2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It should be shocking...but it really isn't.

The only NHL GMs that have the guts to make trades are Vegas and Florida. Both those teams are capped out and lacking assets, so now nothing happens.

The other NHL GMs will all just wait until the last minute at the deadline now, because none of them are ever really pro-active or willing to take any risk.

Always play it as safe as humanly possible.

So do you give credit to BT then for the guts he has shown in both Calgary and Toronto?
I don't think it is lack of guts. It's the realities of making deals in a capped world. And then you factor in evaluating how much you are really improving your team's chances of a deep run now v. in the future.

I think one of the reasons why some re-builds have failed is because teams have lacked patience. So if I'm the Habs is this a year I start to spend future capital to try and open up my contention window. Maybe...but not premium assets. If i can get something valuable for an Owen Beck sure. But not if I have to give up a Reinbacher or Zharvosky.

Which teams do you think should be more aggressive right now?

Which teams are clearly in their contention window, have the required cap space, and the trade capital to make a deal.

To me the teams that should be in aggressive "go for it mode" are: Colorado, Vegas, Florida, Tampa, Edmonton, Minnesota.

[The EBUG's EBUG]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So do you give credit to BT then for the guts he has shown in both Calgary and Toronto?
I don't think it is lack of guts. It's the realities of making deals in a capped world. And then you factor in evaluating how much you are really improving your team's chances of a deep run now v. in the future.

Which teams do you think should be more aggressive right now?

Good or bad, it would be a lot more fun if GMs were less risk adverse. Tre struck out but the guy wasn't afraid to swing. Guys seem to be more scared of the moves they do make rather than the moves the don't.

I would agree that, compared to other major NA sports, NHL probably has the most conservative GMs.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The EBUG's EBUG

Good or bad, it would be a lot more fun if GMs were less risk adverse. Tre struck out but the guy wasn't afraid to swing. Guys seem to be more scared of the moves they do make rather than the moves the don't.

I would agree that, compared to other major NA sports, NHL probably has the most conservative GMs.

MLB activity is dominated by a small number of "have" teams that pilfer from the rest of the league. Those teams tend to be VERY aggressive because they can be including there is no hard cap.

NBA has big deals because one player can have an out-sized impact. I confess though I don't fully understand their economic systems, with all the exemptions, etc. And first round picks don't matter as much, unless they are high ones, so you have these deals with star players being traded for massive packages of picks. Depth matters less. Stars matter in that league.

NFL - most of the world happens in the off-season.

I think it's less about aggressiveness and more about the underlying structures of each league, and how they drive certain behaviors.

[The EBUG's EBUG]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

MLB activity is dominated by a small number of "have" teams that pilfer from the rest of the league. Those teams tend to be VERY aggressive because they can be including there is no hard cap.

NBA has big deals because one player can have an out-sized impact. I confess though I don't fully understand their economic systems, with all the exemptions, etc. And first round picks don't matter as much, unless they are high ones, so you have these deals with star players being traded for massive packages of picks. Depth matters less. Stars matter in that league.

NFL - most of the world happens in the off-season.

I think it's less about aggressiveness and more about the underlying structures of each league, and how they drive certain behaviors.

Yea I mean all fair...I still want to see more trades and think GMs aren't aggressive enough.

More trades = more fun, I love seeing guys putting their chips into the middle.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So do you give credit to BT then for the guts he has shown in both Calgary and Toronto?
I don't think it is lack of guts. It's the realities of making deals in a capped world. And then you factor in evaluating how much you are really improving your team's chances of a deep run now v. in the future.

I think one of the reasons why some re-builds have failed is because teams have lacked patience. So if I'm the Habs is this a year I start to spend future capital to try and open up my contention window. Maybe...but not premium assets. If i can get something valuable for an Owen Beck sure. But not if I have to give up a Reinbacher or Zharvosky.

Which teams do you think should be more aggressive right now?

Which teams are clearly in their contention window, have the required cap space, and the trade capital to make a deal.

