2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Torture]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Reaching the cap floor is the easiest thing in the world. Most rebuilding teams weaponize it by getting assets for taking another team's problem, signing pump and dump free agents, or using salary retention to broker trades. Having a vastly overpaid unmovable player on the roster until 2032 is probably the least efficient or effective way to reach the floor.

Even if it cant be weaponized hitting the floor is still the easiest thing in the world. If you had "difficulty" hitting the floor why wouldnt you just say "Hey no-name 4th liner, do you want to earn 8M on a 1 year deal?"

(Isn't that what the Oilers did with Bouchard, just on a longer contract? )

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is a vast overstatement. "Weaponizing cap space" is often talked about and rarely done.

The returns for taking on bad contracts are significantly lower now, but those trades still happen each year.

For example, San Jose just traded for Ryan Ellis and Carey Price in the offseason.

Chicago for Shea Weber.

Anaheim took a chance on Trouba, and Kreider for peanuts.

You can even attempt to do what Buffalo did with Taylor Hall a few years back, which failed miserably, by signing free agents to high money 1-year contracts in an attempt to flip them.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Torture

Even if it cant be weaponized hitting the floor is still the easiest thing in the world. If you had "difficulty" hitting the floor why wouldnt you just say "Hey no-name 4th liner, do you want to earn 8M on a 1 year deal?"

And then every player agent you deal with will raise the price on all his clients, because if you have 8 mil to waste on that bozo, whhy aren’t they getting some of that loot?

(Isn't that what the Oilers did with Bouchard, just on a longer contract? )

Not at all. They just have this weird belief that if they pay a guy like a #1 D, he will magically turn into one. And it causes them to have major cap troubles every single year, which is exactly why you don’t do that.

(I know you were kidding, but it’s actually a good example of how this stuff blows up in a GM’s face. Every defenceman who goes into Edmonton knowing he’s not as bad as Nurse wants some of that cheese.)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is a vast overstatement. "Weaponizing cap space" is often talked about and rarely done.

San Jose recently did it when they acquired Price's contract. Montreal did it when they took Monahan's contract. Pittsburgh did it by taking Dumba's contract. Arizona did it numerous times. I seem to recall a few trades in the past couple of years where a 3rd team took retention in exchange for draft picks. Not really that rare.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

San Jose recently did it when they acquired Price's contract. Montreal did it when they took Monahan's contract. Pittsburgh did it by taking Dumba's contract. Arizona did it numerous times. I seem to recall a few trades in the past couple of years where a 3rd team took retention in exchange for draft picks. Not really that rare.

Well that last example is no more, because they changed the rules around it to avoid those. And the other ones are 3 plus what, 2 or 3 exclusively in Arizona? How long has the salary cap been around? How are these not “rare”???

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

The returns for taking on bad contracts are significantly lower now, but those trades still happen each year.

For example, San Jose just traded for Ryan Ellis and Carey Price in the offseason.

Chicago for Shea Weber.

Anaheim took a chance on Trouba, and Kreider for peanuts.

You can even attempt to do what Buffalo did with Taylor Hall a few years back, which failed miserably, by signing free agents to high money 1-year contracts in an attempt to flip them.

Anaheim was more capitalizing to improve their roster… which they did… I don’t see a team trading for a player that they need as “weaponizing cap space”. But I also think the term is stupid anyway.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

So I would add that hopefully Craig is a bit more cautious handing out big contracts. A couple more bad ones them and we’ll have big problems in a few years.

Speaking specifically about Sharangovich, I do not think there was much of a risk calculation there. For a team flirting with the cap floor with a rising salary cap on the horizon, giving a guy a $5.75M contract is basically third line money. If he can keep putting up ~20 goal seasons then it is a fair contract.

Bahl's contract is looking pretty great, all things considered.

Even with how this season has gone, I doubt anyone is concerned about Wolf's contract.

IMO, the only place for concern right now would be Frost's next contract in 2027. If we cannot load up on other better C options then we are going to have to offer Frost enough to stay and pay him UFA dollars.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Anaheim was more capitalizing to improve their roster… which they did… I don’t see a team trading for a player that they need as “weaponizing cap space”. But I also think the term is stupid anyway.

Dumba + 2028 2nd to the Penguins back in July. That was a prime example of getting an asset for cap space.

There are not a lot of teams that are vulnerable right now because of the rising cap but a few teams like the Stars are constantly at or over the cap. They are going to have a similar problem next year if they give Robertson a big contract.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Chicago for Shea Weber.
.

lol I didn't even realize that happened. Weber was traded once when he played and three times in "retirement".

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Dumba + 2028 2nd to the Penguins back in July. That was a prime example of getting an asset for cap space.

