2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Sure anyone can have an opinion.
It does feel like you don't want to admit the Dallas has built a contender because it may feel like some sort of admission that their approach worked.

It's OK to acknowledge that they are a contending team, while still debating if the Flames should try to replicate that approach and how successful it would be.

By any metric they are a contending team. Recent success. Current performance. Hell Vegas odds. Take your pick.

They built a contending team.

No kidding....they are the very definition of a contending team.

Weird stance to say otherwise.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I certainly hope so, I just don't assume any prospect will end up elite until they show otherwise.

I'm also not sure Huska is the right coach for Parekh anyways. I think he's a very good defensive coach, I just don't know if he is the guy you want teaching someone with this kind of offensive skill.

Yet....you advocate for the team to trade players so they can lose hockey games so they can....wait for it...draft a prospect who will end up elite.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yet....you advocate for the team to trade players so they can lose hockey games so they can....wait for it...draft a prospect who will end up elite.

Statistically, the higher you draft means the higher the player has a chance at being elite.

Nothing is a guarantee. But you would like to give yourself the best chance.

[Hackey]

The "Dallas model" isn't a model. Literally every team in the league tries to maximize their picks and find quality players outside their 1st. That isn't a model to replicate because it's just the baseline every team is already doing. Unfortunately, the majority of teams fail at it because it's hard.

There's a reason why every good drafting team cannot sustain it. Detroit, Tampa Bay, Boston, etc. All teams who have had a lot of success in the draft in the past, who have had nowhere near the same success for a long time now.

There's a reason why only a handful of teams have done it over multiple decades, because it's really hard and requires a lot of luck. The odds of replicating what these outlier drafting teams have done is extremely low and isn't a strategy.

[stemit14]

It’s tough to nail down exactly what is the “Dallas Model”. I guess it’s pretty much just draft really well, develop the draft picks correctly and keep the vets on the team until a young player replaces them. Also, win a draft lottery and jump up 10 spots in the draft. Sure. That’s a great idea but wouldn’t every team do that if it was just that easy to reproduce?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yet....you advocate for the team to trade players so they can lose hockey games so they can....wait for it...draft a prospect who will end up elite.

That wasn't the burn you thought it was, lol. He advocates for losing right now with where we're at for higher draft picks (to a fault at times re: Dallas isn't a contender). He's saying he won't believe Parekh is an upcoming elite player until he sees it proven in the NHL, which is a correct take.

The take away from that is you need as many bullets in the chamber for chances at elite players as possible during a rebuild because many won't turn out....but they turn out at a much higher rate as you get closer to top 5, right? Advocating for aiming for top end draft picks and saying that you won't believe an elite prospect is elite until you see it at the NHL level is not at odds with each other.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by stemit14

It’s tough to nail down exactly what is the “Dallas Model”. I guess it’s pretty much just draft really well, develop the draft picks correctly and keep the vets on the team until a young player replaces them. Also, win a draft lottery and jump up 10 spots in the draft. Sure. That’s a great idea but wouldn’t every team do that if it was just that easy to reproduce?

They're certainly a bit of a unicorn in the NHL in terms of rebuilding. Huge lottery win, amazing draft picks. Not really something that any team isn't already trying/hoping for while rebuilding, lol.

[Rhett44]

Yeah I don't know if you really want to emulate a model that is just "draft good and get lucky". Obviously, we drafted Gaudreau and that was like hitting the jackpot.

But you can't bank on that happening over and over. All the top contenders rebuilt with top 5 picks. It is way more proven than the Dallas model.

[NewFan]

Dallas has better chance to attract players than Calgary so Flames can't have same success to build a contender following them. And Dallas didn't win yet.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Yeah I don't know if you really want to emulate a model that is just "draft good and get lucky". Obviously, we drafted Gaudreau and that was like hitting the jackpot.

But you can't bank on that happening over and over. All the top contenders rebuilt with top 5 picks. It is way more proven than the Dallas model.

Dallas has 3 top 5 picks on their team (of course just one of their own).

Which are the current contenders who rebuilt with top 5 picks?

Florida? Barkov and Ekblad (drafted 12 and 13 years ago). I'd argue their championship team wasn't made so much from a rebuild as some great trades and pickups.

Colorado has 3 top 5 picks but two were picked over 12 and 15 years ago. Vegas? And they tended to alternative between a tank year and a mushy middle year.

Vegas? No top 5 picks.

Of the rest of the NHL, NJ sports 4 top 5 picks. Philly has 2. NYR has a couple. Same with Buffalo, Ottawa. A few other teams have 1.

I'm not sure the tank and quick rebuild has been proven at all. It looks more like if you get a top pick or two, you might get a cup 10 years later, but you probably won't. That's what happened with the Avs, Florida and TB. And with Buffalo, NJD and NYR on the flip side.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Dallas has 3 top 5 picks on their team (of course just one of their own).

Which are the current contenders who rebuilt with top 5 picks?

Florida? Barkov and Ekblad (drafted 12 and 13 years ago). I'd argue their championship team wasn't made so much from a rebuild as some great trades and pickups.

