2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I hate this argument, why do we discuss anything then?

None of us know what the offers are ever, doesn't mean we can't discuss it.

It's pretty obvious that had they put Andersson on the market at that draft with 2 years of retention that their would have been an immense market for him.

RH dmen are always highly valued.



I don't think they even started shopping him until the 2025 Draft, and by that point he was coming off a poor season, had a NTC, and also had limitations in terms of where he's willing to sign an extension.

2024 draft would have been peak trade value IMO.

My guess is he would have returned a package similar to what Sergachev returned at that time - and that was Geekie (2022 11th OV pick), JJ Moser (has turned into a great top 4, and probably top pair dman) and a 2025 2nd.

When someone says they should have done something at a certain point it's fair game to point out that you can't possibly know that.

And that's still discussion.

Why do we have such a push back on people pointing out we don't have facts?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I'm sure Andersson is open to talking to teams. But that does not mean he is going to, or has to sign an extension with them.

Anderssson really holds all the power, if we are hoping for a trade with an extension.

He could basically say one of the 3 things.

1. I'm open to an extension with x team and willing to discuss specifics now
2. I'm open to an extension with x team, but only after I'm acquired and/or after the season
3. I'm not open to extending with x team at all.

Teams will want the certainty of #1, but basically Vegas acquired Hanifin without that, but had a strong sense of #2. So can they do the same thing here with Rasmus?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Bingo and I have gotten into it actually, think it was a week or two ago where I said he was constantly defending any criticism of the Flames..it just wasn't in this specific scenario so I didn't include him but I can add him if you'd like. Same with Jiri.

I'll edit my post and add them just for you. (Although I will add those guys generally take a less abrasive approach than you do, no offense to you, they are just less confrontational about it)

And I don't disagree with you that some are negative for the sake of being negative, and will also never give the organization any credit, but I don't think I fall into that category. I also don't think we can only discuss things that are facts or have already happened.

Part of the fun of being a fan is the unknown, and the yet to happen. And none of us are in a position to know exactly what happened behind the scenes, what exactly the offers were, or what the offers might be in the future.

But that's why it's fun and it's debate. If we are only discuss the things we all know to be facts then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

Although I will agree that some will try to take facts and twist them for sure.

I think you'll find I don't defend as much as point out that people jump to conclusions without facts.

I personally prefer to critique things that have actually happened and not theories of what may have happened presented as fact.

But have never had a problem with you personally. You are level headed.

All good.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Craig's not going to let himself get burned again (Hanifin fiasco) so he's keeping the entire situation under control.
With that said he's very aware of what teams would offer *more* with an extension and what that looks like for Calgary in comparison to the rental price (multiple offers from Detroit for example)

.

Does this mean that Detroit has made multiple offers including offers with an extension and offers w/o an extension in place?

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman also said he gets the sense no one has been given permission to talk to Andersson about a contract.

On the Detroit talk from social, Friedman said the Red Wings wouldn't do a Hughes trade unless there was extension in place and he thinks the same thing has to be the case for Andersson.


Friedman says he has nothing to add on the Kadri reporting.


On Coleman, he says that Coleman will be happy to stay in Calgary.
There is a lot of interest in Coleman
Teams have told Friedman not to buy into the Montreal talk, that other teams may have an advantage on Coleman (I think what Friedman is saying is that there are other teams that Coleman would prefer to move to before Montreal).

There's no way the Flames would not allow Andersson to talk with other teams about an extension, because an extension could significantly increase the return the Flames would get in a trade. So I wouldn't read anything into Friedman getting that sense, unless they're worried that he would refuse to waive his NTC to get traded to a team that was talking about a lower $$ extension.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He could basically say one of the 3 things.

1. I'm open to an extension with x team and willing to discuss specifics now
2. I'm open to an extension with x team, but only after I'm acquired and/or after the season
3. I'm not open to extending with x team at all.

Teams will want the certainty of #1, but basically Vegas acquired Hanifin without that, but had a strong sense of #2. So can they do the same thing here with Rasmus?

