2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Tbull8]

Daws requires waivers this year right?

[Ped]

There appear to be no straight answers, but most last summer were saying he would need to play 14 more games to become waiver eligible. He only played 6.

[Funkhouser]

I do fully expect the Flames to grab a goalie on waivers as I suspect neither Cooley or the new Russian will grab the reigns.

[TenaciousC]

I’m fine with signing Zary at 4.5M if it’s for 7 years just like Coronato. He hasn’t shown the consistency to garner more than that and if he wants a prove it deal it should be closer to $3.5M

[VilleN]

For Zary I wouldn't go higher than 4 on a bridge... If he would take 5M on a long term contract I think I would make that deal... could be a huge bargain.

[Toonage]

Just my opinion but I'm guessing Prosvetov didn't go through the trouble of getting out of his contract in Russia (and the Flames didn't pursue him) just so he had a shot at being the guy in the AHL again.

He'll need to poop the bed hard to not be the backup next season for the Flames.

Again, IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

Andersson's +/- is a combination of playing below expectations to his standards and bad luck. When Bahl went down, it took a big hit, he was on the ice for lots of empty net goals against as well. He also had some bad luck with expected goals being much higher than some teammates when on the ice, but actual goals was low in comparison.

He is not a bad player because of the +/-. He is a second pairing dman who had to play more minutes because of our depth. I also think he was dealing with an injury.

Ideally, he is a good 2nd pairing guy when paired with another solid defenseman. I don't think he is a washed player, but I also don't believe he is a 1st pairing on most teams.

How does anyone not remember he was playing on a broken foot for a large part of the season?

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think Andersson is worth quite a lot still - definitely not what some people value him at (Johnston? Yikes!).


Andersson isn't an anchor. He is #4 who can fill-in as a #2 in a pinch. This season was his first season as an anchor. I think he could develop into one, but he certainly isn't an anchor at this point in his career. He can play defence reasonably well (not a stalwart, but good), and can move the puck, transition and even not look terrible on a PP. He also brings a lot of intangibles in terms of his leadership and character. Plus, part of his value is his low salary - try to find a top 4 defencemen with that cap hit. Sure, re-signing him will be a consideration, and one that will ultimately limit some teams, but if you are a team that is competing for the cup and need more on defence, you spend the assets anyway.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I'm not a pro scout either, but I am weary of how Andersson defends top players. After watching Gio and Tanev make it seem easy for years I have a hard time considering Andersson as a guy that can shut down top competition on a nightly basis. I still like other aspects of Andersson's game and think he's a great human, but IMO he needs a top C and a D partner that can cover for him when the going gets tough.

Yes, I did simplify a bit. The only reason to discuss it is to try and determine Andersson's trade value.

I find it interesting to see the responses to mentioning Celebrini and Bedard because immediately people come to their defense and excuse their minuses because they are on bad teams.

On the other hand, with Andersson they ignore that the Flames were gutted, especially on D and that the team essentially built a top 4 D out of two guys. Andersson was trying to cover the other team's best lines with a 24 year old 3rd line player with 148 games played and when Bahl went down the replacement was Bean or Hanley... but all of the chances against and goals against were on Andersson's side of the ice in a zone D system.

It just seems like the group of people on this board refuse to accept that Andersson is good, even on a bad year.

In the end, I believe Andersson's trade value is higher than Hanifin's due to the nature of being a RHS and the fact that it is a seller's market with no alternatives. As long as Andersson and his agent do not actually do something to limit the market (the previous rumours were debunked by Conroy), he should get an asset that is more valuable than a late 1st and a B Prospect (Hanifin) and with retention I expect him to be equivalent to 2 1sts in value or higher.

If you trade him this summer then you assume that the extension will happen and bake that into the price (since you can no longer put conditions in around an extension being signed later). Basically put the risk onto the buying team to put together a contract he says yes to. I know there are rumours that Andersson wants to test free agency but I think the 8 year extension holds a lot more value to him than dropping to 7 or 6 years. Whatever team receives him will have a big advantage on the extension where they will either re-sign him or get an asset for a late sign and trade (Leafs-Marner).

If the Stars do not meet the price, then send him to one of the Sharks, Red Wings, Bruins, Hurricane, Leafs, etc. but not the Golden Knights.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I understand Zary asking for more. If Coronato is making 6.5, I can understand Zary wanting at least 4.

