2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I can appreciate that teams would value certain players more, but I still can't rationalize how even 3 Anderssons would be worth a 25 year old 6'3 forward with 2 40 goal and a 100 point season under his belt.

Well Anderson is only a few years older and is 50p man that plays the right side. LW is not a highly sought after position and often times LWs return less than RHD in trades. I'm sure you could rationalize it if you tried or cared to.

[Goriders]

How about

Coleman/Andersson to Dal for Robertson
Zary/1st rnd pick to Ana for McTavish

Left with

Huberdeau Kadri Coronato
Robertson McTavish Pospisil
Farabee Frost Sharangovich
Lomberg Backlund Klapka
Kirkland
Kerins

Weegar Hanley
Bahl Parekh
Kuznetsov Pachal
Bean

Wolf
Prosvetov

We get younger and some more firepower.

Defence needs a bit of work potentially

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Robertson isn’t getting moved.

Interesting. So who are they going to move then? They have to move some cap.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Interesting. So who are they going to move then? They have to move some cap.

I think they are OK for this season. The problem is next season when they have to re-sign Harley and Roberson. They can kick the can down the road if they want to.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Robertson isn’t getting moved.

If this is true, and I cannot confirm for certain… then I don’t know who or what they plan to move in a trade for Andersson who remains their #1 focus.

Never thought it would be 1 for 1 obviously but the two were definitely talked about in most trade scenarios I heard.
Very interesting development.

[GullFoss]

Lundell for Rasmus retained would be interesting. Would solve cap problems for Panthers and also shore up an area of weakness.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Lundell for Rasmus retained would be interesting. Would solve cap problems for Panthers and also shore up an area of weakness.

They can have Backlund too, so they have a 3rd line center.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Sec214

Robertson isn’t getting moved.

Dallas has to extend both Harley and Robertson. Robertson is said to be looking at Marner type money while Harley with be in the 8-9 million. Even with the cap going up that’s $20 million combined for 26/27 season.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

They can have Backlund too, so they have a 3rd line center.

For Lundell? I would.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What relevance does that last 30 years actually have?
You either believe the franchise is operating differently now or you don't.
But the 30 year thing gets tossed around way too much.

The team re-built under BT, and assembled a decent core. Mistakes were made, including trying to open the contention window early, but this idea that for 30 years the team has been operating in the same way is just not true.

Unless I misunderstand your point. But I don't think anyone is "fighting to keep things the same".

A great question. I'm a big believer that your culture is set from the top. That makes the last 30yrs very significant. After Darryl in 2004, I think there was a brief window where we had a GM that wasn't trying to just keep his job, he was truly trying to win.

BT had a bit of that mandate with the last rebuild, until he didn't and we couldn't rebuild again after our stars left. I also highlight that we're one of a few franchises that had our stars say no.

Bringing it back to my points with AG. He's got great research to counter R44's points. However, every change in direction has these types pop up, and in my experience they go two ways. They bring up excellent contrarian views and present a well thought out plan that equates to a different approach to the problem, or they're just going point by point countering, without presenting an alternative, which is of significantly less value.

My summary of the extremes of the two sides of the problem are, we have team tank that believes we need to acquire top talent with top 5 draft picks, and we have team retool that believes we need to acquire talent through lower draft picks, trade and free agency. For me and a lot of others on both sides the view on the Flames is that they lack young top line talent at the moment. For me the best way to acquire that top line talent in a timely manner is through the draft, then trade, and then through free agency. My logic is:

• Draft: You can draft more than one NHL player per year. Probability says 20% - 40% for the first round and then decreasing from there. If we looked at who scores most of the points in every draft it's concentrated at the top. Not for sure odds.
  
  Trade (two types): First I believe most GMs hug previous prices pretty closely and play around the edges of their teams, so your chance of having a big win in the trade market is significantly lower than the draft. Deals also take a long time, in general from the previous draft to the trade deadline is not uncommon.
  