To me the teams that should be in aggressive "go for it mode" are: Colorado, Vegas, Florida, Tampa, Edmonton, Minnesota.

Within the east in my view its wide open

Not sure there is a clear favorite especially with the injuries

Other teams that should be buyers

Wings, Hurricanes, Habs, etc

I could almost see the Sabre (7-2-1 in their last 10 games) adding,

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by The EBUG's EBUG

Yea I mean all fair...I still want to see more trades and think GMs aren't aggressive enough.

More trades = more fun, I love seeing guys putting their chips into the middle.

Me too, but a consequence of a capped league, which was needed to save most Canadian franchises, is less trade activity.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by flambers

Within the east in my view its wide open

Not sure there is a clear favorite especially with the injuries

Other teams that should be buyers

Wings, Hurricanes, Habs, etc

I could almost see the Sabre (7-2-1 in their last 10 games) adding,

Hurricanes have made big swings in the past. So I would say they are aggressive.
Wings/Habs have to balance how much they lean into trying to win this year v. exhibiting patience and continuing to build. They are just at the start of the contention cycle.

Again, if I were them I would be looking to make a strong addition at minimum cost. 2nd round picks and B level prospects. If i have to put 1sts or blue chippers on the table, not worth it.

So if I'm the Habs I offer the Flames Owen Beck and a 2nd for Kadri.

Which probably isn't enough. But I don't think I would pay more.

[flambers]

I wonder if the aggressive nature that Vegas has operated

If other GMs will copy

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So do you give credit to BT then for the guts he has shown in both Calgary and Toronto?
I don't think it is lack of guts. It's the realities of making deals in a capped world. And then you factor in evaluating how much you are really improving your team's chances of a deep run now v. in the future.

I think one of the reasons why some re-builds have failed is because teams have lacked patience. So if I'm the Habs is this a year I start to spend future capital to try and open up my contention window. Maybe...but not premium assets. If i can get something valuable for an Owen Beck sure. But not if I have to give up a Reinbacher or Zharvosky.

Which teams do you think should be more aggressive right now?

Which teams are clearly in their contention window, have the required cap space, and the trade capital to make a deal.

To me the teams that should be in aggressive "go for it mode" are: Colorado, Vegas, Florida, Tampa, Edmonton, Minnesota.

I think those teams for sure - plus Detroit, Buffalo, Dallas. Who have a lot of assets, and need to try to make a push.

I like Treliving's willingness to make trades...I dislike his ability to identify pieces that will put his team over the top.

Trying to trade for Rantanen was good...using those same assets on Laughton and Carlo was bad.

[activeStick]

Going to he very interesting to see what Kadri gets back in a trade. I personally think he's the exact kind of profile you'd want to add as a contender for a cup run. The grit, experience and battle combined with his scoring touch is rare. Problem is he has 3 more years left taking him to 38/39? That's going to be used against Conroy 100% in negotiations. Will that impact the pick(s) coming back? The number and level of prospect(s)?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Hurricanes have made big swings in the past. So I would say they are aggressive.
Wings/Habs have to balance how much they lean into trying to win this year v. exhibiting patience and continuing to build. They are just at the start of the contention cycle.

Again, if I were them I would be looking to make a strong addition at minimum cost. 2nd round picks and B level prospects. If i have to put 1sts or blue chippers on the table, not worth it.

So if I'm the Habs I offer the Flames Owen Beck and a 2nd for Kadri.

Which probably isn't enough. But I don't think I would pay more.

Not sure, I wonder if Canes will acquire Panarin

I doubt teams are going to make lots of moves before the Olympics break

I however would expect moves at the deadline

Really depends on the number of sellers (Vancouver, Calgary, Rangers etc...)

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I don't know that Hayton is that interesting. His draft pedigree is interesting but he does not seem to be living up to his #5OA selection. He has a lot of opportunity to play a bigger role right now with Cooley hurt and he cannot seem to rise to the occasion.

A Kadri trade should be for assets that the other team does not want to give up, not for a player that they need to ship out to make room for Kadri.

