2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Getting a first is not a rebuilding move?

I think it's a rebuilding move but not a total tanking move.

I doubt anyone should argue that Calgary is not in a rebuilding mode of sorts.

But equally I don't think anyone should argue that they are tanking as well.

I think the argument lies as to whether Calgary is doing enough to ensure a bottom 3 finish vs. a 4-7 finish.

[Finger Cookin]

I know this won't change the "what have you done for me lately" and "2 decades in the mushy middle" posts -- but I'm still going to point out the Flames made the playoffs 15 of its first 16 seasons in Calgary, with 12 playoff round wins and of course the Cup in '89. And since the Atlanta Flames results are still part of our franchise records, the streak of 16 consecutive playoff appearances between the 75-76 seasons and 90-91 seasons is tied for the 9th longest playoff appearance streak in NHL history. We're the only team since the original '67 expansion to crack the top 10 in that category.

Just felt like putting this out there. Carry on.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think it's a rebuilding move but not a total tanking move.

I doubt anyone should argue that Calgary is not in a rebuilding mode of sorts.

But equally I don't think anyone should argue that they are tanking as well.

I think the argument lies as to whether Calgary is doing enough to ensure a bottom 3 finish vs. a 4-7 finish.

Outside of the 1st 15 or so games this season the Flames have played at a playoff point pace for 100 of the last 115 games

Is it that unreasonable to think they play at a 90 point pace for the last 45 games and fall a lot further then 4-7

Maybe those 15 games are the outlier and this is a mid 90s point team

The problem is they may be a mid 90s point team who’s best forward is 35 and best (or /2nd best D) is a UFA

That’s the real issue

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

No, but apparently we almost traded Anderson for a 1st and Hague (a 27 yr old defenseman), only to be rejected by Hague. This is not a rebuilding move.

Whether it be trying to trade for Hague, trading for Sharongovich, trying to re-sign Lindholm, trying to re-sign Anderson, not trading players with term, etc...

This team has shown time and time again, they prefer to be in the mushy middle, than to be bad and get high draft picks. This is a flawed approach to team building and is frustrating as hell.

Huh?

If you trade with a team with limited cap space you have to take something back.

Better to get a serviceable 27 year old and solid futures then get saddled with a terrible contract for a couple of years.

That's still a rebuild trade.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

I don't feel the need to tear this team down to the studs. Move Andersson for the best offer before the deadline - which appears to be the plan.
My concern is not capitalizing on the value of two aging veterans that are in high demand (Kadri and Coleman) when both will be long gone well before this team is close to being a contender. The whole "culture" and "let's see what happens" narrative that's floating around the media and from insiders is ludicrous.
All I need to hear is that a high price has been set for Kadri and Coleman - similar to what has been said about Ryan O'Reilly (ie he's available but we want a 1st and a grade A prospect, otherwise we're happy to keep him). They don't need to be traded immediately if the returns aren't there. But the fact that the don't seem interested (at least in public) in moving either of these guys worries me greatly.

I'm not really on team tank. I'm on team, "capitalize on our valuable (aging) trade chips while they have value" and then see where the season goes. If we trade the big 3 and still end up in the mushy middle, so be it. But realistically, moving 2/3 should guarantee a top 5 pick

I think many people around the league would view the Flames moving all three of Andersson, Kadri and Coleman as tearing down to the studs.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This will blow people's minds. Are you ready?

I know it's a rebuild, I'm not arguing that. However it could have probably been executed better, especially if they had committed to a rebuild publicly from the start, instead of attempting to sell the players/fans on a "re-tool" while trying to make the playoffs.

The main push back on a rebuild was the way they approached last year's deadline, and their inability to make the tough decision, and commit to it:
1. If they finished in the bottom 10, they would've kept that pick. They would've lost pick #32(Potter) in the Monahan trade instead of #16.
1.b. They only had a 4 point lead on the 23rd team at last year's TD, despite having a 5-0-1 start. Moreover, they had a 4-3-3 record in the 10 games leading up to the deadline.
2. The prices paid for Nelson, Laughton, Carlo, and Walman were pretty exorbitant. It seemed like it was a seller's market *

A much smaller complaint regarding the offseason:
3. The Frost and Farabee trade was a good trade, but it created a log jam of top 9 forwards that wasn't addressed in the offseason. It didn't leave space for young players making the team. Keeping Honzek and Gridin resulted in Zary/Sharangovich struggling and being unhappy with his their demotion to the 4th line.
3b. A similar log jam of 3rd pairing D was created by bringing back Hanley, and not moving any D in the offseason.
4. It led to not knowing what they had in prospects like Kuznetsov, Solovyov and Kerins before placing them on waivers, because of said logjams.

