2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Rhett44]

No one is going to go on air and trash their old boss. Maybe Murray is actually not as bad as I thought in meddling, but I don't think that interview is concrete proof.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

No one is going to go on air and trash their old boss. Maybe Murray is actually not as bad as I thought in meddling, but I don't think that interview is concrete proof.

Does Burke seem like the kind of guy who would BS about this?

[The EBUG's EBUG]

Originally Posted by stemit14

That’s kind of what I think will ultimately happen this year though. That the asking price will be so high no team will pay it. Conroy will likely feel little motivation to trade them unless it’s for an overpay. He could surprise us though if the team struggles a lot over the next month.

Ugh such a dangerous game to play. The way I see it is you're weighing the markets/values of the following factors (1 v 2):

1(a) - Trade value for a (currently) healthy 34 year old Blake Coleman signed for 1.5 seasons (two playoffs) in the middle of being on pace for the second best goal total of his career (25 goals) and otherwise playing at an all around high level.

1(b) - Development opportunity value of an open RW slot on Backlund's wing and increased ice and special teams for a potential young player.

1(c) - Draft stock value of removing a top scorer from a league worst offense to further fuel an optimal draft position.

Versus

2(a) - Trade value for a 35 year old Blake Coleman as a rental with production we cannot know but would seem extremely unlikely to be higher than what is currently being produced.

2(b) - Intangible value of retaining Coleman for another year to assist with the culture and development of young players for at least another calendar year.

2(c) - Economic value of potentially remaining competitive longer this season meaning to a possible increase in ticket sales versus tanking.

I'm of the opinion that 1(a) dramatically outweighs 2(a) and I don't believe the external market will be any better next year to mitigate that value disparity. The Flames seem to put a big value on veteran presence so 2(b) > 1(b) I would imagine. 1(c) v 2(c) we've been debating for the entire season so that is what it is.

Point being, I don't get the lack of motivation to make a move, all additional factors aside, I just don't see the value being better a year from now for an older product with less contractual control and most likely less production. That's not to say you take any deal even if it's trash, but it seems that there's a demand for our players. I think it would be a mistake to passively hold these assets and only move if your hand is completely forced. Go get a good deal and make it happen.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

No one is going to go on air and trash their old boss. Maybe Murray is actually not as bad as I thought in meddling, but I don't think that interview is concrete proof.

I love how somehow, we look for concrete proof that he doesn't meddle, vs. we look for concrete proof that he does........ kind of backwards.

I do agree with you that interview is far from concrete proof. A few thoughts:
1. Agree, Burke would likely never completely trash his old boss(es) in an interview, he's too savvy / classy to do so.
2. He's also too much of a straight shooter to bull #### an interview like that. He'd never sell something he didn't believe. He would tone down a negative message in certain situations mind you, but that's not this was here. He was completely positive on it.
3. I think it show's how so much of this meddle vs. not (and really any boss and working relationship) is completely eye of the beholder. So much of whether your boss "is meddling" also depends on the type of support you like in your role, and how you work as well. Bosses respond differently to different people that work for them as well based on their styles.

So maybe, Burke didn't find / see Murray meddling based on his own working style (but someone else would). Maybe Murray meddled less with Burke because Burke instilled more confidence than others.

But mostly, I think this Murray meddles stuff is very over blown, and is actually quite contrary to any actual information that is out there. But for lots of reasons, villainizing the wealthy CEO is actually a pretty popular activity in walks of life, so that being done in an industry where the customers have such an emotional attachment to the product shouldn't be surprising I guess.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

No one is going to go on air and trash their old boss. Maybe Murray is actually not as bad as I thought in meddling, but I don't think that interview is concrete proof.

Burkie says ME doesn't meddle on air.
Sec says he's never heard of meddling and that CC has full authority.
Royle agrees.


Rhett44...who has no connections anywhere...thinks otherwise. Someone's marbles are rolling around on the floor....

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

No one is going to go on air and trash their old boss. Maybe Murray is actually not as bad as I thought in meddling, but I don't think that interview is concrete proof.

There is no way for you to get your concrete proof. But hearing directly from a guy would have a pretty good idea is as close as you'll get

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't think they've ever said this.

Maloney had the nerve to say this: “I think Craig has been excellent at creating an environment, a culture here of being proud to play in Calgary. I think his biggest strength is his relationship with the players, which is excellent. He cares, and they know he cares. I think the first year was very difficult with the number of good players we had at the end of their contracts. A couple of those guys would probably help us right about now, but we got through that.”

So I assume that acknowledging that good players help a team is equal to “we regret it and wished we’d signed them all.”

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maloney had the nerve to say this: “I think Craig has been excellent at creating an environment, a culture here of being proud to play in Calgary. I think his biggest strength is his relationship with the players, which is excellent. He cares, and they know he cares. I think the first year was very difficult with the number of good players we had at the end of their contracts. A couple of those guys would probably help us right about now, but we got through that.”

So I assume that acknowledging that good players help a team is equal to “we regret it and wished we’d signed them all.”

Exactly. Lot of distance between acknowledging that some of those players would help the team right now (because they would) v. saying that you wished you had signed them instead of trading them.

The constant mis-representation of this stuff is annoying.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't think they've ever said this.

I hate to even bring up that interview because it's been beaten to death.

I'm just going to spare everyone the re-hashing of this same argument.

What Maloney said, combined with contract offers that were turned down, demonstrates the point. I don't think that's a misrepresentation of what transpired.