Colorado has 3 top 5 picks but two were picked over 12 and 15 years ago. Vegas? And they tended to alternative between a tank year and a mushy middle year.

Vegas? No top 5 picks.

Of the rest of the NHL, NJ sports 4 top 5 picks. Philly has 2. NYR has a couple. Same with Buffalo, Ottawa. A few other teams have 1.

I'm not sure the tank and quick rebuild has been proven at all. It looks more like if you get a top pick or two, you might get a cup 10 years later, but you probably won't. That's what happened with the Avs, Florida and TB. And with Buffalo, NJD and NYR on the flip side.

There is no tank and quick rebuild. It took some years for Colorado, Pittsburgh, Tampa and Chicago etc to win their cups after drafting elite players. But you need the building blocks to win.

There is no such thing as a quick rebuild if you are talking about winning a cup. We are years and years away. Look at the Sharks, are they going to win the cup this year? No. Next year? Probably not. But they have the building blocks to give them a chance for the next decade plus. In comparison we currently have zero chance to win the cup any time soon, unless something drastic changes.

[PepsiFree]

The only thing we ever learn from these “rebuild model” conversations is all the ways to discount every team’s “mode” or “process” for one reason or another.

Failed rebuilds don’t count unless the double rebuild works then the original rebuild counts, any team that did it right but doesnt succeed should be ignored because they’re poorly managed, any team that does succeed but didn’t do it right should also be ignored because they’re managed TOO well. Anything that is like what the teams that did it right do is only good if you do 100% of it, if you only do 90% or do it in a different order, it’s just doing what everyone else does.

Success = winning a cup, unless it was done the wrong way. It also = getting to the finals, unless it was done the wrong way. And it sometimes means getting to the conference finals, but of course, never if it was done the wrong way.

It’s all very straightforward.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

There is no tank and quick rebuild. It took some years for Colorado, Pittsburgh, Tampa and Chicago etc to win their cups after drafting elite players. But you need the building blocks to win.

There is no such thing as a quick rebuild if you are talking about winning a cup. We are years and years away. Look at the Sharks, are they going to win the cup this year? No. Next year? Probably not. But they have the building blocks to give them a chance for the next decade plus. In comparison we currently have zero chance to win the cup any time soon, unless something drastic changes.

People favoring a hard tank are talking 3-4 years on this very thread.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The only thing we ever learn from these “rebuild model” conversations is all the ways to discount every team’s “mode” or “process” for one reason or another.

Failed rebuilds don’t count unless the double rebuild works then the original rebuild counts, any team that did it right but doesnt succeed should be ignored because they’re poorly managed, any team that does succeed but didn’t do it right should also be ignored because they’re managed TOO well. Anything that is like what the teams that did it right do is only good if you do 100% of it, if you only do 90% or do it in a different order, it’s just doing what everyone else does.

Success = winning a cup, unless it was done the wrong way. It also = getting to the finals, unless it was done the wrong way. And it sometimes means getting to the conference finals, but of course, never if it was done the wrong way.

It’s all very straightforward.

This is exactly the point. Every team that wins a cup is shown as the proof that a poster's theory works (and there's all kinds of reasons why it took so long or how any differences don't matter) and every team that didn't win a cup failed for other reasons.

It's such a crap shoot. Vegas won one way, St. Louis another way, Fla was way different than Colorado (which has arguably been a huge disappointment since winning the cup, similar to Calgary after 89).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is exactly the point. Every team that wins a cup is shown as the proof that a poster's theory works (and there's all kinds of reasons why it took so long or how any differences don't matter) and every team that didn't win a cup failed for other reasons.

It's such a crap shoot. Vegas won one way, St. Louis another way, Fla was way different than Colorado (which has arguably been a huge disappointment since winning the cup, similar to Calgary after 89).

The funniest one I can think of recently is the “ten years to win a cup” thing where the theory goes that teams win a cup around 10 years after their star is drafted. Of course the last 20 years is littered with examples of teams not fitting that example at all or even coming close, and even in that example it seems like anyone from a 1st OA top line center to a mid-round middle-fix winger counts as that “star” to fit the requirement.

Winning is hard and takes what feels like a billion things to go right at just the right time. Discounting a “model” because it hasn’t won a cup or as silly as pointing to a team that has won and saying “that’s the model.” Teams chase that junk all the time and fail.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

This is exactly the point. Every team that wins a cup is shown as the proof that a poster's theory works (and there's all kinds of reasons why it took so long or how any differences don't matter) and every team that didn't win a cup failed for other reasons.

It's such a crap shoot. Vegas won one way, St. Louis another way, Fla was way different than Colorado (which has arguably been a huge disappointment since winning the cup, similar to Calgary after 89).

Vegas is a way different situation than us because they were an expansion team that somehow got a bunch of great players. And then they had elite players begging to join them in Pietrangelo and Eichel. Both were selected in the top 4 in their draft.

St Louis had a once in a decade type of insane run. Again though they had Pietrangelo, and the rest of their players played way above their heads and their goalie had a generational playoff run. These are becoming more and more rare, as with the new rules you need more elite talent to win the cup.

Florida had top picks, and we traded them an elite winger who changed their culture.

