2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

They need to make a decision on Frost.

If Conroy wants to move him, best to do it before his 8 team trade list kicks in on July 1st.

edit: Well thats annoying.

Capwages says its a 8 team trade list
Puckpedia says its a 8 team no trade list

That is a pretty big difference

I don't think they need to be in a hurry. The club needs centers and he is not going to command a premium return. Keep hum until the deadline, if they do move him I doubt his NTC will be much of a factor if he wants to go to a playoff team for a few months.

[Bingo]

Yeah I don't see it as a risk adverse GM group ... though I'm sure that can happen.

I do wonder if many of them misjudged the impact of losing two tools for deadlines being taken away from them.

Double retention and a playoff cap made money tougher to move.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

That shot looks lethal

How’s his skating? I’m referring to Tyson Gross.

[Calgary Highlander]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I think the flames could be players in the trade market this summer. I could see Coleman moving but I could also see the Flames going after RFA or other young assets that could be on the move

Agreed. I suspect the Flames will use one of their second rounders to pick up a young player, similar to how the Caps picked up Sourdif last year.

The pro ranks are thin and the U20 prospect pool is going to be super deep. Need to spread the age profile of our young guys a bit.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah I don't see it as a risk adverse GM group ... though I'm sure that can happen.

I do wonder if many of them misjudged the impact of losing two tools for deadlines being taken away from them.

Double retention and a playoff cap made money tougher to move.

Every analyst and GM who I saw comment at the time on those changes predicted they would suppress trade deadline movement. And they did.

NHL GMs are not incompetent cowards. Trades are just a lot harder than 20 years ago because of the cap, how common NTCs have become, and now these latest changes that reduce flexibility.

Things aren't going to change by getting better or more aggressive GMs. Treliving is as aggressive as they come and he's reviled around here. The only path to increased player movement is through the next CBA. And since player's don't like movement, that will mean concessions by the owners in other areas. And I'm skeptical owners will do anything that hurts their pocketbooks in the interest of something as intangible as fan enthusiasm for trades.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Players take less money to have more trade protection, at least that is what I assume happens at the negotiating table (unless you're an all-star player, you get both).

With the cap going up and also the term going down for UFAs, I would imagine most GMs are going to attempt to overpay and offer less protection in the latter half of the contracts if possible.

[sureLoss]

Friedman has speculated that trade protection becomes a negotiating point in the next round of CBA talks.

He has talked about how some teams asked the NHL to bring it up in the last MOU, but at the time Bettman and Daly didn't think it was a pressing enough issue.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman has speculated that trade protection becomes a negotiating point in the next round of CBA talks.

Any ideas on what that could look like?

[The EBUG's EBUG]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman has speculated that trade protection becomes a negotiating point in the next round of CBA talks.

He has talked about how some teams asked the NHL to bring it up in the last MOU, but at the time Bettman and Daly didn't think it was a pressing enough issue.

Real Tim Robinson "we're all trying to find the guy who did this" energy.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Any ideas on what that could look like?

If I had a guess limits could be implemented two ways. 1, a general reduction of how many teams are allowed on any given list, say you're only allowed to block 6 teams. 2, the other way would be to reduce flexibility, for example a player would have to submit a list at the beginning of their contract and honor it for the remainder of the contract.

I think now that the cap has gone up as much as it has, the biggest challenge to parity is player control over where they want to play. I mean we've seen it happen twice. Vegas or nothing.

[Harry Lime]

The obvious way, to me, is to cap trade protection. The last two years of any deal cant have protection. One year deals have a protection option, to normalize the "year to tear" model for older players.

[Jason14h]

I can’t see owners giving up anything to get NTC changes in the next CBA

1/3 of them probably like it as it benefits them , and another 1/3 probably like it as a tool to get cheaper contracts

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by TOfan

I’ve got Pettersen, Debrusk, Beoser, Rossi over any Flame forward other than perhaps Coleman. I’ve also got Hronek ahead of any Flame D.

The Canucks should have been better. The Demko injury and the rotten core/culture are what drags them down, I think.

Debrusk over Backlund? Come on, now.

Frankly I'd have Backlund over Boeser too. We're seeing the real Boeser now that he isn't getting carried by a center having an elite season. Meanwhile, Backlund is on pace for... yup, 47 points. Like pretty much every year. Plus elite defense.

[Iggy_12]

Apparently the Leafs had a trade finalized with the Canadiens for Knies but didnt get it in on time. How is Treliving employed. He did this in Calgary too i cannot believe the leafs are letting him run their team

This was according to Friedman btw

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

Debrusk over Backlund? Come on, now.

Frankly I'd have Backlund over Boeser too. We're seeing the real Boeser now that he isn't getting carried by a center having an elite season. Meanwhile, Backlund is on pace for... yup, 47 points. Like pretty much every year. Plus elite defense.

Backlund is one of the most under-rated and disrespected players in Flames history. One of the best and most consistent two-way shut down centers of his generation and he hasn't slowed down with age.

[The EBUG's EBUG]

Originally Posted by Iggy_12

Apparently the Leafs had a trade finalized with the Canadiens for Knies but didnt get it in on time. How is Treliving employed. He did this in Calgary too i cannot believe the leafs are letting him run their team

This was according to Friedman btw

Where'd you see that? Would have made deadline way more fun wow.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Iggy_12

Apparently the Leafs had a trade finalized with the Canadiens for Knies but didnt get it in on time. How is Treliving employed. He did this in Calgary too i cannot believe the leafs are letting him run their team

This was according to Friedman btw

If that were to happen, Treliving would need full on security to leave Toronto. How does that man have a job? It's like he knows he is going to get fired or not re-upped, so he comes up with the worst thing to do before leaving.

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

If that were to happen, Treliving would need full on security to leave Toronto. How does that man have a job? It's like he knows he is going to get fired or not re-upped, so he comes up with the worst thing to do before leaving.

I mean, depends on what the deal was. IF it was Hage Reinbacher and a 1st? pretty solid

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Players take less money to have more trade protection, at least that is what I assume happens at the negotiating table (unless you're an all-star player, you get both).

With the cap going up and also the term going down for UFAs, I would imagine most GMs are going to attempt to overpay and offer less protection in the latter half of the contracts if possible.

I don't think that is the case anymore. I think it used to be the case back in the day when you could still count on one hand how many players in the league had trade protection. Back when it used to actually be a big story when a player did get one. Nowadays, I think it's just become a standard expectation for most players once they become eligible. As someone else pointed out, 37% of the players have some kind of NMC, and when you consider how many younger players just aren't eligible yet, that is probably the majority of players that get them as soon as they can. I doubt that many players are accepting discounts. From what I understand, the NHL is the only of the 4 big major leagues in North America that are so liberal about it, and it's probably the league that needs it controlled the most.

I like the idea of limiting teams to say 3 NMC's.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/2031422015077277852