2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I mean... if you wanted to control your destiny that is exactly how you would structure the list, except Dallas would also be blocked out so that you could only be traded with your agreement.

Going almost purely by last year's standings and not even looking at organizational depth, a 10 list team could be: Sharks, Blackhawks, Preds, Flyers, Kraken, Ducks, Pens, Islanders, Rangers, Blue Jackets.

If you made that your "yes" list and all other teams require approval, that does not leave a lot room for Conroy to trade you without your consent. And I would expect that Coleman's agent would need to fine tune the list a bit by doing a deeper analysis as to which teams have a need for Coleman and/or the assets to trade for him.

It is odd that some posters think that in a multi-million dollar industry the players are demanding these trade clauses but then not putting in the effort to maximize their control within the clause.

Anyway, it is a good thing it sounds like Coleman wants to go and is ready to accept a trade. Hopefully with multiple teams meeting Conroy's price it is a quick conversation to get Coleman's blessing and pull the trigger on one of them.

I think you have it backward. There are 10 teams that Coleman cannot be traded to.

[CalgaryFan1988]

I, irrationally, want back what Montreal received for Monahan in any Kadri trade.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Sounds the perfect recipe for some paralysis by analysis on the part of these GMs

It definitely seems like GMs have grown more conservative around the trade deadline over the years. There seems to be a lot of tire kicking and low ball offers, whereas it takes forever for teams to get to terms on players that we know are leaving, e.g. Andersson.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think you have it backward. There are 10 teams that Coleman cannot be traded to.

Wolven got it right. It's a 10 team approved trade list for Coleman.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by McG

If it’s not fact, it’s opinion or conjecture.

My conjecture nee requirement is that any UFA be traded. There is zero point to walking contracts to the end of the season.

So Lomberg has to be a certainty.

Like the player and want them back? Have a conversation about that prior to the trade. The player might be ecstatic about playing for a different team for a couple of months.

Realistically though, if an extension hasn’t been signed it’s because the player or team wants to see the market in the summer.

So trade them for whatever you can get.

Nah, Lomberg does not have to be traded.

Just to be clear, Conroy's emphasis is that only significant UFA's need to be traded before they walk to UFA. Guys like Hanifin, Lindholm, Andersson, etc. who are key players in important roles.

Lomberg is awesome but he is still a 4th line player that does not really meet the requirement. I can see the team walking him to UFA just to keep some grit (and positivity) in the lineup for the rest of the season. Bean is another depth player who will walk to UFA (unfortunately on the IR) and it is not a big deal.

There is no real need to move him unless there is a really good offer. Ie. I would move him for a 2nd round pick, maybe a 3rd, but maybe not for a 4th.

[getoverit]

I cant see eating any of Colemans cap, he's worth a first and will get it, unless its part of something bigger. our last retention spot left open for Kadri

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I, irrationally, want back what Montreal received for Monahan in any Kadri trade.

A first, seems likely

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think you have it backward. There are 10 teams that Coleman cannot be traded to.

Nope. Coleman has a 10 team approved trade list. That is a 10 team "Yes" list. Which means he has a 21 team "No" list.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Nope. Coleman has a 10 team approved trade list. That is a 10 team "Yes" list. Which means he has a 21 team "No" list.

My bad, thanks for the correction.

I'm not sure this gives as much leverage as you're suggesting, though. These are usually set at the beginning of the season. Are you, Blake Coleman, on the downswing of your career and with a young family, going to gamble in the offseason that:

1) The Flames are going to be bad;
2) You're going to get traded; and
3) Putting all the undesirable locations on your list isn't going to backfire?

You're taking a big gamble that you won't end up getting traded to a bad team or a bad market just so you can have more control over where you're going.

Coleman isn't a rental -- he has term and he would have value to 31 other teams in this league in the same way he has value to us right now even though we're a bottom 5 team. You don't know that you aren't going to get traded to a Columbus or a Buffalo (as they were seen in the offseason) if you make this gamble.

The other route a player can take is use your 10-team approved trade list to select places you would actually be happy to go to, which I suspect is what he did.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by McG

If it’s not fact, it’s opinion or conjecture.

My conjecture nee requirement is that any UFA be traded. There is zero point to walking contracts to the end of the season.

So Lomberg has to be a certainty.

Like the player and want them back? Have a conversation about that prior to the trade. The player might be ecstatic about playing for a different team for a couple of months.

Realistically though, if an extension hasn’t been signed it’s because the player or team wants to see the market in the summer.

So trade them for whatever you can get.

The problem is that whatever you can get for a UFA who’s a bench warmer more often than not might be future considerations. In which case it’s not worth it.

[Lewis_D]

Sonny Milano on waivers today as per Friedman.

[McG]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The problem is that whatever you can get for a UFA who’s a bench warmer more often than not might be future considerations. In which case it’s not worth it.

