2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Does that mean we get Kyle Bukauskas?

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Kyle Bukauskas taking the Calgary job?

That would be good for us.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Buff

That would be good for us.

Nah

[Tbull8]

Would that take Kyle off of 32 thoughts? I dont love his chemistry with Friedman, but he seems like a good guy

[Toonage]

^ No, its a Rogers property too

[Ba'alzamon]

Are people still pushing that "Flames tried to sign Lindholm but he said no" nonsense? That's not what happened. The Flames were open to signing him, but not at the number he wanted.

Lindholm didn't say no. The Flames did.

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by Toonage

^ No, its a Rogers property too

In that case, maybe there will be some more flames talk on the pod! Looking for the positives

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Pronman has always had some interesting takes but if he sees the Flames pipeline as mostly non-stars and depth then it’s a fair rating. I also don’t think he is as high on Parekh as others.

We will need some pleasant surprises in the forward picks or some bad seasons to get a chance at some stars in the forwards

I don't really mind his rankings this go around as Calgary's system is strong with potential, with a lot of late first to mid-draft high upside picks, but beyond Parekh, they don't have the flashy guaranteed blue chip guys that tends to drive these lists.

The only real head scratcher for me is how he keeps putting the Blues' system above the Flames (I think it's because he's always a little lower on Coronato than he should be), but there's an argument for every other team being above Calgary's.

I still would only trade Calgary's prospect pipeline with maybe seven other teams, as I think the aggregate potential of this system is huge with a lot of guys that may not have the buzz but are probably going to turn out -- and I believe Reschny is going to be a very good 1C when he develops.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

‘Make good asset management decisions.’

All we have to do is the one thing this team has been bad at for a few generations now.

Flames never really have a plan, that or they don’t stick to it, because for every 4 correct things they do (big or small) they will always do or try to do one really bad thing.

Even CC had his near miss, trying to sign Elias and Noah. That mistake failed because the other party backed out, not because of some realization on CC’s part.

This team will always be mid, and will never figure it out, and we just have to be happy with that. It’s better than no hockey team.

You're not going to drag me into that pit.

I don't see teams in generations, I see them in current and past eras and don't connect the dots to keep myself upset and depressed at all times.

Conroy has made some great moves when it comes to asset management. I think setting a price and not budging is asset management, even when you don't sign the player.

But your way is fun too! (bolded)

[Dx54]

It'll probably be Brendan Parker next

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Pronman has always had some interesting takes but if he sees the Flames pipeline as mostly non-stars and depth then it’s a fair rating. I also don’t think he is as high on Parekh as others.

We will need some pleasant surprises in the forward picks or some bad seasons to get a chance at some stars in the forwards

This is what I said in the other thread where this was brought up:

Yeah it's surprising to have them so low. The only element I can think of is if teams above them have more roster players <23.

I don't think Pronman has a bias against the Flames, but I do think he has skewed away from the types of players the Flames have drafted. I think you see that represented in the Canes as well (ranked lower than the Flames, but widely considered to have a good prospect base).

My observation is that Pronman has over-corrected. There was a time where he was really high on smaller skilled players, including dmen. And now he's swung back where he seems to really challenge if those players can make it. It's also a constant debate between him and Wheeler.

[Rhett44]

I thought Lindholm and Hanifin did say no to the Flames. Even if it was because we didn't offer enough, the fact we offered them a contract in the first place says alot.

Conroy has done a lot of good things though. But Lindholm and Hanifin kind of saved us from ourselves as well.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This is what I said in the other thread where this was brought up:

Yeah it's surprising to have them so low. The only element I can think of is if teams above them have more roster players <23.

I don't think Pronman has a bias against the Flames, but I do think he has skewed away from the types of players the Flames have drafted. I think you see that represented in the Canes as well (ranked lower than the Flames, but widely considered to have a good prospect base).

My observation is that Pronman has over-corrected. There was a time where he was really high on smaller skilled players, including dmen. And now he's swung back where he seems to really challenge if those players can make it. It's also a constant debate between him and Wheeler.

Yeah he even labeled Coronato as "middle of the lineup player" despite his breakout last season.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

It's just not a prospect pool as it includes players 22 and under who have played NHL games, regardless of how many.

So Coronato was included.

But if you included players 23-25, it doesn't move the needle. You would include guys like Bahl and Zary, but most teams would have similar inclusions

I think Calgary's prospect pool is fine, where they lack skill is more at the NHL level where their best players are for the most part older players.

Calagry is lacking elite younger players which is why they are in the middle.

What they really need is for some of those good prospects to become very good NHL players. A few surprises that turn out elite would fit the bill.

Dustin Wolf is 24 and just got nominated for the Calder.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I thought Lindholm and Hanifin did say no to the Flames. Even if it was because we didn't offer enough, the fact we offered them a contract in the first place says alot.

Conroy has done a lot of good things though. But Lindholm and Hanifin kind of saved us from ourselves as well.

Lindholm they never budged again and the player knew it was over.

Hanifin for sure, they tried and tried, they wanted him which they should have at his age and skill set.

But keeping players is asset management too.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I thought Lindholm and Hanifin did say no to the Flames. Even if it was because we didn't offer enough, the fact we offered them a contract in the first place says alot.

Conroy has done a lot of good things though. But Lindholm and Hanifin kind of saved us from ourselves as well.

How did Hanifin save them? For a guy his age and abilities he was worth trying to sign, particularly given the return they ultimately got for him.

[Jiri Hrdina]

An example of an alternative view.
https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/ra...pool-from-1-32

They have the Flames 10th, but the key difference is this it's a prospect ranking v. a <23 ranking. This means players with 50 or fewer games.

That's why you see the Flames 17th on the Pronman list.

When you look at the teams ahead of Calgary you have teams like:

CBJ: Fantilli included in Pronman's evalution.
Detroit: You would have guys like Kasper and Simon Edvisson
Utah: Would include Cooley, Guenther, etc.
Seattle: Would include Wright

There's probably half a dozen teams that are above the Flames largely because they have young roster talent. That's the big difference here.

[Strange Brew]

I thought Pronman has historically valued offensive minded defensemen very high, do I have that right? Wouldn't he value Parekh in that scenario?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I thought Pronman has historically valued offensive minded defensemen very high, do I have that right? Wouldn't he value Parekh in that scenario?

Historically yes, but I think he got burned by being wrong about many of them, which is part of the over correction I think he has made.
For instance, he was never as high on Hutson as Wheeler was. And one of his common expressed concerns about offensive minded dmen is "can they defend well enough to play big minutes".

Again I might be wrong, but I listen to all their pod casts and consume all their articles, and in general, I've noticed a shift in Pronman's approach in the last few years.

Not saying it's right/wrong, or good/bad. I've always said I enjoy the different POVs, but it is interesting to think about how some of this plays into the material they produce.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Dx54

It'll probably be Brendan Parker next

Not a fan

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I thought Pronman has historically valued offensive minded defensemen very high, do I have that right? Wouldn't he value Parekh in that scenario?

He's been a little lower on Parekh -- had him at 37 for under 23 prospects this past January (Buium was 8th/Dickinson was 15th), which again drops Calgary down his board.