Beaudoin being the centerpiece makes more sense, with a late 1st round pick and Hayton is more of a throw in to clear a roster spot for Kadri.

Otherwise I would be looking at what you add to Kadri to get to Desnoyers, which I know is unrealistic but if Beaudoin is off the table then Desnoyers has to be the target (or visa versa). Hayton doesn't have the juice.

I don't know. Some guys just need to be moved. Bennett was also a 5th overall pick and had worse numbers than Hayton when he was traded. Sure, his game is different but if Calgary is going to find a 1st or 2nd line young centre at a bargain, it's the Haytons of the league they need to be targeting and Utah can afford to move him if they're getting a centre back.

It's a low likelihood he'll ever reach his peak, but a 45 point centre has value and if they also get that first, the deal is pretty good for a guy like Kadri.

[Yanda]

I would like to see the Flames trade Coleman with Retention, then hes definetely bring back a 1st. Kadri should be traded with a bad contract coming back, then were "retaining" but not tied to the retention slot. Then we can either have another forward to help transition to the new core, or we can buy him out or bury him if needed. Then were getting late firsts for both, instead of a late 1st+B and 2nd+B

Then you get the Markstrom and Andersson retentions back for next year for plays on potentially Frost, Whitecloud ect.

Why not just take back 1 of Sturm (2mil/2yr) or Trenin (3.5mil/3yr) in a Kadri deal to Minnisota

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by flambers

I wonder if the aggressive nature that Vegas has operated

If other GMs will copy

Not if they don't have every UFA wanting to sign in their city for tax and lifestyle reasons. The rich in Las Vegas and Florida will continue to get richer unless the NHL takes steps to level the playing field. Which it won't.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Me too, but a consequence of a capped league, which was needed to save most Canadian franchises, is less trade activity.

I blame the ridiculous overuse of trade protection in players contracts for the lack of moves far more than the cap. No other league comes close to have as many players with a say in if and where they get traded than the NHL

[GioforPM]

Wasn't it Friedman who said GMs are not going to trade for a guy and eat cap while the break is on?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I blame the ridiculous overuse of trade protection in players contracts for the lack of moves far more than the cap. No other league comes close to have as many players with a say in if and where they get traded than the NHL

TBF, other leagues pay their players a lot more. Plus their cap rules are a lot different. And with two exceptions they have no Canadian clubs.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think those teams for sure - plus Detroit, Buffalo, Dallas. Who have a lot of assets, and need to try to make a push.

I like Treliving's willingness to make trades...I dislike his ability to identify pieces that will put his team over the top.

Trying to trade for Rantanen was good...using those same assets on Laughton and Carlo was bad.

Dallas is a good addition to the list.
I would be careful if I were Buffalo and Detroit. They have had long playoff droughts and need to build a sustained period of contention. If they are too aggressive too fast, they could end up right back out.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I blame the ridiculous overuse of trade protection in players contracts for the lack of moves far more than the cap. No other league comes close to have as many players with a say in if and where they get traded than the NHL

Ok so ask yourself why that is.
It's not because GMs are giving them out for no reason.
It's because GMs have valued cap space more than trade flexibility. And in contrast, because the NHL is a league with several less than desirable locations, trade protection is valued more by players.

So GMs are happy to give up trade protection so they have more cap available. And the players will take less on a deal to get trade protection. As a result, these are two elements to an agreement that both sides are happy to give on to get what they want. Players want protection. GMs want cap.

So I agree the high volume of NTC and MTCs restrict movement, they are not the cause in and of themselves. It's the underlying elements that drive that behavior.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Dallas is a good addition to the list.
I would be careful if I were Buffalo and Detroit. They have had long playoff droughts and need to build a sustained period of contention. If they are too aggressive too fast, they could end up right back out.

Buffalo is the one for me more just because I think they have enough assets, and need to show to the guys there they are serious.

I wouldn't sell the farm but they can afford to move the 2026 1st or maybe one of their mid tier prospects (Ostlund, Kulich, Rosen)