  Futures trade - where one party sends an established player for picks / prospects. If you're on either side of this trade you're dealing known for unknown. Prices are pretty well established for the different roster positions. Big gains come from the "change of scenery" or the draft pick / prospect playing out.
  
  Player for player - established player for established player - big wins come when you're getting younger, or change of scenery.
  
  Free Agency - with the younger free agent age it has become more appealing, but to land a big name, you need a large over pay, which negates value or you need to be an appealing market from a championship, lifestyle or tax perspective. With that said the number of big win UFA signings over the past couple decades can be counted on your fingers and maybe your toes.
  

Looking at the above, any approach that doesn't involve picking high in the draft feels like a lower probability of success to me. Over the past 30yrs the team has shifted around their median strategy of "make the playoffs", but ultimately it's been a lot of the same from my view and we haven't committed to either a tank / draft / develop strategy or a ruthless retooling where we send out existing players for new established players. We're just in the middle, with a defense first team, low event, without high end players to market or watch. Now we all have different goals for the team, but fighting for what the Flames have been the last 30yrs, or even the last 3yrs is something I struggle with.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Dallas has to extend both Harley and Robertson. Robertson is said to be looking at Marner type money while Harley with be in the 8-9 million. Even with the cap going up that’s $20 million combined for 26/27 season.

They’re looking at having $28M in space right now, with almost all of their roster still locked up.

I think they can make both fit. I would guess the urge to trade Robertson was heavily based on signing Marner.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Lundell for Rasmus retained would be interesting. Would solve cap problems for Panthers and also shore up an area of weakness.

You'd have a better chance of getting Matthew Tkachuk back in a trade. Lundell ain't going anywhere.

[browntrout]

I don't get the appeal of acquiring Robertson, do we really need another 10 million plus winger, was the sting of Huberdeau not enough, very few teams if any have multiple wingers making this type money combined, would it not make sense to reserve that type cap space for a centre, or maybe don't make such a trade

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by browntrout

I don't get the appeal of acquiring Robertson, do we really need another 10 million plus winger, was the sting of Huberdeau not enough, very few teams if any have multiple wingers making this type money combined, would it not make sense to reserve that type cap space for a centre, or maybe don't make such a trade

I think the idea isn’t to just acquire Robertson. It’s to get a young potential 100 point player that we either keep for now, or leverage to get a center like Mctavish. There will likely be more teams willing to pay a premium for a young top line guy than a dman entering his 30s

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Lundell for Rasmus retained would be interesting. Would solve cap problems for Panthers and also shore up an area of weakness.

Interesting for who? Calgary? Lol.

Florida's D is already set. And why the hell would they even want Andersson when they've got Jones and Ekblad as their top 2 RD? They arguably have the best RD depth with those two.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by browntrout

I don't get the appeal of acquiring Robertson, do we really need another 10 million plus winger, was the sting of Huberdeau not enough, very few teams if any have multiple wingers making this type money combined, would it not make sense to reserve that type cap space for a centre, or maybe don't make such a trade

This is the Calgary Flames. It makes perfect sense to acquire an asset that will help keep us competitive enough to just miss playoffs, and ensure we never draft top 5 and acquire any elite centers!

I'm joking BTW, but yeah I don't see a fit either. I could see it if we had the elite prospects and we were a top line winger away from being a contender.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I'm joking BTW, but yeah I don't see a fit either. I could see it if we had the elite prospects and we were a top line winger away from being a contender.

Agree. I look forward to having this same conversation about Cutter Gauthier in 5yrs for our team.

Or maybe a 32yr old Kyrou.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

A great question. I'm a big believer that your culture is set from the top. That makes the last 30yrs very significant. After Darryl in 2004, I think there was a brief window where we had a GM that wasn't trying to just keep his job, he was truly trying to win.

BT had a bit of that mandate with the last rebuild, until he didn't and we couldn't rebuild again after our stars left. I also highlight that we're one of a few franchises that had our stars say no.

