fall apart if we trade them?
3. You're worried we become Buffalo for... reasons? But these guys will be old, retired or off the team anyways so not sure how they can impact that. Its the next generation that will.
EDIT 4. You believe these players will appreciate in trade value over the next few years?

I am genuinely curious how any of the over 30 guys or UFA Andersson have any impact on the Flames 3 years from now and a help create a better team in 3 years time?

[Jiri Hrdina]

I'm not arguing to keep them. I'm arguing to continue to move those players out when it makes sense.

Coleman: Perfect guy to move at a TDL more than a off-season.
Backlund: Also TDL guy
Kadri: If he didn't have the trade protection I would be in favor of evaluating what you could get for him. But he does have it so instead assess moving him when it becomes modified next off-season.
Andersson: In favor of moving.
Weegar: Probably the guy I keep to mentor the young dmen coming in the pipeline. Perfect for that.

Is anyone actually arguing to keep those guys long-term?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

1. I haven't seen anyone say we should emulate the Sharks tear down. In fact they waited WAY to long to tear down and it's one of the reasons it's taken so long. People are saying look at the prospect base they are exiting their rebuild with and thats what the Flames need to aspire too/what we will be competing with

2. They couldn't trade Burns - He's the Huberdeau. Lets see if we eventually can move Huberdeau

2b. They couldn't trade EK until his surprise season and moved him ASAP after that

3. Meier is 28. Hertl is 31. In 18/19 they were 22 and 25. No one (i have seen) is asking the Flames to trade Cornato and Zary for futures to tank. They did that after they got into years 4/5 and realized they are years away still and holding players that will be post apex when you start competing is silly and might cost you the top draft pick / best lottery chance and guaranteed top 3.

SJ has missed playoffs for 6 years. Flames 3. SJ should be coming out of their rebuild and start upswinging next year. Flames should be aiming to come out of their rebuild in ~3 years and on to upswing into the new building.

So the issue is SJ got some elite prospects in years 4-5-6 of the rebuild/missing playoffs.

If the Flames were to get three elite prospects the next few seasons they would be looking fantastic in 3 years for potential. If they get some 13-14-15th overall picks they will have a pretty weak looking roster and guys like Cornato will start approaching the age that SJ decided to trade Meier and Hertl...

But you're looking at outcome and not process.

My point is people point to teams like San Jose and Chicago and say "Flames should do what they did and bottom out"

But that actually ignores how that happened. Those teams ended up being bad due to mismanagement (trades like the Karlsson and Jones trades, not by design). You could argue the Flames actually did more to bottom out and get a high pick than both Chicago and San Jose did. But it just didn't work out in reality because they weren't nearly as mismanaged as those teams were prior to the "tear down".

Flames have traded veterans (more roster turnover than any team in recent memory, stayed out of the UFA market, and played youngsters over the last two seasons. They tried to do exactly what the "be bad and get high picks" crowd wants them to do. And actually probably did it more aggressively than San Jose and Chicago did.

All the team can do is control the inputs - and that's what they've done - they've tried to build a team that's in the lottery. You can't trade the entire roster overnight, there is no precident for that in the NHL, but they've made more moves than most teams to try to get younger and gain picks.

But things like some veterans aging better than expected, and pieces like Wolf, Coronato, etc contributing more than expected kept them out of the bottom 5. You can't really control that.

Tough part now though is you can't guarantee them being bad, and then also is going to annoy ultra competitive guys like Wolf who don't want to finish last in the league. So you have to be more strategic about how your build goes from here on out.

Everyone would love pieces like Celebrini, Smith, Misa, and Dickinson, there is no denying that. But it's not as easy as just saying "trade everyone and be bad", because that doesn't guarantee you end up where San Jose is either.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Question : For the non tank crowd / or slower rebuild/retool crowd -

What is the argument for keeping Coleman, Backlund, Kadri (for arguments assuming he was willing to go or once his trade protection changes) , Andersson and Weegar ?

