2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

https://twitter.com/user/status/1939348842048012615

Some other team might get to lose in the finals this year.

So should we sign him for the lols?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Trading players who have more than one year left on their contract is wild?

If it’s your strategy to keep trading players with 2-3 years left in their contracts as a previous poster suggested, then yeah it is. You’ll never get anywhere because you’ll never develop a team. Just a bunch of nomads.

[Toonage]

^^ I wouldn’t mind losing a cup final. Best finish in 20 years

But seriously no thank you

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

So should we sign him for the lols?

Thought players would be coming by the bus load to play on minimum contracts.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Just throwing this out there (if it hasn't been mentioned already), but what about the possibility of signing RA to a short term deal (2 year extension) at a higher AAV then he'd get on the market now that we have the money? Then come to his last year we shop him with retention? He wins now by getting a load of money, and can test free agency with a higher cap in a couple years, while we also recoup assets at a later time. I'd only do this if we aren't getting the value we want, closer to the deadline.

Just give him an 8 year deal aligned with what he'd get from Vegas, Carolina or wherever else he's open to going. Then trade him when you get the best deal.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

If it’s your strategy to keep trading players with 2-3 years left in their contracts as a previous poster suggested, then yeah it is. You’ll never get anywhere because you’ll never develop a team. Just a bunch of nomads.

I don't know exactly which posters you are referencing, but is that really what people are suggesting?

Aren't people asking for the organization to take a realistic evaluation of where the team is competitively, look at some of their veteran players, and maybe decide that it is in the best long term interests of a team with aspirations to win the Stanley Cup, to consider moving them?

[Saqe]

The fact that Perry was their second leading goal scorer in the playoffs means that Edmonton is in the ####s if they lose him.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't know exactly which posters you are referencing, but is that really what people are suggesting?

Aren't people asking for the organization to take a realistic evaluation of where the team is competitively, look at some of their veteran players, and maybe decide that it is in the best long term interests of a team with aspirations to win the Stanley Cup, to consider moving them?

Players like Andersson, Kadri, and Coleman signed long term deals thinking we were in a contention window. Things changed quickly, and some short sighted moves from previous management really screwed us over.

Things change, we are no longer contenders. And some players want to win. This is why I don't understand people freaking out at even the suggestion of trading our vets.

We should be looking to get the most value possible from these players. Look at Florida or Vegas or Colorado. They traded players or didn't re sign players who helped them win cups. You have to take the emotion out of it.

If Rantanen can be traded, anyone can be traded.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't know exactly which posters you are referencing, but is that really what people are suggesting?

Aren't people asking for the organization to take a realistic evaluation of where the team is competitively, look at some of their veteran players, and maybe decide that it is in the best long term interests of a team with aspirations to win the Stanley Cup, to consider moving them?

Like how many players do they have to move before people stop pretending they don’t do this? Just wondering, because I think it’s over a half dozen over the past two years or so right? Is it just moving guys with 2+ years less? I think I read somewhere that Markstrom doesn’t count because he asked for a trade after he found out they were shopping him.

IDK it’s hard to keep track of what the proper management style is and what counts and what doesn’t.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Players like Andersson, Kadri, and Coleman signed long term deals thinking we were in a contention window. Things changed quickly, and some short sighted moves from previous management really screwed us over.

Things change, we are no longer contenders. And some players want to win. This is why I don't understand people freaking out at even the suggestion of trading our vets.

We should be looking to get the most value possible from these players. Look at Florida or Vegas or Colorado. They traded players or didn't re sign players who helped them win cups. You have to take the emotion out of it.

If Rantanen can be traded, anyone can be traded.

Nobody is, or has “freaked out” over it. It’s super weird watching you drum up this fantasy position to stand against, not sure why, but I’m pretty sure the only resistance you’ve gotten is people boldly bringing up how an NMC works.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Players like Andersson, Kadri, and Coleman signed long term deals thinking we were in a contention window. Things changed quickly, and some short sighted moves from previous management really screwed us over.

Things change, we are no longer contenders. And some players want to win. This is why I don't understand people freaking out at even the suggestion of trading our vets.

We should be looking to get the most value possible from these players. Look at Florida or Vegas or Colorado. They traded players or didn't re sign players who helped them win cups. You have to take the emotion out of it.

If Rantanen can be traded, anyone can be traded.

Rantanen was traded because he his contract was expiring and they weren't going to be able to afford him in Colorado.

It literally has nothing to do with the Flames' situation. Andersson is the only vet on an expiring contract (apart from Backlund who probably has very low value other than a rental for a playoff team). All the other guys are harder to move due to term or NTC/NMCs.

And we've gotten plenty of value from trading veterans over the last few years. To say otherwise is just being obtuse. Timing is everything with these kinds of trades, and there's plenty of runway left before Andersson's contract expires.

