2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Roko]

That price is right bit was actually pretty fun

[Niemo]

Alright, a few more hours to close business.

Is Kadri open to more teams after a couple losses, losing Weegs, and Avs clearly not interested no more? Will Habs give us what we want to be able to retain since they do have an abundance of riches?

We've been hearing for a month now that it shouldn't be a problem meeting the Coleman price. Is it met and we are just bidding him up for more?

Has Frost's name been thrown around anywhere? Plays a premium position....only have 1 yr left - only draw back is no stellar playoff resume - but he plays a responsible game.

I hope 1 more dman trade - could care less who it is that gets traded, just that we have 8-9 dmen (if you include Bru) and I'd hate wasting 2 guys on the bench the whole time. Pachal makes sense to deal.....Whitecloud I would if someone showed up with a 1st last minute.

Prices seem good still. *fingers crossed* Connie.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Thing is it's a complex scenario, is it paying the price or is the cost of facilitating a trade for the Flames?

The Flames promised Kadri $21M over the next 3 years of the deal, it's questionable if he's worth that money at this point especially for at the very least the last 1-2 years of that deal.

Flames are the team that benefited from the reduced salary cap hit for the first 4 years of the deal by giving an aging player a 7 year deal.

I'm not sure it's fair to expect a team to eat the full $7M - because with long term contracts for aging players the assumption is always the last half of the deal is not as valuable as the front half of the deal.

If a team was asking to retain 50% then I'd agree you need to pay up.

But if it's $1.5M-$2M then IMO that's the cost of doing business for the Flames. It's not about saving the other teams cap. It's about you getting rid of a $7M liability for Kadri's 37 and 38 year old seasons and you have to pay a bit of that.

I almost look at it as if the flames retain $6M it's like they are eating $3M of those last two seasons, which is actually fair and I'm not sure is actually an unfair ask by the trading teams.

I see people comparing it to the value of Marleau or Monahan and it's not the same scenario. You're not shedding a complete contract and paying a team to take on an anchor. You're getting out of your own liability.

Flames got most of the benefit from the 7 year deal and now are asking the teams to take on all the risk of those last two seasons.

As long as a 1st and a A/B prospect are coming back then it shouldn't be an issue.

I think it's three things ...

1) number of slots left at one
2) total dollars in a 3 year retention and value

and

3) tying up a slot for three years

And I don't think 3) is an exercise in looking who's left that needs a retention slot and saying no big deal.

We have no idea what opportunities are coming for a rebuilding team and losing a slot for that amount of time can be (and likely will be) limiting.

Current roster players now.
Players acquired as cap dumps you want to move.
Discount one year UFAs that they can move 9 months later.

[Roko]

I suspect Conroy has two offers for Coleman. One with and one without retention. Depends more on Kadri move as it likely requires retention regardless.

So they want Kadri done first is my guess

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Boiling this down to "retention is a cost of doing business" once again ignores the value of the retention slots themselves. To which people respond "bah, the Flames aren't going to need to use that slot", which completely ignores that literally right now they don't have enough. Since they don't have enough now, how can we confidently believe they won't need that slot sometime 3 years down the road. That's a long time.

The slot has value.

As for Edwards involvement it could be something like "You can do it Craig, but make sure you get value". Which is literally the conversation my boss had with me this week regarding a negotiation where the other side wants us to give on something we typically don't. He gave me the authorization to do it, but said "it's valuable to us, so it has to be valuable to them".

I think the value is…it’s the only way someone is willing to make a deal. And the Nic Roy package is probably fair value for what Kadri is now.

Mapping out the Flames roster as much as you can now over the next few years, retaining Kadri for 3 years is absolutely doable where you can still use the other slots to move Frost/Farabee/Coleman in subsequent years.

[Wastedyouth]

Kadri is meeting or exceeding the scoring rates of the players around him making 7 million.

He's worth keeping around. This idea being floated around you have to get rid of him is silly. Who in the system can take his spot? There isn't a center in our system that can play in the top 6 right now that wouldn't embarrass themselves on the ice.

[rhino]

Originally Posted by iloveicedhockey

I appreciate that teams may need retention but they also appear to think that they're doing us a huge favour by taking Kadri off our hands. It sounds like the retention ask alone should be worth a first, at least, so are you giving up Kadri for whatever the plus is (a second or B prospect). He likely gives the Flames way more value if they keep him, on and off the ice.

If teams want retention there should be an A prospect as the 1st round pick is likely to be late. Less retention and taking a contract back should be an A prospect and 1st round. The new playoff salary cap makes it harder for teams to just add players

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Kadri is meeting or exceeding the scoring rates of the players around him making 7 million.

He's worth keeping around. This idea being floated around you have to get rid of him is silly. Who in the system can take his spot? There isn't a center in our system that can play in the top 6 right now that wouldn't embarrass themselves on the ice.

Nobody needs to take his spot anytime soon. Rebuild time!

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Icon

Nobody needs to take his spot anytime soon. Rebuild time!

