2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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

Disagree - it isn't saving them money. Even if it were having an impact at first, if everyone gets one, prices simply inflate back up. Each team is spending all they can, so NTCs are not reducing costs.

At the other end, trades being restricted has its own costs.

SO while it may look on paper like they should reduce costs, in reality, they are creating costs (laws of unintended consequences). I suspect owners are now ready to address this.

[Enoch Root]

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.

Agreed.

Also, is Hronek any better than Whitecloud? More importantly though, the Flames have more depth than the Nucks - it's a team game game. I think the proof is on the ice - the Nucks are abysmal.

[musth]

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

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.

He and Coleman make anyone who plays on their line better more often than not.

Plus, Millie is such a cutie cheering for her dad!

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Disagree - it isn't saving them money. Even if it were having an impact at first, if everyone gets one, prices simply inflate back up. Each team is spending all they can, so NTCs are not reducing costs.

At the other end, trades being restricted has its own costs.

SO while it may look on paper like they should reduce costs, in reality, they are creating costs (laws of unintended consequences). I suspect owners are now ready to address this.

But I doubt players are. And why should they?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

But I doubt players are. And why should they?

It's a negotiation - if you want something, you offer them something else.

The question isn't whether the players want to get rid of them (they don't), the question is: how desperately do they want to keep them (as is) vs what else would they rather have?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's a negotiation - if you want something, you offer them something else.

The question isn't whether the players want to get rid of them (they don't), the question is: how desperately do they want to keep them (as is) vs what else would they rather have?

E.g. lower UFA age. That's something the players will always push for.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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.

Yep. If a team tries to re-sign a player or attract a UFA and doesn't give him trade protection, it's perceived as an insult. They're basically the default for any veteran player earning $4 mil or more.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

At the other end, trades being restricted has its own costs.

The cost is frustration among fans like us and the media. But it's hard to point to any tangible financial cost to owners. They could just shrug and point the NFL as a league that's highly successful with hardly any in-season trades.

The players will want something tangible in return. And if that's earlier UFA eligibility, it's not obvious a small-market team like the Flames will come out ahead in that trade-off.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's a negotiation - if you want something, you offer them something else.

The question isn't whether the players want to get rid of them (they don't), the question is: how desperately do they want to keep them (as is) vs what else would they rather have?

Well and do the owners wants to give up something else for something that really isn’t a huge deal. The players already have this in the CBA . They certainly aren’t going to give it up without the proverbial overpay

I sure don’t see owners giving earlier UFA , better situations for RFAs , or any cost certainly items for this small issue.

Especially since a decent amount of teams in the league probably like the current situation .

And does it really change that much . Even if you don’t have official NTC a player just makes it public he will be unhappy playing in XYZ. Teams aren’t going to trade premium assets for a player who doesn’t want to be there . And no team would trade for a player before knowing their thoughts before IMO

[D as in David]

Maybe the players would accept a lower UFA age, along with all UFA contracts having the same number of teams a player can't be traded to. For example, all UFA contracts have an 8-team, no-trade clause. Plus, keep intact some ability for players to negotiate a "no demotion" clause so that they couldn't be sent to the minors.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Maybe the players would accept a lower UFA age, along with all UFA contracts having the same number of teams a player can't be traded to. For example, all UFA contracts have an 8-team, no-trade clause. Plus, keep intact some ability for players to negotiate a "no demotion" clause so that they couldn't be sent to the minors.

The way RFA contracts are going they may as well be UFAs, at least the better players.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Maybe the players would accept a lower UFA age, along with all UFA contracts having the same number of teams a player can't be traded to. For example, all UFA contracts have an 8-team, no-trade clause. Plus, keep intact some ability for players to negotiate a "no demotion" clause so that they couldn't be sent to the minors.

Personally, I think the NBA way of doing it nails it perfectly.

For a player to be eligible for an NMC, they need to have a certain number or professional seasons and they need to be re-signing with the same team (having been with that team for at least 4 seasons already).

I've seen some suggestions, like limiting the number a team can have, to say three. I like that on the surface, but there is a theoretical possibility that every team will have all their slots used and then a player even with a very limited NTC would essentially have a full NMC in practice because you couldn't trade them anywhere. The only way to get around that would be if another player with an NMC was coming back, or if the player completely and permanently waived their NMC, which again defeats the purpose of even having one. For that reason, I don't think the players would go for it.