Outside of Weegar non of these players will be on the team/have any real impact when the Flames expect to compete

1. You think the Flames will compete in the next 3 seasons and we need these guys?
2. You believe the culture will fall apart if we trade them?
3. You're scared we become Buffalo for... reasons? But these guys will be old, retired or off the team anyways so not sure how they can impact that. Its the next generation that will.

I am genuinely curious how any of the over 30 guys or UFA Andersson have any impact on the Flames 3 years from now and a better team in 3 years time?

I don't see anyone arguing to keep these players. It is simply a case of timing and patience.

1) Coleman - probably traded as early as this deadline (but sooner or later)
2) Backlund - up to him, if he wants to be a lifetime Flame, I don't see how anybody can be upset with that. If he wants to be traded, he will be.
3) Kadri - his NMC softens in a year, at which point he is likely traded
4) Andersson - if not traded this summer, will be gone by the deadline
5) Weegar - that guy to keep to be a leader and anchor of the D

They are almost certainly going to all be gone 3 years from now (Weegar exc), so what are you even arguing, and who are you arguing with?

It seems to me that the people that are doing the most posting on this topic are the people who seem to think everyone needs to be traded by Thursday, or else - obviously - management 'just wants to get in the playoffs;'.

Show some patience

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Question : For the non tank crowd / or slower rebuild/retool crowd -

What is the argument for keeping Coleman, Backlund, Kadri (for arguments assuming he was willing to go or once his trade protection changes) , Andersson and Weegar ?

Outside of Weegar non of these players will be on the team/have any real impact when the Flames expect to compete

1. You think the Flames will compete in the next 3 seasons and we need these guys?
2. You believe the culture will fall apart if we trade them?
3. You're worried we become Buffalo for... reasons? But these guys will be old, retired or off the team anyways so not sure how they can impact that. Its the next generation that will.
EDIT 4. You believe these players will appreciate in trade value over the next few years?

I am genuinely curious how any of the over 30 guys or UFA Andersson have any impact on the Flames 3 years from now and a help create a better team in 3 years time?

Reasons why you don't sell everyone: You can't flood the market. There are better and worse times to trade some (Coleman and Backlund are deadline guys). Sometimes they are more tradeable if you extend to a reasonable amount (this is the case with Backlund, and would be with Andersson if he signed for something nice).

[dissentowner]

You need 3 key pieces to be a consistent contender for a SC. You need a consistent good goalie, you need a true #1 D man, and you need a #1 centre. The Flames have a young elite goalie and at worst an elite #1 D man who might just end up generational in Wolf and Parekh. The Flames have an excellent prospect pool of good young wingers and d men. The only piece this team needs is an impact #1 C. That's it. They don't need to tear it down to the studs, they don't need 10 years of drafting in the top 5, they need one young impact centre. Getting that player without finishing bottom 5 and drafting him is the tricky part and I just don't see this roster being that bad anytime soon. So you need to wait for a chance to parlay those many prospects and picks into that player. It is the only realistic way it's happening.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

I'd classify myself in the 'retool' category. Mostly, because of Wolf. Maybe Parekh. That could be '2 of 3' key positional game changers. Obviously, the center position is missing. My thoughts below.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Question : For the non tank crowd / or slower rebuild/retool crowd -

What is the argument for keeping Coleman, Backlund, Kadri (for arguments assuming he was willing to go or once his trade protection changes) , Andersson and Weegar ?

