2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Good point but I wouldn't trade McKenna.
You are talking about a Patrick Kane, Nikita Kucherov quality of player.

Agreed.

If you do end up with a McKenna, do you need an elite 1C, or can you still win with a 1B Lindholm/Langkow type?

Flames history would suggest no but both the Iggy and Gaudreau era’s (let’s call it) will also have had different supporting casts. In other words, if you added McKenna to this version of the Flames, is there a path to the cup? I’d say, yes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Agreed.

If you do end up with a McKenna, do you need an elite 1C, or can you still win with a 1B Lindholm/Langkow type?

Flames history would suggest no but both the Iggy and Gaudreau era’s (let’s call it) will also have had different supporting casts. In other words, if you added McKenna to this version of the Flames, is there a path to the cup? I’d say, yes.

There are a few teams currently or recently built around wings up front: Caps, Bolts, Vegas, Minnie, Ottawa, Preds, Jets.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by FleeceGang

If we win the lottery then there is definitely an elite center to be had with the pick. Flames would just have to trade it. I feel like half the league would back the truck up for Mckenna.

Whoever gets McKenna is not going to trade him. Period
End of discussion.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Maybe not the thread for it but the Athletic posted their Flames preview

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/664...eason-preview/

Some interesting insights. Projecting the Flames to fall off from last year with an 80 point season, good for 24th overall. Best case scenario, 94 points and worst case 69.

Particular point of interest is an unnamed NHL executive saying (paraphrasing) that Wolf is almost a problem for the Flames because he makes them look more competitive than they actually are, similar to Price for the Habs and Lundquist for the Rangers. He says ‘I don’t think Calgary is very good and Wolf is fooling them’. If there is an executive in the league that knows how a goalie can make your team better than it is, that should be Conroy.

I don’t think I would ever choose to cheer for the Flames to lose but if they get off to a terrible start, trade Anderson and Kadri/Coleman, I won’t be caught complaining.

They Athletic doesn't know anything about the Flames they are mostly Oiler fanboys and don't even have anyone who follows the Flames...best case scenario is worse than last season lol. Wolf was very good but Vladar had a .898 and was over .500 Team is better than outsiders think and ZP is a freaking star.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dino7c

They Athletic doesn't know anything about the Flames they are mostly Oiler fanboys and don't even have anyone who follows the Flames...best case scenario is worse than last season lol. Wolf was very good but Vladar had a .898 and was over .500 Team is better than outsiders think and ZP is a freaking star.

It's the Athletic, not Canadian coverage as they are certainly not Oilers fanboys. If you read the article they are pretty fair and make sound reasoning why they may take a step back. I expect them to take a small step back (85-90 point area) as well as I think a lot of things went right for them in close games last season. If Wolf has a bit of a sophomore slump, the team could even fall further than expected as they had a negative goal differential with Wolf having an excellent season.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's the Athletic, not Canadian coverage as they are certainly not Oilers fanboys. If you read the article they are pretty fair and make sound reasoning why they may take a step back. I expect them to take a small step back (85-90 point area) as well as I think a lot of things went right for them in close games last season.

Many of the hockey writers are and they don't have a clue about the Flames...they don't even have a Flames writer. 94 as a best case is laughable when they just had 96.
What was their great Flames prediction last season? (I checked, 79 points) 80 is low, if anyway wants to offer me that I will take the over.

This is the same writer that doesn't have Nurse in the top 10 worst contracts in the league, guy is Canadian and loves the Oilers. Bottles the mind anyone pays to read this crap.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Many of the hockey writers are and they don't have a clue about the Flames...they don't even have a Flames writer. 94 as a best case is laughable when they just had 96.

What was their great Flames prediction last season? 80 is low, if anyway wants to offer me that I will take the over.

What was their great prediction last season? Well they start the article with just that so it's not like they are hiding about being wrong last season.

Did any team outkick its coverage more dramatically than the Calgary Flames? At the start of the 2024-25 season, the vast majority of the hockey world saw a bottom-five roster. (Yes, that includes The Athletic; we had the Flames as a 79-point team, 28th in the league.)

The Athletic prediction is largely based on Dom's model and I think most fans that have been around the NHL long enough, know fully well that most teams that overachieve one year, tend to fall back the next season to what they are. That's not to say it's guaranteed but it's very possible the Flames take a step back.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Many of the hockey writers are and they don't have a clue about the Flames...they don't even have a Flames writer. 94 as a best case is laughable when they just had 96.

What was their great Flames prediction last season? 80 is low, if anyway wants to offer me that I will take the over.

The Flames outplayed projections due to a good start, great goaltending, and staying healthy. They haven't done anything to improve, and there are a lot of things that could result in a step backwards.

I think the Andersson situation, the lack of a backup, Backlund aging, and the need to stay healthy makes it more likely then not they take a step back. If they do take a step back and fall out of contention the wheels could really fall off as their game requires high effort and commitment from the players.

I project them in the mid to high 80s, but it won't shock me if they are lower. They could also be competitive. Maybe Parekh has a Makar/Hughes quality debut, they stay healthy, and they don't regress in other areas.

[dino7c]

Yeah 80 is low, sounds like even you guys take the over. They don't have a clue about the Flames its been proven time and time again.

Athletic is a joke when it comes to the Flames...and honestly the NHL in general. From standings to prospects, everything...they are always low on the Flames and usually wrong. To say the "best case" is worse than last year is ridiculous. Like does anyone remember the Flames 3 on 3 record? ZP, full season of Frost and Farabee, Klapka improved, Zary maybe healthy?