[Jiri Hrdina]

On Coleman, certainly his strong play this year and goals doesn't hurt, but I also am not sure how much it actually boosts his value.
Teams acquiring him will be doing so, not to get a 25 goal scorer, because he likely will be in a less prominent role offensively. Probably won't be getting PP time for example because those contending teams already have strong first and second units.

They'll be acquiring him because of his two-way play, elite PK, leadership, and championship pedigree. And because he helps those he plays with.

And I don't know if that changes much this year v. next.

So then you have the value gap from him being available for this season and next v. as a rental next season. I agree that means you probably get more for him this year but he also may be more open to more teams next year as a rental, which could open the market up wider.

I think when I outlined this before though someone called these arguments "flimsy".

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I hate to even bring up that interview because it's been beaten to death.

I'm just going to spare everyone the re-hashing of this same argument.

No need. The quote was already provided showing he didn't say it.
You are welcome to provide proof otherwise. This isn't a re-hashing of arguments, this is establishing the baseline facts.

Someone representing the Flames either said "they wish they'd kept and signed the players that have left." or they didn't.

I don't think they did. But I'm prepared to admit to being wrong if someone produces the quote where they did say this.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Burkie says ME doesn't meddle on air.
Sec says he's never heard of meddling and that CC has full authority.
Royle agrees.


Rhett44...who has no connections anywhere...thinks otherwise. Someone's marbles are rolling around on the floor....

But what does Frank Seravalli say? That's what really matters.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

No need. The quote was already provided showing he didn't say it.
You are welcome to provide proof otherwise. This isn't a re-hashing of arguments, this is establishing the baseline facts.

Someone representing the Flames either said "they wish they'd kept and signed the players that have left." or they didn't.

I don't think they did. But I'm prepared to admit to being wrong if someone produces the quote where they did say this.

I think it's obviously a paraphrase. "We need more Kadri's, not less"..."a couple of those guys would help us right now" re: the UFAs who were dealt.

This, along with everyone's favorite re-tread of the attempted Lindholm re-signing:

Frank Seravalli: "Well, how about you go back to last September or October for Elias Lindholm when he was with Calgary? I think their offer was, at the very bare minimum, eight times eight for $64 million. They might’ve gone even as high as $8.5, which would be $68 million."

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl...-F7HWAfB1b3GIa

[Jiri Hrdina]

It's not a paraphrase. It's a mis-representation.

Would having some of those players help this team right now? Probably. They are good players.

Does that mean the Flames wish they had kept and signed those players? No. That's not what they said.

The Flames can acknowledge that having guys like Hanifin or Lindholm would mean the current team is doing better, while also thinking that it was still the right thing to trade them. At minimum we should avoid saying people have said things that they haven't (including members of the Flames front office, media members, players, and posters on this site). If you want to provide an interpretation of what someone said, then at least be transparent about it instead of claiming they said something they didn't.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I hate to even bring up that interview because it's been beaten to death.

I'm just going to spare everyone the re-hashing of this same argument.

What Maloney said, combined with contract offers that were turned down, demonstrates the point. I don't think that's a misrepresentation of what transpired.

Well you're wrong.

[The EBUG's EBUG]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

On Coleman, certainly his strong play this year and goals doesn't hurt, but I also am not sure how much it actually boosts his value.
Teams acquiring him will be doing so, not to get a 25 goal scorer, because he likely will be in a less prominent role offensively. Probably won't be getting PP time for example because those contending teams already have strong first and second units.

They'll be acquiring him because of his two-way play, elite PK, leadership, and championship pedigree. And because he helps those he plays with.

And I don't know if that changes much this year v. next.

So then you have the value gap from him being available for this season and next v. as a rental next season. I agree that means you probably get more for him this year but he also may be more open to more teams next year as a rental, which could open the market up wider.

I think when I outlined this before though someone called these arguments "flimsy".

The all around game/intangibles comment is a valid point. I think it's also fair that those things are likely not going to get better next year, they do however have a far more likely chance to get worse.

Coleman is a great pro so I don't think he's going to fall off a cliff in the next 12 months but father time is indeed undefeated and I'm not sure if the potential value gained from him being a rental versus a 1.5 year guy is higher than the potential value lost of him losing a step.

Point being, it would be a massive shame to move a guy for pennies on the dollar when there probably are and will continue to be good offers this year. Willing to bet we're not sitting here this time next year being like "oh man we could have gotten way more for Coleman, shouldn't have moved him so quick".

I'm with you on that last point, don't think those arguments are "flimsy" at all.

[howard_the_duck]

Agree to disagree I guess. Saying those players would help right now + the reported attempts to re-sign them tells me yes, at least he wishes they'd have re-signed them.

[Tkachukwagon]

https://twitter.com/user/status/2009026901365477814

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Robbob

So still nothing regarding meddling in the Flames. Just some gripe about some other things not Flames related.

Well...I guess it depends on your definition.

1. Does he oversea major decisions...isn't that what Burke just said. But he's the owner, so I'd expect him too (e.g.: D. Sutter hire comes to mind...or not using our cap space to take on bad contracts / retain a few years ago).

2. The lack of investment in the Flames (team, facilities and experience) is apparent. Bottom two facilities in the league as voted by the players (Athletic poll 2025). The last notable renovation to the Saddledome was in 1994. Edwards joined the group that year...and time froze.

Anyway...is the above meddling? I don't think so personally, but does it encourage an environment where we can win? Well it's probably a bit of a head wind in a 32 team league where only one team walks away happy every year. Middle of the pack feels about right given our resources and the environment to me.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Tkachukwagon

https://twitter.com/user/status/2009026901365477814

I would feel absolutely horrible for Rasmus if he had to go from Calgary to the Balkans of North America.