Outside of Weegar non of these players will be on the team/have any real impact when the Flames expect to compete

1. You think the Flames will compete in the next 3 seasons and we need these guys? They outperformed expectations by about 15 points last year (Pinder pointed that out based on pre-season odds). There will be no split in goal tending this year. Wolf is clear cut #1. If he performs as I think he can, the Flames can indeed compete. It can go the other way as well. Wolf can have the sophomore slump as well. Then we're a lottery team. But, I am a huge believer in Wolf so expect to be in a similar postion as last year. That's why I think they will compete. I think we need some of the veterans to aid in this, yes. You look at the teams with their young stars and they are now bringing in veteran presences to help them. We already have that.
2. You believe the culture will fall apart if we trade them? No, not fall apart. Another year, year and a half of continuity while the team reforms with younger players is beneficial I believe. In saying that, I 100% expect/want Andersson to be traded soon. And, if this season reverts to where odds makers think the Flames should be, I suspect Kadri, Coleman and Backlund could be gone on by the deadline as well.
3. You're worried we become Buffalo for... reasons? But these guys will be old, retired or off the team anyways so not sure how they can impact that. Its the next generation that will. I have never related our situation to Buffalo
EDIT 4. You believe these players will appreciate in trade value over the next few years? Obviously not. Players don't appreciate as they get older. I think a guy like Kadri will maintain value over the next 2 years though. Coleman as well.

I am genuinely curious how any of the over 30 guys or UFA Andersson have any impact on the Flames 3 years from now and a better team in 3 years time? There are a boatload of over 30 guys who positively impact the teams they play for. Andersson will be traded. Lomberg is on his last year. We're talking 5 out of 23 guys (at most) on this roster for the start of the 2026 season who are over 30

[The Cobra]

[QUOTE=Flames Fan, Ph.D.;9484853]I
If the Flames tanked for the next 2 years, you're looking at a minimum of 6 years from today to even get into the playoffs. Wolf is then 30, soon due for another contract, and seriously thinking if he can win anything here.

./QUOTE]

I think that if the Flames don't tank now, there road to being a contender actually increases, as they'll lose their veterans in the coming years and get nothing for them, plus they'll decrease the odds of getting getter draft picks.

The Flames plan is likely to result in a much longer road to contention.

SJ and Chiago have two of the best prospect pools in the NHL. As bad as they are, and they are still bad, but there is some light for both teams coming out of the rebuild tunnel. They are closer to contending than the Flames IMO.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Having a strong prospect pool means jack **** if it's not helping you make the playoffs. Just ask Buffalo how that's gone.

I'd rather slowly build the prospect pool (currently a top 10 one) AND still trying to make the playoffs on an annual basis. Some people really don't get how good of a position Calgary has been in since Conroy's been at the helm.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You need 3 key pieces to be a consistent contender for a SC. You need a consistent good goalie, you need a true #1 D man, and you need a #1 centre. The Flames have a young elite goalie and at worst an elite #1 D man who might just end up generational in Wolf and Parekh. The Flames have an excellent prospect pool of good young wingers and d men. The only piece this team needs is an impact #1 C. That's it. They don't need to tear it down to the studs, they don't need 10 years of drafting in the top 5, they need one young impact centre. Getting that player without finishing bottom 5 and drafting him is the tricky part and I just don't see this roster being that bad anytime soon. So you need to wait for a chance to parlay those many prospects and picks into that player. It is the only realistic way it's happening.

Well said good sir!

I feel much the same.
Weegar is one of the better defenders in the league.
Kadri is playing at first line levels in spite of age.
Huby is a top six so is scoronato. Sharky should be a top six i think he really struggled to return from injury. Frost will be better next year.
At camp next year we could have as many as 8 or 9 guys pushing for nhl jobs.

To me the center problem is everything. Kadri is playing well but aging, and their is a big gap between him and frost, who struggled sfter being traded and Backs who also is aging.
Just using him as an example but adding someone like a mctavish completely changes the lineup.

Mctavish …….. Kadri
Kadri …….. Backs
Frost …….. Frost
Backs …….. Warm body or maybe zary

One is a legitimate threat the other is some years will be better than others.

Get something that approximates a number one center it completely changes how the team looks.

If Andersson goes and a first is involved i say you throw the kitchen sink at acquiring a center under cc’s parameters. If it costs a first and griddin and mews or more. Do it.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'm not arguing to keep them. I'm arguing to continue to move those players out when it makes sense.