The roster is better than the one that started last season.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Even if the Flames underperform and the 1st rounder ends up being a top 5 pick - you're hoping to grab a player like MacTavish with that pick.

It's a worthwhile risk to try and get him on an offersheet, 7yrs @ 9.35M.

McTavish himself was a 3rd overall pick. I remember he was ranked around 8th-10th before ANA picked him 3rd, but he would easily be 4th overall in a redraft, behind Power, Hughes, and Johnston.

The Flames would likely be giving up the 10-20 pick + 40-50 pick + 70-80 pick. I would do make that trade in any draft, and count myself lucky. IMO the Flames would only lose such an offer sheet if they end up drafting top 3.

PS: The 5 years rule was there since the lockout, can't remember beyond that.

[dino7c]

Yeah its not even much risk to be honest...the chances of the Flames landing the #1 pick are very low. The chances the pick is better than McTavish is also very low.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

McTavish himself was a 3rd overall pick. I remember he was ranked around 8th-10th before ANA picked him 3rd, but he would easily be 4th overall in a redraft, behind Power, Hughes, and Johnston.

The Flames would likely be giving up the 10-20 pick + 40-50 pick + 70-80 pick. I would do make that trade in any draft, and count myself lucky. IMO the Flames would only lose such an offer sheet if they end up drafting top 3.

PS: The 5 years rule was there since the lockout, can't remember beyond that.

I would put him behind Guenther as well. But I would probably put him ahead of Power.
This was the re-draft on the Athletic. I generally agree with most of this

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/659...ther-johnston/

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Many of the hockey writers are and they don't have a clue about the Flames...they don't even have a Flames writer. 94 as a best case is laughable when they just had 96.
What was their great Flames prediction last season? (I checked, 79 points) 80 is low, if anyway wants to offer me that I will take the over.

This is the same writer that doesn't have Nurse in the top 10 worst contracts in the league, guy is Canadian and loves the Oilers. Bottles the mind anyone pays to read this crap.

I assume you don't read it, so how are you evaluating it? When did you last have a subscription to it?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I assume you don't read it, so how are you evaluating it? When did you last have a subscription to it?

lol like I would give them my money, I can get bad hockey takes for free...their stuff is posted everywhere though, including this site. All their rankings are on twitter and reddit ect.

You think they have a good handle on the Flames considering they don't even cover them? Missed by 17 points last year. Close one. If Wolf carried them as much as some people think he should have won the Vezina or at least been a finalist.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would put him behind Guenther as well. But I would probably put him ahead of Power.
This was the re-draft on the Athletic. I generally agree with most of this

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/659...ther-johnston/

I forgot about Guenther, I guess a case can be made for Guenther, Johnson, and even Eklund. I still think that Mcatvish is a worthwhile target, even if he was 5th/6th in a re-draft.

[dino7c]

a sure thing is a sure thing...the fact that it takes hindsight drafting to even maybe put him outside the top 4 is telling. The likelyhood the Flames 2026 first is a better player would be very low.

[Bingo]

The Athletic article isn't unfair at all, and it pretty much meets what I said a few days ago.

The Flames had Wolf and work ethic propel them last year, and they'll need a similar boatload of help this year to do the same.

The numbers in the article suggest veteran skill erosion moving the Flames from 2.20 goals per game to 2.08.

And that a -13 hockey team with a goalie at +25 is really a -38 team which is 27th overall in projections.

It's a very fair assessment unless you are the hands to ears "I know you are but what am I" type.

But can they defy the odds again?

[dino7c]

They had the same prediction last year with:

a totally unknown Wolf, no Frost/Farabee, Klapka, Coronato, Zary all likely rated lower. I'm not saying its not possible for them to be worse but 80 points is low...like I would take the over but the betting sites would never give you that. ZP isn't going to add any offence to the team? Like one preseason game he looks like the best PP QB they have had in decades.

I feel like I do this every September...like how often have the Flames been under 80 points? like a decade ago lol.

This whole its all Wolf narrative is silly anyway, like he is still on the team right? Take away any teams best player and they will be worse. My main disagreement is the 94 "best case" that is just stupid. Best case would be better than last year.

You guys call me a homer all you like, I gurantee my Flames predictions have been closer to accurate than the Athletics the last 5 years or however long they have been around. I mean they missed by 17 points last year not me...I was probably 5 low.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Many of the hockey writers are and they don't have a clue about the Flames...they don't even have a Flames writer. 94 as a best case is laughable when they just had 96.
What was their great Flames prediction last season? (I checked, 79 points) 80 is low, if anyway wants to offer me that I will take the over.

This is the same writer that doesn't have Nurse in the top 10 worst contracts in the league, guy is Canadian and loves the Oilers. Bottles the mind anyone pays to read this crap.

I don’t know, I think it’s a little misguided to say the Athletic doesn’t know anything about the Flames.

They talk to several scouts, coaches, league executives.

I think it is a fairly unbiased view. Is there any other ‘reputable’ source, in your opinion, who is saying anything all that much different? Seems like the common consensus, even on this fan forum, is that the Flames exceeded expectations last year and are coming back with largely the same group.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But can they defy the odds again?

My guess since last season has been no. The roster on paper is still bottom ten imo and they’ll regress to that.