Bringing it back to my points with AG. He's got great research to counter R44's points. However, every change in direction has these types pop up, and in my experience they go two ways. They bring up excellent contrarian views and present a well thought out plan that equates to a different approach to the problem, or they're just going point by point countering, without presenting an alternative, which is of significantly less value.

My summary of the extremes of the two sides of the problem are, we have team tank that believes we need to acquire top talent with top 5 draft picks, and we have team retool that believes we need to acquire talent through lower draft picks, trade and free agency. For me and a lot of others on both sides the view on the Flames is that they lack young top line talent at the moment. For me the best way to acquire that top line talent in a timely manner is through the draft, then trade, and then through free agency. My logic is:

• Draft: You can draft more than one NHL player per year. Probability says 20% - 40% for the first round and then decreasing from there. If we looked at who scores most of the points in every draft it's concentrated at the top. Not for sure odds.
  
  Trade (two types): First I believe most GMs hug previous prices pretty closely and play around the edges of their teams, so your chance of having a big win in the trade market is significantly lower than the draft. Deals also take a long time, in general from the previous draft to the trade deadline is not uncommon.
  
  Futures trade - where one party sends an established player for picks / prospects. If you're on either side of this trade you're dealing known for unknown. Prices are pretty well established for the different roster positions. Big gains come from the "change of scenery" or the draft pick / prospect playing out.
  
  Player for player - established player for established player - big wins come when you're getting younger, or change of scenery.
  
  Free Agency - with the younger free agent age it has become more appealing, but to land a big name, you need a large over pay, which negates value or you need to be an appealing market from a championship, lifestyle or tax perspective. With that said the number of big win UFA signings over the past couple decades can be counted on your fingers and maybe your toes.
  

Looking at the above, any approach that doesn't involve picking high in the draft feels like a lower probability of success to me. Over the past 30yrs the team has shifted around their median strategy of "make the playoffs", but ultimately it's been a lot of the same from my view and we haven't committed to either a tank / draft / develop strategy or a ruthless retooling where we send out existing players for new established players. We're just in the middle, with a defense first team, low event, without high end players to market or watch. Now we all have different goals for the team, but fighting for what the Flames have been the last 30yrs, or even the last 3yrs is something I struggle with.

I cannot think of many teams that have purposely tanked more than the Flames have over the past two years beyond NYR in recent memory. The Rangers literally announced they were tanking. The Rangers did it for two years trading

1) miller and McDonough for a first, a 2nd and a former 1st from 18 months before the trade and a former 2nd from 18 months before the trade and a roster player
2) Nash for a 1st, a former 2nd from 18 months before the trade and two roster players
3) Grabner for a 2nd and a prospect
4) Holden for a 3rd
5) Hayes for a 1st
6) zuccarello for a 2nd and a 3rd.
7) mcQuad for a 4th.

So they traded 8 veteran assets and received 3 firsts, 3 2nds, 2 3rds and a 4th along with 4 prospects.

The non-tanking Flames traded 7 veteran assets over the exact same time period as the tanking Rangers and received

3 firsts
2 seconds
3 thirds
1 fourth
1 fifth

Plus 4 recently drafted prospects

Certainly appears to be very similar to the team that sent out a letter more or less declaring a tank (only time I can remember that ever happening).

So to me if a tanking team and a non tanking team are doing the same thing the wording of what they are doing seems to be semantics.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

So to me if a tanking team and a non tanking team are doing the same thing the wording of what they are doing seems to be semantics.

Yabbut, ya see…

The Rangers won the draft lottery twice, and picked #2 and #1 overall in consecutive years despite not finishing anywhere near last place.

So that's totally different! Therefore the Flames aren't tanking and will suck forever.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yabbut, ya see…

The Rangers won the draft lottery twice, and picked #2 and #1 overall in consecutive years despite not finishing anywhere near last place.

So that's totally different! Therefore the Flames aren't tanking and will suck forever.

Classic Flames luck. I don't trust the lottery luck even if the Flames are last place.