Coleman: Perfect guy to move at a TDL more than a off-season.
Backlund: Also TDL guy
Kadri: If he didn't have the trade protection I would be in favor of evaluating what you could get for him. But he does have it so instead assess moving him when it becomes modified next off-season.
Andersson: In favor of moving.
Weegar: Probably the guy I keep to mentor the young dmen coming in the pipeline. Perfect for that.

Is anyone actually arguing to keep those guys long-term?

So you are pro tear it down to the studs? Just slowly? Because these are the moves the "pro-tank" team is asking for and getting called pro-tank and tear to the studs.

This is where i get very confused. People say they aren't pro tank/tear it down but then are pro trade all the guys who make up our core. Just do it slowly/over multiple seasons.

This is where i can't see the why, except fear of the team culture. (which is fine if that's the reason, i think its just a reason more based in fear of "becoming Buffalo" "

These are old players we are discussing. They can drop off a cliff at any time. So keeping them (Even for last year) in a lose/lose to me

They perform well and hold their value - teams does better - team gets mid pick (or like last year loses a top 10 protected 1st for a 32 overall)

They perform poorly because age catches up to them, team does poorly and gets a better pick, but their value is lower?

I guess we could have a situation where they play great, Wolf stinks, and we have a bad record and they hold their value. But thats not a good outcome either.

So other then some definition of 'culture' that is impossible to truly define either way, what was the benefit of keeping these guys last year, this year, etc if we know they don't have a place on the team even medium term? But agree they should all be traded ?

I fail to see any benefit that is worth the multiple risks unless we think we are making the playoffs - But then you dont trade them at all...

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

So you are pro tear it down to the studs? Just slowly? Because these are the moves the "pro-tank" team is asking for and getting called pro-tank and tear to the studs.

This is where i get very confused. People say they aren't pro tank/tear it down but then are pro trade all the guys who make up our core. Just do it slowly/over multiple seasons.

This is where i can't see the why, except fear of the team culture. (which is fine if that's the reason, i think its just a reason more based in fear of "becoming Buffalo" "

These are old players we are discussing. They can drop off a cliff at any time. So keeping them (Even for last year) in a lose/lose to me

They perform well and hold their value - teams does better - team gets mid pick (or like last year loses a top 10 protected 1st for a 32 overall)

They perform poorly because age catches up to them, team does poorly and gets a better pick, but their value is lower?

I guess we could have a situation where they play great, Wolf stinks, and we have a bad record and they hold their value. But thats not a good outcome either.

So other then some definition of 'culture' that is impossible to truly define either way, what was the benefit of keeping these guys last year, this year, etc if we know they don't have a place on the team even medium term? But agree they should all be traded ?

I fail to see any benefit that is worth the multiple risks unless we think we are making the playoffs - But then you dont trade them at all...

I just think it more than likely that you will get x% more players developing and being part of the future of the team (and x% better for a handful of players individually) by retaining some culture and direction.

I personally don't think they are wrong to keep "some" veterans.

Who and how many is the issue as discussed before.

It's certainly not a simple recipe like "keep 3 guys over 30 at all times"

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

So you are pro tear it down to the studs? Just slowly? Because these are the moves the "pro-tank" team is asking for and getting called pro-tank and tear to the studs.

The difference to me is people who want to tear it down to specifically sink in the standings, absent other considerations.


This is where i get very confused. People say they aren't pro tank/tear it down but then are pro trade all the guys who make up our core. Just do it slowly/over multiple seasons.

Originally Posted by Jason14h

This is where i can't see the why, except fear of the team culture. (which is fine if that's the reason, i think its just a reason more based in fear of "becoming Buffalo" "

The additional reasons are where there is a lack of ability to move a player (Kadri) and/or where I think there is better timing to maximize return (Coleman).

[iloveicedhockey]

Oh wow, four pages since I last checked; perhaps one of the insiders has posted a rumour (or gif)......