There are not a lot of teams that are vulnerable right now because of the rising cap but a few teams like the Stars are constantly at or over the cap. They are going to have a similar problem next year if they give Robertson a big contract.

I believe there was another one a year ago in Laine + 2nd to MTL for a depth D.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Speaking specifically about Sharangovich, I do not think there was much of a risk calculation there. For a team flirting with the cap floor with a rising salary cap on the horizon, giving a guy a $5.75M contract is basically third line money. If he can keep putting up ~20 goal seasons then it is a fair contract.

Except he ain’t scoring 20 goals getting 3rd line minutes and no PP times.

You shouldn’t justify the contract by playing him premium ice time.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Speaking specifically about Sharangovich, I do not think there was much of a risk calculation there. For a team flirting with the cap floor with a rising salary cap on the horizon, giving a guy a $5.75M contract is basically third line money. If he can keep putting up ~20 goal seasons then it is a fair contract.

Bahl's contract is looking pretty great, all things considered.

Even with how this season has gone, I doubt anyone is concerned about Wolf's contract.

IMO, the only place for concern right now would be Frost's next contract in 2027. If we cannot load up on other better C options then we are going to have to offer Frost enough to stay and pay him UFA dollars.

Sharangovich was a bad contract. He had a history if inconsistency and we signed gin to a major extension following a career year when he still had another year under contract.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Dumba + 2028 2nd to the Penguins back in July. That was a prime example of getting an asset for cap space.

There are not a lot of teams that are vulnerable right now because of the rising cap but a few teams like the Stars are constantly at or over the cap. They are going to have a similar problem next year if they give Robertson a big contract.

I would argue that the Pens also did it when they acquired Connor Clifton from the Sabres. They received a 2nd round pick as a sweetener and only sent back Timmins (cheaper, but comparable to Clifton) and former 5th round selection that was playing in the ECHL. It's funny that the Sabres actually needed the cap space considering how bad they were.

[Hackey]

One of the best examples was the Monahan trade. Unfortunately it was the Flames getting worked on that one.

The Habs managing to gain two 1sts out of Monahan was excellent work though.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Sharangovich was a bad contract. He had a history if inconsistency and we signed gin to a major extension following a career year when he still had another year under contract.

Bad compared to what? His cap hit is less than half of a top line player ($12M). He arguably isn't second line money anymore and in a couple of years he will be an even smaller percentage of the total cap (under 5%).

For a team with a long term strategy to sell off vets and hang near the salary cap floor, this contract was a small gamble on a guy who had a big season with no real risk as the team has loads of cap space.

Not really worth the energy to get upset over. By the end of this season we may be wishing he had an even bigger cap hit to stay above the floor.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Bad compared to what? His cap hit is less than half of a top line player ($12M). He arguably isn't second line money anymore and in a couple of years he will be an even smaller percentage of the total cap (under 5%).

For a team with a long term strategy to sell off vets and hang near the salary cap floor, this contract was a small gamble on a guy who had a big season with no real risk as the team has loads of cap space.

Not really worth the energy to get upset over. By the end of this season we may be wishing he had an even bigger cap hit to stay above the floor.

No we don’t lol

People can make excuses for anything

Btw, he is producing like a PTO, that makes his contract garbage and not movable. It’s bad , no matter how you want to spin it. He quit working after he got paid. But you can’t really blame him. He is not the first current Flames that does it.

[3thirty]

Originally Posted by Hackey

One of the best examples was the Monahan trade. Unfortunately it was the Flames getting worked on that one.

The Habs managing to gain two 1sts out of Monahan was excellent work though.

And if and when Kadri is traded we can compare the final outcome. It did work for the Habs, bu tit wasn't as bad as some people say for the Flames.

[Harry Lime]

Toronto media is stomping hard for an upgrade o the top six. The Leafs have put out there that Domi and Macelli are available, Macelli having been healthy scratched 10 times.

This has Sharangovich written all over it. And to be fair Sharky does react well to team changes. For one year.

[Sandman]

I wouldn’t trade a squirt of urine for Macelli in his best year.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Bad compared to what? His cap hit is less than half of a top line player ($12M). He arguably isn't second line money anymore and in a couple of years he will be an even smaller percentage of the total cap (under 5%).

For a team with a long term strategy to sell off vets and hang near the salary cap floor, this contract was a small gamble on a guy who had a big season with no real risk as the team has loads of cap space.

Not really worth the energy to get upset over. By the end of this season we may be wishing he had an even bigger cap hit to stay above the floor.

He is producing ar a .4 pace since signing the contract. But it isn't just the points. His effort level is inconsistent, he is a liability 5v5, he doesn't play physical, and he contributes very little outside of scoring. The dollar value is too high, but that doesn't matter to the Flames. The issue is term. These are not yhe type of players you commit long term.