I read another proposal that suggested cap hit penalties to deter teams from overusing them. Like a $500k cap penalty per NMC (or whatever number is considered appropriate). Having a few wouldn't be a huge issue, but you definitely wouldn't want to abuse it or you could get into trouble. The money would be put in the escrow pot. Aside from the NBA system, this would probably be my next choice.

I don't know what the NHL could offer back though for accepting changes. Personally, I think NMCs are bad enough that I'd rather see a lockout over it to try and force the issue than have things continue down the same path it has been. I understand that a lot of teams don't mind it the way it is now and it might be tough to get a majority. I am sure more warm climate and larger market cities like it the way it is because they benefit from it mostly.

[Geeoff]

if the teams don't like NTC/NMC they could just not hand them out like candy?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

if the teams don't like NTC/NMC they could just not hand them out like candy?

Any GM who independently decides not to hand them out will be handicapping his team in attracting free agents and keeping star players. It can only be addressed by collective action.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

if the teams don't like NTC/NMC they could just not hand them out like candy?

Saying not to hand out NMCs in a contract these days is like saying just don't hand out contracts at all, unless you only sign depth players that aren't in demand. In that case, good luck ever being competitive. They have become a standard expectation for pretty much any player that has more than one suitor.

Any GM that decides not to hand them out better like having almost no top 9 or top 4 forwards and defenseman over the age of 27.

[Finger Cookin]

Just like with climbing salaries, and then cost certainty, and then cap compliance buyouts, and then backdiving cap circumvention contracts, and then the elimination of deferred salary, and then the playoff salary cap system, poor hapless GMs need to be saved by themselves regarding no trade and no movement clauses. Won't someone think of the poor GMs who are just trying to make an honest living and build an NHL roster?

[jmerkel3d]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I think the NBA way of doing it nails it perfectly.



For a player to be eligible for an NMC, they need to have a certain number or professional seasons and they need to be re-signing with the same team (having been with that team for at least 4 seasons already).



I've seen some suggestions, like limiting the number a team can have, to say three. I like that on the surface, but there is a theoretical possibility that every team will have all their slots used and then a player even with a very limited NTC would essentially have a full NMC in practice because you couldn't trade them anywhere. The only way to get around that would be if another player with an NMC was coming back, or if the player completely and permanently waived their NMC, which again defeats the purpose of even having one. For that reason, I don't think the players would go for it.



I read another proposal that suggested cap hit penalties to deter teams from overusing them. Like a $500k cap penalty per NMC (or whatever number is considered appropriate). Having a few wouldn't be a huge issue, but you definitely wouldn't want to abuse it or you could get into trouble. The money would be put in the escrow pot. Aside from the NBA system, this would probably be my next choice.



I don't know what the NHL could offer back though for accepting changes. Personally, I think NMCs are bad enough that I'd rather see a lockout over it to try and force the issue than have things continue down the same path it has been. I understand that a lot of teams don't mind it the way it is now and it might be tough to get a majority. I am sure more warm climate and larger market cities like it the way it is because they benefit from it mostly.

I really like the NBA approach. Merit and encouraging players to stay with their team is never a bad thing. Easy for me to say though because I cheer for a small market Canadian team.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

if the teams don't like NTC/NMC they could just not hand them out like candy?

And that's how Alex Pietrangelo walks from St. Louis and signs with Vegas.

[TOfan]

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.

Good point. I probably didn’t give Backlund the credit he’s due. That said, age will, eventually, come calling.

I still maintain especially at the top, the Canucks lineup, today, is better than the Flames. At least the skaters.

[Bert]

So I was thinking today. Assume the following (and my question afterwards)

Calgary drafts 1/2 this year and takes McKenna
Calgary again tanks next year and gets one of the centers or DuPont
Makar comes home

Do we have enough cap space and pieces in place we can attract McDavid after his contract runs out? We have the goalie, and would have stellar defence. Young pieces and drafting well with a deep pipeline.

Is that enough to convince him to come and join his hated rival to chase cups? Can we pull it off? Would you want to?