2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Flames have retained on multiple players under Conroy and for multiple years...they will do it IF IT MAKES SENSE

which makes total sense

This makes it all make sense.


I'd keep Kadri for a 1st and 5th, especially if we needed to burn a retention spot for 3 years.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by internationalvillager

this is a complete guess but if nichushkin was involved in the deal, maybe flames didn't want to take on his money/contract attitude/addiction issues/noncompliance with treatment.

fyp

[traptor]

Dreger also just mentioned on TSN Overdrive Montreal wants Calgary to retain on Kadri and the Flames have said no.


They have retained and would retain on Kadri I imagine, but given the amount of term left they probably want a haul to do that, and teams just aren't going to give that up for a player of Kadris age.
There's clearly a mismatch of valuations between the Flames and other teams for the value of Kadri retained.

Personally I would of retained for the Avs deal and been happy.

[TheIronMaiden]

21 hours to go. Lots of time. I am very pleased with the Flames asset management so far. Everything else that happens/doesn't happen is fine.

[Ashasx]

If teams are asking the Flames to retain the full 50%, I can understand the Flames wanting a haul and the hesitancy related to it.

But if teams are asking for $2 million - that kind of retention is pretty much needed to facilitate a trade to begin with. I can't imagine Kadri having significant value without retention.

I hope this does not continue.

[Rhett44]

I would be happy with a 1st for Kadri, even if we retain.

He is an aging asset and carries a big risk. And the retention money doesn't really affect us because we are not trying to compete right now.

[dino7c]

This is Flames can use that cap and retention spot over the next 3 years and probably still trade Kadri at some point

If the offer doesn't cut it then retain on Coleman and get a bigger return there. At some point you have to say we don't need to trade him and mean it.

Montreal and Colorado can choke in the playoffs

[TheIronMaiden]

When Kadri signed, the contract looked untradable. He's been a good solider, but not so good that the complications no longer exist.

My guess is if Kadri wants to leave, he will need to waive his NTC to go to a team that is less that desirable. Top teams in the NHL don't want his contract.

[Macindoc]

I suspect the Flames will circle back and take the best offer on Coleman with retention. I would have preferred to trade Kadri with retention, but that's a long time to retain and would reduce the team's future retention flexibility.

[Monahammer]

I've been saying that we seem to value retention disproportionately as a club to others. Whether ownership or management makes no real difference. We are out of alignment with the value other clubs are currently asking/paying for retention.

I think it's because of the 1st to take Monahan business. But that's sunk cost and we need to let go of it.

Money wise, it shouldn't matter to the bottom line as the team is revenue positive and spends to the Cap anyways. So it's the "feeling" of paying someone who's not here more than the actual act.

I disagree with this mentality, and think it underpins a lot of the things i disagree with that happen with the club, but it is not my money.

[SuperMatt18]

I'd still rather take back a bad contract vs retain on Kadri.

I really wish he'd waive for Carolina as I think you just take back Kotkaniemi and be able to generate a strong return around that.

But i do think that $1.5M to $2M as of retention is fair on Kadri, and think you would have to retain that much to faciliate the trade, without asking for too much incremental in return.

Kadri at $5.5M is more than fair, and Flames might have to eat $4.5M to facilitate that.

Like for example if the ask from Montreal is a 1st + Zharkovsky, and you need to retain $1.5M to $2M to facilitate that then you do it. I don't think it needs an extra sweetener for retention in a scenario like that.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I've been saying that we seem to value retention disproportionately as a club to others. Whether ownership or management makes no real difference. We are out of alignment with the value other clubs are currently asking/paying for retention.

I think it's because of the 1st to take Monahan business. But that's sunk cost and we need to let go of it.

Money wise, it shouldn't matter to the bottom line as the team is revenue positive and spends to the Cap anyways. So it's the "feeling" of paying someone who's not here more than the actual act.

I disagree with this mentality, and think it underpins a lot of the things i disagree with that happen with the club, but it is not my money.

This would be true if the flames never retained. but right now they are using 2/3 spots, and by all accounts are actively looking to use 3 of 3.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I would be happy with a 1st for Kadri, even if we retain.

He is an aging asset and carries a big risk. And the retention money doesn't really affect us because we are not trying to compete right now.

the retention spot matters, especially when you aren't trying to compete. They can retain on a number of players...including Coleman tomorrow. Anyone they trade over the next 3 seasons.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by rohara66

This makes it all make sense.


I'd keep Kadri for a 1st and 5th, especially if we needed to burn a retention spot for 3 years.

After Kadri and Coleman , there isn’t much left to retain

If I get a 1st for Kadri, I would take it and run

[The EBUG's EBUG]

Flat out refusal to retain on Kadri means you absolutely better be landing something nice for a retained Coleman.

If it's just a money based decision against retention I'll be pretty disappointed and you'd have to imagine the vibes with those guys would be BAD the rest of the way.

[Samiz]

IMO its not about the money but about the retention slots. Having a slot locked up for Kadri during prime rebuilding years could limit what the Flames can do down the road

[dino7c]

Its not new news...the debate or negotiation is who should be paying for the retention. Flames say f that you pay...the other team says no its your bad contract you pay.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

This would be true if the flames never retained. but right now they are using 2/3 spots, and by all accounts are actively looking to use 3 of 3.

Both are only 1 year retentions, and sub 2.5 mil.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

After Kadri and Coleman , there isn’t much left to retain

If I get a 1st for Kadri, I would take it and run

You just named two players and there is one spot currently. In the next 3 years there could be plenty to retain on. I'm not saying dont do it but you have to be smart.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by dino7c

This is Flames can use that cap and retention spot over the next 3 years and probably still trade Kadri at some point

If the offer doesn't cut it then retain on Coleman and get a bigger return there. At some point you have to say we don't need to trade him and mean it.

Montreal and Colorado can choke in the playoffs

Then you'd better use it on Coleman and get a healthy return.

Sure, they can move Kadri in his age 36/37 seasons but getting a 1st+ at that time seems ambitious.