2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Every roster is flawed, and its not like I'm out here saying the over/under should be 100 points. 80 points is low, that is a "a lot went wrong" number not an expected.

I feel like I do this every September...more often than not the Flames are supposedly a terrible bottom 5 team. History suggests otherwise. The Flames hit the over on betting lines more often than not. Like when were the Flames under 80 points last? a decade ago? They have been a bottom 5 team one time in franchise history?

The Athletics coverage of the Flames is at the very least lazy, I don't think there is a real argument otherwise.

I also don't see any argument that the opening night roster in 2025 isnt better than 2024

Reminds me of Gaudreau's first season where nobody in the media would even give the Flames a bump despite adding one of the best rookies in the entire league. People are sleeping on ZP big time, in another market he would be getting far more fanfare.

It's not lazy.

It's numbers driven. And the Flames defy the numbers because they work harder than their opponents on 77 of 82 nights.

[dino7c]

I think its lazy they don't even have a Flames writer they don't follow the team

Again, I'm not saying the Flames are a playoff lock but to give them the exact same prediction they said last year when we had an unknown Wolf, no Frost, lesser known young players and no ZP is LAZY IMO.

An 80 point ranking for the Flames is way low...and a best case 94 is just dumb. Best case is obviously higher. They have some other joke takes out there I don't think very highly of the athletic when it comes to the NHL. They want people to pay for the same crap SN says for free.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not lazy.

It's numbers driven. And the Flames defy the numbers because they work harder than their opponents on 77 of 82 nights.

Why is everything numbers to you? I mean why play the games, just put numbers into a computer and we can simulate the whole season in one night!

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I think its lazy they don't even have a Flames writer they don't follow the team

Again, I'm not saying the Flames are a playoff lock but to give them the exact same prediction they said last year when we had an unknown Wolf, no Frost, lesser known young players and no ZP is LAZY IMO.

An 80 point ranking for the Flames is way low...and a best case 94 is just dumb. Best case is obviously higher. They have some other joke takes out there I don't think very highly of the athletic when it comes to the NHL. They want people to pay for the same crap SN says for free.

This team has seen wild swings in performance year over year for more than a decade. Outside of 19-20 where they made the playoffs twice or 20-21 where one year was a make and the other a miss but they were on the bubble. This team has gone from the bottom to the bubble, the bubble to the top and back.

This year maybe they are on the bubble and get in but it is equally as likely they dip back down to where they were 2 years ago. The only consistent thing about this team is they are rarely as good or bad as they were the previous year.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Why is everything numbers to you? I mean why play the games, just put numbers into a computer and we can simulate the whole season in one night!

Because in this case it is just numbers, it's a projection based on numbers in a model they built.

In the end it's no more right or wrong at this point in time than any other projection.

In the end it feels about 6 points low to me.

I'd project that they are likely 86 points as the median, and best case would be 100 points.

[FlamesAreOne]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1970592843426340925

[GioforPM]

I’d for sure take the over on 80 of course. I suppose the counter argument to the notion that the Flames only got so close based on Wolf and work ethic is that they still have Wolf and probably will still have work ethic.

OTOH, they’ve lost Vladar and will probably lose Andersson. So where they wind up probably hinges on the fill ins there.

OTOOH, there are 3-4 players who have proven to have more in them than they produced last year.

[dino7c]

Their "model" missed by 17 points last season...I think the team is improved if only slightly

like we weren't sure if Wolf was an NHL starter at this time last year let alone a star goalie. Most of the Athletics Flames takes since inception have been poor. 17th best prospect base is also laughable.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FlamesAreOne

https://twitter.com/user/status/1970592843426340925

both had solid showings all things considered

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by 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?

Personally it more so reads as Dom/Athletic trying to justify/reason with how badly they missed on their projections with the Flames last year.

The Athletic had Wolf saving 25 goals above expected.. where other credible model sites had him in the 12-15 range. Additionally if they are going to point to the goaltending overperforming you have to also take into account that the team underperformed it's expected goals totals in the range of 17-21 goals as well.

Digging deeper I also think their assessment of Weegar is just flat out wrong, and doesn't take into account that he was tasked with carrying around two guys who are arguably not even everyday NHL players.

At the end of the day projections are immensely difficult to do. There are just too many factors at play to really put much credence into them anyhow.

Will be fun to follow some of these regardless.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Why is everything numbers to you? I mean why play the games, just put numbers into a computer and we can simulate the whole season in one night!

It's there model not mine.

I'm just saying calling them lazy is lazy.

They use numbers to support a theory; it seems to be player driven. The Flames have proven to be greater than the sum of their parts and good on them.

But it's not lazy.

Or in otherwards .... what the hell are you talking about????

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I think its lazy they don't even have a Flames writer they don't follow the team

Again, I'm not saying the Flames are a playoff lock but to give them the exact same prediction they said last year when we had an unknown Wolf, no Frost, lesser known young players and no ZP is LAZY IMO.

An 80 point ranking for the Flames is way low...and a best case 94 is just dumb. Best case is obviously higher. They have some other joke takes out there I don't think very highly of the athletic when it comes to the NHL. They want people to pay for the same crap SN says for free.

I think it's budget and market driven not lazy.

And you get my respect on getting it right last year.

Personally I don't think it was done on a playoff roster, but in elite work ethic and goaltending but you were right either way.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I’d for sure take the over on 80 of course. I suppose the counter argument to the notion that the Flames only got so close based on Wolf and work ethic is that they still have Wolf and probably will still have work ethic.

OTOH, they’ve lost Vladar and will probably lose Andersson. So where they wind up probably hinges on the fill ins there.

OTOOH, there are 3-4 players who have proven to have more in them than they produced last year.

Agreed.

But can that work ethic play out for two seasons, especially if they don't get off to a 6-0-1 start?

[Icon]

I was hoping Battaglia would have a surprisingly strong camp, think there's lots of potential there.

Guess we'll see next year.

[Erick Estrada]

Like I said before. How many examples of overachieving teams matching or exceeding that level of success the next season? It's really low and the reason we always discuss the curse of the Jack Adams award. I believe the Flames overachieved last season and their success in 1 goal games (19-2-14) is going to be extremely difficult to replicate so to get to 96 points they are going to have to be even better this season. It's not impossible but it's a tall task and nobody should be surprised if they can't get back to 90 points.

[stemit14]

It will be a tough initial schedule so it could put the flames behind if they struggle out of the gate.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I honestly think the "out work 'em" narrative is largely overblown as well. All teams work hard. Some have more defensive structure than others, which I think the Flames have.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Their "model" missed by 17 points last season...I think the team is improved if only slightly

like we weren't sure if Wolf was an NHL starter at this time last year let alone a star goalie. Most of the Athletics Flames takes since inception have been poor. 17th best prospect base is also laughable.

It just means their model was 82% correct.

[united]

Keep throwing a tantrum about the best case being higher than 94 points, while also demonstrating you don't have a clue what a distribution is.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Shazam

It just means their model was 82% correct.

my model was much better, but I actually follow the team