* I acknowledge that comparing the imaginary offers from last year's deadline to what the Flames will get for Andersson and Kadri this year is an exercise in futility.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think the argument lies as to whether Calgary is doing enough to ensure a bottom 3 finish vs. a 4-7 finish.

There is no argument. Flames are not and will never tank. They will never set out with a goal to finish bottom 3. It might turn out that way, but it will be consolation for a failed season.

Rebuild reluctance and everything Conroy has said and done should be enough evidence of that.

Rebuild to Flames is to improve the team in every deal. Long term as much as short term so they can justify getting futures back for important players like Ras, Naz and Blake.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The EBUG's EBUG

They also didn't move off assets they could have maximized value for.

I totally agree with you, this team is rebuilding, they're not buying, but they're letting the ship sink passively versus torpedoing the hull, and I would like to see them be aggressive in enacting a rebuild plan.

The Conroy quote about the Farabee/Frost trade was "I definitely wanted to give the team something – they deserved it... They've earned it, to give them a boost, a shot in the arm." Now that's a trade that made sense short and long term so I don't have a problem with it at all but clearly some of the motivation was providing additional scoring to a team 1 point out of the playoffs at the time and it's not crazy to be apprehensive about a rebuilding team making choices to try and yield results the same year.

Again, to reiterate, totally in agreement that they're rebuilding, I do think they're going to end up moving those vets when the market becomes too good to deny. I simply am not entirely thrilled with the messaging coming from Maloney et al that playoffs is very much still a goal and what the implications might be of that if they're to luck their way into a playoff race this year. And I get just not believing what they're saying both directly and through the media but end of the day it's an executive in the organization and it's crazy that we have to hear what they're saying to us and have faith that they're just flat out lying to the fans.

All good.

As I said earlier I think it's fair to question / argue about the best course within a rebuild, but to question whether or not they are rebuilding is honestly looking more and more like a troll job than a serious position.

I see both sides.

I see the fun of futures in moving almost everyone. But I also get the value of having some good veterans (they don't all apply with age) around to keep things from getting so brutal you don't bounce back.

It all comes down to assessing markets to me. I don't believe any of the fantasy won't trade veterans stuff; doesn't add up. They are assessing a complex equation of future value for two players that don't expire today, a month from now, the deadline, the summer and next summer ... while factoring in some leadership and dressing room value.

If they make bad calls on that equation (all teams do) then they were wrong. But they'd be wrong in how to maximize returns, not foolishly keeping 35 year olds that won't factor in when the team is turning the corner. The math is too simple to assume otherwise (in my opinion)

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think the true answer to this question is the Flames are re-building, but also don't want to bottom out and want to remain competitive.

And the issue is there are conflicting feelings in the fan base of what type of rebuild the Flames want to have.

There is one side of the fence that believes that bottoming out, being aggressive in moving out aging veterans, getting a couple top picks, and adding as many additional picks as possible will actually accelerate the rebuild even if it means there are fewer veterans remaining and you are worse off now for it.

The flip side to this argument is that if you cut too deep, then it builds a culture of losing, and you can never actually get out of purgatory. (Personally I don't think this is a real issue if you're well managed, and think the Flames should really be taking advantage of the market to try to bottom out and accelerate the rebuild).

On the other side of the fence is that you rebuild over time, keep veterans to help the transition to the new core, try to remain at least a little competitive and don't try to tank / bottom out.

The counter argument for this is it might actually extend the duration of a rebuild because you end up being in the mushy middle for longer, and never actually get those multiple top 5 picks that you require to truly build a consistent contender, and end up with a team with lots of great pieces but no elite pieces.

I think the actual argument here isn't if the Flames are rebuilding at all, but it's the type of strategy they are using in their rebuild.

The organization is doing the latter which is more of a less aggressive and more drawn out rebuild, but seem afraid of really going scorched earth and bottoming out. Where I think people want the team to be more aggressive in trying to accelerate the bottoming out phase, in hopes that it actually accelerates the timelines of the rebuild as a whole.

I think the Flames are putting a high price on having the right vets around to help the young kids grow and take pressure off them so they can develop properly. I have said it before and I'll say it again, there is more than 1 way to skin a cat. There isn't just 1 correct path, the Flames just need to work that path that is right for them. Conroy has done a great job since taking over. He's brought in youth and draft picks, some of his draft picks are already turning into players. This team is very close to some of their young kids popping into studs. This is a good thing. We should be excited about that instead of complaining about stuff we can't control.

Ultimately no matter what the Flames do it will not be correct for some fans.