Not thinking about futures but that’s a solid favour for a player and maybe some cap savings in certain circumstances.

Ice time for others on a tanking team is worth it.

[sureLoss]

Pagnotta says Weegar won't go to Ottawa.

https://www.thefourthperiod.com/pagn...deadline-nears

The Ottawa Senators, Detroit Red Wings and Boston Bruins, among others, have poked around Weegar’s availability, but it is important to note that, as of today, the Flames have not yet spoken with Weegar or his agent about the possibility of waiving his NTC. That conversation, however, is likely to occur over the next week, I am led to believe.

It is also important to point out is how much Weegar enjoys being with the Flames and being in Calgary – and this suggests to me that any lateral move to a non-legit Stanley Cup contender would, at the very least, require serious convincing.

The Senators have appeared most interested in Weegar, but given their position in the standings, sources suggest that’s not a spot the veteran rearguard is willing to accept a move to, even if it is in his backyard.

Considered one of the more underrated defencemen in the league, Weegar’s style and overall performance checks a lot of boxes for teams fishing for a right-shot blueliner who can also play he left side. The Dallas Stars and Tampa Bay Lightning are two other teams in the market for a right-shot, top-four defenceman, may pursue Weegar if he were willing to go to either club.

[McG]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Nah, Lomberg does not have to be traded.

Just to be clear, Conroy's emphasis is that only significant UFA's need to be traded before they walk to UFA. Guys like Hanifin, Lindholm, Andersson, etc. who are key players in important roles.

Lomberg is awesome but he is still a 4th line player that does not really meet the requirement. I can see the team walking him to UFA just to keep some grit (and positivity) in the lineup for the rest of the season. Bean is another depth player who will walk to UFA (unfortunately on the IR) and it is not a big deal.

There is no real need to move him unless there is a really good offer. Ie. I would move him for a 2nd round pick, maybe a 3rd, but maybe not for a 4th.

Yes, he does have to be traded…and every UFA in order to maximize asset value.

I don’t want to derail the thread so we will have to disagree. Flames have been horrendous asset managers over the years; dumping draft picks for expiring contracts of 7/8 dmen. That’s what I’m talking about.

I don’t remember Conroy saying that only high value UFAs get traded; I’d think a whole lot less about his managerial capabilities if that was the case. I know it’s not true so it has no bearing on my thoughts.

Every player is valued differently; might Florida throw a 4th at the Flames for Lomberg if Marchand is out? Do Flames find value in 4th round picks? Of course.

Why would you keep a player for a couple of weeks when you can take an extra shot at a Gaudreau or Wyttenbach or even bundle that pick?

It makes zero sense to me not to get a free shot at another draft pick.

My thoughts only.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Watching episodes of The Chase, it’s basically Rasmus, Weegar, and Lomberg talking in the locker room. I think you need to keep Weegar because locker rooms need a voice.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by McG

Yes, he does have to be traded…and every UFA in order to maximize asset value.

I don’t want to derail the thread so we will have to disagree. Flames have been horrendous asset managers over the years; dumping draft picks for expiring contracts of 7/8 dmen. That’s what I’m talking about.

I don’t remember Conroy saying that only high value UFAs get traded; I’d think a whole lot less about his managerial capabilities if that was the case. I know it’s not true so it has no bearing on my thoughts.

Every player is valued differently; might Florida throw a 4th at the Flames for Lomberg if Marchand is out? Do Flames find value in 4th round picks? Of course.

Why would you keep a player for a couple of weeks when you can take an extra shot at a Gaudreau or Wyttenbach or even bundle that pick?

It makes zero sense to me not to get a free shot at another draft pick.

My thoughts only.

I think this largely depends on what you're being offered. If it's a 7th rounder, is it still worth it? It could turn into the next Wolf, but I wouldn't be betting on it.

Teams could also be offering a hockey deal similar to N. Ritchie + Stretcher for B. Ritchie + Mackey. This type of a deal doesn't really make sense unless you want to make a trade for the sake of it.

[blankall]

Kind of disappointed the odds of moving Kadri aren't stronger. Moving Kadri is really subtraction by subtraction. He's the greatest obstacle to the tank.

Hopefully, it's just postering to drive up his value.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by blankall

Kind of disappointed the odds of moving Kadri aren't stronger. Moving Kadri is really subtraction by subtraction. He's the greatest obstacle to the tank.

Hopefully, it's just postering to drive up his value.

Its probably only having 1 retention spot to use between Coleman and Kadri.

[TheIronMaiden]

The silver lining to Kadri not being traded, is that next year we will be even more bored because there will be no one left to trade.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The silver lining to Kadri not being traded, is that next year we will be even more bored because there will be no one left to trade.

Frost, Farabee, Whitecloud they will all get there turn