They still have to ice a team. Season ticket holders paid money to watch a team actually be able to play hockey. Guys sitting behind their keyboards watching games online and armchair GMing don't pay the bills.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The only trade the Flames have made close to the deadline none of the insiders saw coming or ever breathed a word of. I think that means Kadri and Coleman stay put and nothing of consequence happens. Could be a disappointing day considering all the hype built up over the plethora of players the Flames had available and how they owned the market.

All depends on where you set your expectations I guess.

My biggest hope/fear/wish this season was that the Flames played the Andersson thing correctly and moved their key UFA at the right time for the right price.

I don't know what the offers were at the last draft, but it looks like they did well in the Vegas trade (keeps getting better with impact of Whitecloud and Wiebe coming on).

Many on this site said they'd be satisfied if they moved Andersson and one of Coleman or Kadri.

Now we sit here with Andersson and Weegar both gone, and the Flames likely having some leverage to move the other two in the summer if they so choose.

Fans like action.

Fans like trades.

But honestly the Flames have met most fan's (from reading about this for a year) expectations this season already.

[Roko]

I think they will have Castagna and possibly Reschny go pro soon.
I’m not worried about it.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Roko

I think they will have Castagna and possibly Reschny go pro soon.
I’m not worried about it.

Neither are stepping into the NHL anytime soon. Reschny looks good, but he scored a grand total of 5 goals this season. He still needs a lot of work.

Castagna might be able to play in the bottom 6 next year if he keeps developing.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I’m sorry but I might have missed the rumour that Avs wanted 50% retention on Kadri. So yes I wouldn’t say they would be worth the same if that’s the case. I would say they are worth the same if it was 20% retention. I have a hard time believing any team would be expecting 50 % retention for Kadri. The other teams have owners and manage cap as well . Thats a hard pill to swallow for any team that has a player with 3 years left on contract

Even the idea that a 5.6 million dollar Kadri is worth the same as a guy who has 20 points this year is crazy. Roy is closer to Beecher than he is to Kadri in terms of hockey ability.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

They still have to ice a team. Season ticket holders paid money to watch a team actually be able to play hockey. Guys sitting behind their keyboards watching games online and armchair GMing don't pay the bills.

I know some season tickets holders who want Kadri traded today.

It is time to rebuild.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think it's three things ...

1) number of slots left at one
2) total dollars in a 3 year retention and value

and

3) tying up a slot for three years

And I don't think 3) is an exercise in looking who's left that needs a retention slot and saying no big deal.

We have no idea what opportunities are coming for a rebuilding team and losing a slot for that amount of time can be (and likely will be) limiting.

Current roster players now.
Players acquired as cap dumps you want to move.
Discount one year UFAs that they can move 9 months later.

Sure but then that means you likely have to accept Kadri playing out his contract here or taking a lesser return.

The market will dictate what the value of Kadri is without retention vs with retention and it appears the market right now is telling the Flames there is very little value without retention.

I personally don't think that improves at the draft where you no longer have what is likely the most productive playoff run of his contact left to sweeten the pot.

So the question is what is the value of Kadri without retention vs the value of Kadri with retention vs the value of just keeping Kadri.

It sounds like the value of Kadri with retention is a 1st + ??? ... but the Flames want more than what's even offered.

The value of Kadri without retention at this point is unknown because doesn't sound like the Flames have an offer...but my guess is you're not getting a 1st in that scenario.

And then there is the value of Kadri to the Flames...which also might be diminished if the player is frustrated and doesn't want to be here anymore...especially with Weegar and Coleman gone too.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I think the value is…it’s the only way someone is willing to make a deal. And the Nic Roy package is probably fair value for what Kadri is now.

Mapping out the Flames roster as much as you can now over the next few years, retaining Kadri for 3 years is absolutely doable where you can still use the other slots to move Frost/Farabee/Coleman in subsequent years.

Again, 3 years is a long time. Do you think the Flames aren't going to acquire other players that potentially they want/need to flip? Looking at the roster today and evaluating if they will need the slots, ignores the fact the roster will likely continue to turn over significantly. The Flames could be taking on more vets as camp dumps in deals and/or signing some smart buy low free agents. In both cases, they may want to flip them for other assets, including with retention.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. They should. If the value is there.

[Roko]

Friedman expecting Bobby Mcmann to go today

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I know some season tickets holders who want Kadri traded today.

It is time to rebuild.

They are rebuilding, this is abundantly clear. You know SOME ticket holders, good job on knowing a small sample size. You don't know them all.

[Roko]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I know some season tickets holders who want Kadri traded today.

It is time to rebuild.

Me. I want to watch youth. Get him out of here

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think it's three things ...

1) number of slots left at one
2) total dollars in a 3 year retention and value

and

3) tying up a slot for three years

And I don't think 3) is an exercise in looking who's left that needs a retention slot and saying no big deal.

We have no idea what opportunities are coming for a rebuilding team and losing a slot for that amount of time can be (and likely will be) limiting.

Current roster players now.
Players acquired as cap dumps you want to move.
Discount one year UFAs that they can move 9 months later.

I agree, it is losing that 3rd retention spot for those 3 years. Markstrom was only 2 years and look how it is blocking things on a rebuilding team.