Look, if you're going to barrage the forums with the same points over and over, you at least have to make sense or be consistent.

Also...WTF does Florida have to do with anything here? apples and oranges. Yes, they let some players go, but they also re-signed a LOT of players and kept a good core together long term.

I just have a lot of trouble following your logic.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Just throwing this out there (if it hasn't been mentioned already), but what about the possibility of signing RA to a short term deal (2 year extension) at a higher AAV then he'd get on the market now that we have the money? Then come to his last year we shop him with retention? He wins now by getting a load of money, and can test free agency with a higher cap in a couple years, while we also recoup assets at a later time. I'd only do this if we aren't getting the value we want, closer to the deadline.

Can't imagine RA signing a 2 year deal and hitting UFA at 32. He needs to get as much term as he can.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't know exactly which posters you are referencing, but is that really what people are suggesting?

Aren't people asking for the organization to take a realistic evaluation of where the team is competitively, look at some of their veteran players, and maybe decide that it is in the best long term interests of a team with aspirations to win the Stanley Cup, to consider moving them?

And how would you then ever get to a ‘realistic’ competition zone? Kadri gone this year and rasmus gone last year, so you’d have a team next year that has no chance of a cup in 3 years. So 3 years from now you’re likely getting rid of coronato and zary. And you’re basically again in a situation where a ‘realistic’ view would mean no Stanley cup in the next 3 years. So rinse and repeat.

It just makes no sense. It’s honestly just hindsight driven reactionary talk.

[PepsiFree]

The Rantanen example is extra funny because he was traded, twice, from a worse position than the Flames are currently in with Andersson.

[PepsiFree]

Also, 6 veterans traded the year prior (including top G, C, 2/4 top six W, and 2/4 top 4 D), a second year head coach without success the year prior, lowest league payroll.

Some fans: “Gee it’d be really nice if they were honest with themselves and stopped trying to hold onto all the veterans and compete for the playoffs all the time!”

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

It just makes no sense. It’s honestly just hindsight driven reactionary talk.

haha half of the posters on this forum were given flack for wanting this kind of action 2-3 years ago so I really don't think it's fair to call this reactionary talk

And again, having a realistic evaluation of wanting to trade 35 year old Kadri is not the same as what potential discussions may occur with a 26 year old Zary in 3 years.

[ResAlien]

Their personal jihad against Kadri will never get old. I look forward to repeated demands that Kadri be asked to waive his NMC by management despite it being reported time and time again that not only has he made it clear he won't waive it but that he's one of the few stars that wants to be in Calgary. I guess the org better do everything in its power to alienate him. With every trade or almost trade that happens until his contract expires we can circle this same toilet bowl, watching the blue water spin and drain in perpetuity.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Funny thing is with the ‘if your realistic window is not 2-3 years then trade’m’ Florida would have traded Barkov years ago.

But I’m sure there is an asterisk there.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Rantanen was traded because he his contract was expiring and they weren't going to be able to afford him in Colorado.

It literally has nothing to do with the Flames' situation. Andersson is the only vet on an expiring contract (apart from Backlund who probably has very low value other than a rental for a playoff team). All the other guys are harder to move due to term or NTC/NMCs.

And we've gotten plenty of value from trading veterans over the last few years. To say otherwise is just being obtuse. Timing is everything with these kinds of trades, and there's plenty of runway left before Andersson's contract expires.

Look, if you're going to barrage the forums with the same points over and over, you at least have to make sense or be consistent.

Also...WTF does Florida have to do with anything here? apples and oranges. Yes, they let some players go, but they also re-signed a LOT of players and kept a good core together long term.

I just have a lot of trouble following your logic.

I have a hard time articulating my point sometimes. But the main thing is just that vet players shouldn't be untouchable, especially when you're rebuilding.

I have no problem with you as a poster so I don't want to argue with you. Have a good day.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

And how would you then ever get to a ‘realistic’ competition zone? Kadri gone this year and rasmus gone last year, so you’d have a team next year that has no chance of a cup in 3 years. So 3 years from now you’re likely getting rid of coronato and zary. And you’re basically again in a situation where a ‘realistic’ view would mean no Stanley cup in the next 3 years. So rinse and repeat.

It just makes no sense. It’s honestly just hindsight driven reactionary talk.

In 3 years Kadri and Andersson will be 38 and 32 respectively. Significant difference between them and Zary and Coronato being 26 and in their primes.

The teams direction changed. So we hang onto guys and let them dictate what happens to send a good message to the locker room.

I understand the Flames are trying to reshape their image after 2 guys walked but being Mr. Nice Guy to everyone will leave us being a pushover. Look at Zito or Mcrimmimon both ruthless and not afraid to shake things up in the room.