No players are begging to come to Calgary to win. We don't have any elite talent in the organization, outside of maybe Parekh. We don't have a tax advantage or a climate advantage. We are not going on a magical run, we used that up in 2004. The only way we are truly going to be a contender is rebuilding and drafting in the top 5.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by traptor

Ofcourse drafting is important but how many stars have the flames drrafted over the last 20 years outside of the top of 6 of the draft?


2? 3?
Wolf, JG and Andersson (if you consider him that)


Verse our top 6 picks.


Monahan, Bennett and Tkachuk all hit as high level players.

Monahan was a fine pick at #6. I love the guy and I believe he met realistic expectations for a 6th OA.

But that 2013 draft to me seems like a perfect example of how important top 3 picks are and how those tier ledges really matter. Colorado and Florida got MacKinnon and Barkov 1st and 2nd OA. Both are franchise players and centers that put the team on championship trajectories. Three picks later, Carolina got Lindholm at #5 and the right after the Flames got Monahan at #6. Both really good players worthy of their selection place, but neither was ever going to have the franchise altering effect of Mackinnon or Barkov. Those tier ledges that drop at around the top 3 or 5 are pretty typical and really show what a just a few points in the standings can do for the next decade.

It also shows how the draft order determination doesn't really reflect the parity that exists in the NHL. The Flames and Carolina both finished with 42 points that season (48 game schedule). Florida finished with 36 and Colorado with 39. So a measly 6 and 3 points were the difference between getting Monahan or Lindholm versus MacKinnon or Barkov. You can't tell me that a team that finished with just 3 fewer points deserved that much more of a talent injection. A few points in the standings is often just random luck.

[Jay Random]

We really have no idea how Huska will do coaching a player with Parekh’s offensive skills. He’s never had one to work with before.

I do believe Huska will be very good at teaching Parekh the defensive skills he needs to work on. I also believe a lot of fans will scream for Huska’s head because Parekh’s offence is liable to dry up until defence becomes more natural for him. That happens to nearly every prospect at some point, but there’s always someone to blame it on the coach.

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by YyjFlames

Minnesota is another interesting “model.” They’ve basically been mushy middle competitive for the last few years as they waited out their massive buyout penalties, forced to make smart, patient moves and develop their players.

They don’t, to my knowledge, have any top five picks, but have built team loyalty and found stars all over the draft (Kaprizov being the key one).

Their patience allowed them to pounce on an opportunity to grab another superstar and now they’re legitimate threats.

People keep pointing to the Dallas model or drafting top 3, but there are a number of different systems and strategies that can build contenders. But all of them include drafting well. As much as I’d like to see at this point the vets traded and a top pick, this patient path will lead to another competitive window.

I am all for different approaches IF it works, the issue I have with this argument is that this organization has tried approaches similar to Dallas and Minnesota and it has not worked out, but they keep keep drumming out they same philosophy, keep on telling fans "to be patient", the excuses are becoming old and tiresome. Alot of those same organizations that fail at the so called "Dallas" and "Minnesota" model also have pivoted and try a different approach, not ours, I think that is what is irking fans.

At the root of the problem is ownerships mandate for playoff revenue "at all cost". If you have an owner who is never willing to embrace that some suffering is required for the "greater good", than what are your chances of winning a "cup", very low I would say. I don't blame CC, coaches or the players, I blame the owner, Murray Edwards, there is a direct correlation between the teams lack of success and his business philosophy, and if you don't believe me, he is the only common denominator throughout all of this.

I feel sorry for the die hard flames fan that pays all that money and just wants want most fans want, a realistic shot at a championship for 5-7 years, it's just not happening with this owner. There are owners out there that use their sports team has an extension of their own desire for "on the field"success, not ours, it's clear in my mind that he runs this team as a business.

Personally going to spend more time invested in other sports, this will always be my hockey team, but not my sole desire.

Murray Edwards will always be the problem with me, his vision is different than mine, healthier for me to invest my time into other sporting clubs, that support my vision for building towards championships For a guy like Edwards, his philosophy won't change until fans start tuning out the club, he is COMPLETELY driven by short term monetary gains
,

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

We really have no idea how Huska will do coaching a player with Parekh’s offensive skills. He’s never had one to work with before.

I do believe Huska will be very good at teaching Parekh the defensive skills he needs to work on. I also believe a lot of fans will scream for Huska’s head because Parekh’s offence is liable to dry up until defence becomes more natural for him. That happens to nearly every prospect at some point, but there’s always someone to blame it on the coach.

Do Weber and Keith count? Huska was their (assistant) coach with the rockets. He Also had Barrie as the head coach for a couple of years. All of them ended up having pretty good careers.

A bit more recently he coached this Andersson guy in both the NHL and AHL. He's 19th in points among defensemen this year.

Weegar also had a 20 goal, 52 point season under Huska, when his previous career high was 8 goals, and 44 points on an offensive powerhouse of a Panthers team.

Similarly Gio had his best year with Huska as the assistant coach in charge of defense. Gio put up 74 points in Huska's first year as an assistant, after putting up 38 points the year prior.

We can debate how much of this is due to Huska, but I'm cautiously optimistic.