He could also be negotiating. By saying he is willing to go to UFA day, he could simply be saying "don't bring me your garbage offers".

It is the same as Conroy saying "if no one makes a good trade offer then we will extend the player". That doesn't have to mean his plan is to extend the player, he is just keeping the option open so that any trade partner has to give a good offer.

Andersson may be keeping a public appearance that he doesn't want to sign with anyone so that GMs keep in mind what their July 1st offers are and that any offer to him today should look like a July 1 offer. 10x8 instead of 8x8.

I still think it is most likely that Andersson signs before July 1st in order to get an 8 year deal. There is no advantage to a 7 year deal and it most likely hurts his career earnings.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

There's no way the Flames would not allow Andersson to talk with other teams about an extension, because an extension could significantly increase the return the Flames would get in a trade. So I wouldn't read anything into Friedman getting that sense, unless they're worried that he would refuse to waive his NTC to get traded to a team that was talking about a lower $$ extension.

The nuance is that there has to be a trade agreed to pending an extension but they won’t let the agent talk to teams before a deal is in place.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The nuance is that there has to be a trade agreed to pending an extension but they won’t let the agent talk to teams before a deal is in place.

Conroy doesn't have to ever allow the agent to talk to other teams. Conroy can stay in the middle of the conversation entirely and as long as Andersson is a Flames asset, the extension would be signed with the Flames and then traded to another team.

Conroy just needs to stay aligned with the other GM on what the extension is that they are willing to accept in the trade.

But there is no real reason to allow the agent and another GM to talk.

[SuperMatt18]

NHL getting rid of picks being conditional on an extension was stupid.

All this mess gets avoided if NHL just allows conditional picks for that scenario still.

Detroit could offer Danielson + a Conditional 1st (1st if he re-signs, 2nd if he doesn't) and you don't need the song and dance.

NHL seems to hate any rules that might actually facilitate making trades easier.

Conditional picks, get rid of that. Double retention, nope. The ability to just trade salary cap, are you crazy!

[PepsiFree]

Anyone can criticize anything, but I do find criticism based on theories of what did/didn’t occur instead of what actually happened kind of like someone getting mad at someone for something they did in a dream.

Invested fans probably know enough to come up with realistic theories, but realistic =/= real, so we should at least be comfortable with that distinction. And at a certain point people do have to accept they’re just making up things to criticize and that a lot of people aren’t going to be into that.

Maybe it’s just the whole post-truth world we live in. But I don’t think anyone has an issue with theories, it’s the people presenting theories as fact or trying to downplay that facts have more weight. I’ve seen at least a couple examples recently, with one poster outright denying their theory was made up.

Anyways. It is a fact that the best day of the week to trade Ras is on a Monday in January, so let’s get something done today. Or else!

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Conroy doesn't have to ever allow the agent to talk to other teams. Conroy can stay in the middle of the conversation entirely and as long as Andersson is a Flames asset, the extension would be signed with the Flames and then traded to another team.

Conroy just needs to stay aligned with the other GM on what the extension is that they are willing to accept in the trade.

But there is no real reason to allow the agent and another GM to talk.

Don’t think it needs to be that hard of a line. The issue with Hanifin was not having a deal in place.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

NHL getting rid of picks being conditional on an extension was stupid.

All this mess gets avoided if NHL just allows conditional picks for that scenario still.

Detroit could offer Danielson + a Conditional 1st (1st if he re-signs, 2nd if he doesn't) and you don't need the song and dance.

NHL seems to hate any rules that might actually facilitate making trades easier.

Conditional picks, get rid of that. Double retention, nope. The ability to just trade salary cap, are you crazy!

The conditional picks was pressure from the NHLPA. Double retention and trading cap dilute the point of the cap. The easiest thing to go after would be the insane amount of NTCs but the NHLPA will never agree.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bonded

The conditional picks was pressure from the NHLPA. Double retention and trading cap dilute the point of the cap. The easiest thing to go after would be the insane amount of NTCs but the NHLPA will never agree.

But you have a hard salary cap, a cap on terms, a cap on player salaries, more than enough protection there.