At the end of the day I trust Conroy and look forward to seeing how he can continue to build this team going forwards.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The flip side to this argument is that if you cut too deep, then it builds a culture of losing, and you can never actually get out of purgatory. (Personally I don't think this is a real issue if you're well managed, and think the Flames should really be taking advantage of the market to try to bottom out and accelerate the rebuild).

Not directed at you, but I love this argument. The Flames don't have a winning culture! Missing the playoffs since 2022 is a losing culture, and it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 goal, 1 point or 10. Having 2 playoff series wins in the last 20 years is a losing culture. I swear this organization is happy to keep losing as long as it keeps looking like it's working hard, instead of trying something different and actually commit to winning.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/2001004979365274106

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Not directed at you, but I love this argument. The Flames don't have a winning culture! Missing the playoffs since 2022 is a losing culture, and it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 goal, 1 point or 10. Having 2 playoff series wins in the last 20 years is a losing culture. I swear this organization is happy to keep losing as long as it keeps looking like it's working hard, instead of trying something different and actually commit to winning.

I think that you - and others who bring this up - are missing the point of the argument from the Flames' management. Yes, the Flames have not won much in the last 20 years. If they get rid of all the players on the roster who have in fact won something then who is around to actually show the younger players what it takes to win.


It is probably a bit of older PTSD from the Iginla days when, despite having some talent on the roster, they really struggled to win at all. It is similar to the Gaudreau rebuild as that team really struggled to consistently do what was needed to win.


It would be a fair retort that those teams were not talented enough so the team itself was poorly constructed. That is probably a fair criticism. However, I do not think the team is completely wrong to conclude that at times the Flames's players in those two different eras were unwilling to do what was needed to win on a consistent basis. So, the emphasis on teaching and culture is not as foolish as it first appears.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Whats miserable? Carolina has won 1 game past the 2nd round in 20 years

A franchise that missed the playoffs in 10 of 11 seasons.

This is the franchise people want to Flames to emulate? I'm confused as to why?

It's pretty obvious as to why, and you know it.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/2001004979365274106

This feels like an easier pill for MTL to swallow than Kadri.
-lower transaction cost
-used to the local market
-player for player can maybe result in Dach or Laine going the other way while they keep their futures.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

This feels like an easier pill for MTL to swallow than Kadri.
-lower transaction cost
-used to the local market
-player for player can maybe result in Dach or Laine going the other way while they keep their futures.

Not wrong, but Kadri and Danault are 2 different players.
One is still putting up big points, pulls the team into the fight, has snarl and a cup ring.

The other doesn't and plays a soft game.
If I'm MTL I know which one fits better on my already pretty soft team.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Missing the playoffs since 2022 is a losing culture, and it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 goal, 1 point or 10.

Missing the playoffs for three years doesn't mean you have a losing culture. A losing culture is where losing becomes expected and the players just accept it and go through the motions.

Conroy has always said he wants the players to hate losing and to never be ok with it.

[Hoop27]

Question for our insiders.. Do you have any strong indications of what the general price tag the Flames have set for Andersson, Coleman, and Kadri? (Assuming the final two have been even dangled seriously.)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Not directed at you, but I love this argument. The Flames don't have a winning culture! Missing the playoffs since 2022 is a losing culture, and it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 goal, 1 point or 10. Having 2 playoff series wins in the last 20 years is a losing culture. I swear this organization is happy to keep losing as long as it keeps looking like it's working hard, instead of trying something different and actually commit to winning.

That’s not at all how the concepts of a winning culture or a losing culture work, and they’re probably worth understanding before saying silly things like this. It’s not about the results, but about the approach to the game, with the belief that all other things being equal, one will lead to better outcomes than another.

Teams with a winning culture can overachieve, and good teams with that culture can be great. The same is true in reverse. Either way, it’s a hard thing to bake in or filter out further down the line.

That’s not to say you don’t make tough moves to build a winner. But being totally dismissive of those concepts doesn’t strengthen the argument.

As well, your last line just doesn’t make sense. Everything we know about the Flames is that they don’t like losing, almost to a fault if anything. And to say they haven’t tried anything different in 20 years when you mean they haven’t done the exact narrow version of the one thing you want them to do is silly. Just say what you actually mean isn’t of these broad generalizations that are easily dismissed.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ColossusXIII

When nearly all media is reporting the team has a hesitancy to trade these players because they still have term it doesn't feel like a rational stance but instead a position reached either through pure sentiment or an unrealistic hope for a lucky playoff run.

I don’t think it’s either of those. I think ownership dreads this team being in the cellar for more than a season, and they’re worried that players won’t want to play here if they trade guys they signed as UFAs who still have term. Their fear of being a basement team is stronger than their willingness to endure the sustained pain typically necessary to build an elite roster.

[Tkachukwagon]

https://twitter.com/user/status/2001010423936770423