It dilutes the cap but also prevents smaller market teams from monetizing their cap space.

Get rid of salary retention, just allow teams to trade up to 5% of their cap, and allow teams to acquire up to 5% of cap.

A team like the Flames could trade $5M of space to a team like Vegas right now, long term that will help them compete, not hurt them

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman also said he gets the sense no one has been given permission to talk to Andersson about a contract.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So Friedman saying no team has been given permission to talk extension with Rasmus yet

These are not even close to the same thing, and you know it.

This is exactly how things get exaggerated, then take on a life of their own, even though they aren't facts.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

There's no way the Flames would not allow Andersson to talk with other teams about an extension, because an extension could significantly increase the return the Flames would get in a trade. So I wouldn't read anything into Friedman getting that sense, unless they're worried that he would refuse to waive his NTC to get traded to a team that was talking about a lower $$ extension.

Naw, if Friedman is saying it then there is absolutely no way the Flames allowed Ras to talk extension with anyone. That was the mistake Conroy made with Hanifin's trade and it burned him and he's not going to do it again. Letting Ras talk to other teams is exactly how you shrink his market and limit your return.

You shop his as a rental and whoever gets him will get to dangle that 8th year. The most I can see Conroy giving another team is an acknowledgement that Ras would be open to negotiating.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

NHL getting rid of picks being conditional on an extension was stupid.

All this mess gets avoided if NHL just allows conditional picks for that scenario still.

Detroit could offer Danielson + a Conditional 1st (1st if he re-signs, 2nd if he doesn't) and you don't need the song and dance.

NHL seems to hate any rules that might actually facilitate making trades easier.

Conditional picks, get rid of that. Double retention, nope. The ability to just trade salary cap, are you crazy!

I liked the conditional picks thing too, but I think it was one of those things the league had to give up to appease the players for accepting the salary cap. I think it deterred teams from re-signing their rentals and most players don't like moving on that quickly so close to being traded once.

Agreed though that the NHL made it harder than it needs to be for teams to make trades, but I chalk that up more to the extremely liberal use of NTCs and NMCs. They should have clamped down on that like other leagues do.

[Roko]

You also can up your return by getting rasmus and agent to indicate willingness to extend with the acquiring team. If they say yeah we would be good to discuss an extension upon moving there. Then that’s the best you can do. Unless it’s a sign and trade being asked for by Detroit. Thats harder

[ComixZone]

https://twitter.com/user/status/2010766222741450965

Some insight into a comparable for Kadri (would say Kadri > Schenn on ice, Schenn > Kadri on contract terms/age cliff - but that correlates to the Kadri > Schenn on ice).

Effectively two 1st round picks + something else.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

But you have a hard salary cap, a cap on terms, a cap on player salaries, more than enough protection there.

It dilutes the cap but also prevents smaller market teams from monetizing their cap space.

Get rid of salary retention, just allow teams to trade up to 5% of their cap, and allow teams to acquire up to 5% of cap.

A team like the Flames could trade $5M of space to a team like Vegas right now, long term that will help them compete, not hurt them

You don’t have a hard salary cap if a team can acquire cap and. If the goal is more trades then severely limit the number of NTCs/NMCs.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Don’t think it needs to be that hard of a line. The issue with Hanifin was not having a deal in place.

The easiest way to not get burned is to never let go of control of the situation.

Conroy can get the details of the offer from the other GM and present it to Andersson's agent. At the same time, Conroy probably has a good grasp on what Andersson will or will not accept (if he doesn't know, he can ask) and then Conroy can present that back to the other GM.

How many variables do they need to figure out? Term, Salary (how much is bonuses versus salary), NTC conditions.... Conroy can negotiate that easily to get the value he wants out of the trade.

If the other GM and Andersson agrees on the extension details then they draft up the paperwork for both the trade and the extension, everyone signs and the deals are done simultaneously. Sign and trade.

There is really no reason or upside for Conroy to step out of the way and allow the other GM to talk to Andersson's agent directly and thus far the evidence shows that it hurts the process for Conroy to allow that.