Coronato has the better projection, and better points per game, but I do not believe Coronato is twice the player Zary is.

Zary has actually produced more points and at a higher rate in the NHL so far, unless I'm mistaken.

Coronato:
56pts/112 = 0.5 pts/gp
27g

Zary:
61pts/117= 0.52 pts/gp
27g


I actually think Zary has a pretty good case. They're at very similar points in their career.

Coronato had a single bigger year and is younger.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by traptor

Zary has actually produced more points and at a higher rate in the NHL so far, unless I'm mistaken.

Coronato:
56pts/112 = 0.5 pts/gp
27g

Zary:
61pts/117= 0.52 pts/gp
27g


I actually think Zary has a pretty good case. They're at very similar points in their career.

Coronato had a single bigger year and is younger.

The big difference is Zary took a step back and Coronato took a step forward. There is still uncertainty around Zary due to the regression and injury history.

Personally I would have been fine with giving Zary the same contract. But I understand why both sides prefer a bridge.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Wolven

On the other hand, with Andersson they ignore that the Flames were gutted, especially on D and that the team essentially built a top 4 D out of two guys. Andersson was trying to cover the other team's best lines with a 24 year old 3rd line player with 148 games played and when Bahl went down the replacement was Bean or Hanley... but all of the chances against and goals against were on Andersson's side of the ice in a zone D system.

It just seems like the group of people on this board refuse to accept that Andersson is good, even on a bad year.

Weegar carried around a worse partner than Andersson did for most of the year. There are a few posters who think Andersson is worth a 2nd and 3rd but I think the minimum return is around Hanifin and the longer they wait the closer it will be to that.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by kehatch

The big difference is Zary took a step back and Coronato took a step forward. There is still uncertainty around Zary due to the regression and injury history.

Personally I would have been fine with giving Zary the same contract. But I understand why both sides prefer a bridge.

No he didn't. He got injured. He was tracking better than Bison before that first injury. In fact, on more than few nights he was the best player in the those games.

Ppl are sleeping way too hard on Zary. I wouldn't move him at all. He'd be Bennet 2.0 and that's without the performance struggles.

[SuperMatt18]

I'd happily give Zary $6M x 7 right now.

With a rising cap that's likely a bargain...I'm honestly not sold on why they'd bridge him.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'd happily give Zary $6M x 7 right now.

With a rising cap that's likely a bargain...I'm honestly not sold on why they'd bridge him.

Seems kind of reckless to me. A guy who is turning 24 before the season has started and has never scored 15 goals or 35pts in a season, who has had injuries throughout his career would get a 7 year $42M commitment from the Flames. Insane bet on value in my opinion and a huge overpay.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Yes, I did simplify a bit. The only reason to discuss it is to try and determine Andersson's trade value.

I find it interesting to see the responses to mentioning Celebrini and Bedard because immediately people come to their defense and excuse their minuses because they are on bad teams.

On the other hand, with Andersson they ignore that the Flames were gutted, especially on D and that the team essentially built a top 4 D out of two guys. Andersson was trying to cover the other team's best lines with a 24 year old 3rd line player with 148 games played and when Bahl went down the replacement was Bean or Hanley... but all of the chances against and goals against were on Andersson's side of the ice in a zone D system.

It just seems like the group of people on this board refuse to accept that Andersson is good, even on a bad year.

In the end, I believe Andersson's trade value is higher than Hanifin's due to the nature of being a RHS and the fact that it is a seller's market with no alternatives. As long as Andersson and his agent do not actually do something to limit the market (the previous rumours were debunked by Conroy), he should get an asset that is more valuable than a late 1st and a B Prospect (Hanifin) and with retention I expect him to be equivalent to 2 1sts in value or higher.

If you trade him this summer then you assume that the extension will happen and bake that into the price (since you can no longer put conditions in around an extension being signed later). Basically put the risk onto the buying team to put together a contract he says yes to. I know there are rumours that Andersson wants to test free agency but I think the 8 year extension holds a lot more value to him than dropping to 7 or 6 years. Whatever team receives him will have a big advantage on the extension where they will either re-sign him or get an asset for a late sign and trade (Leafs-Marner).

If the Stars do not meet the price, then send him to one of the Sharks, Red Wings, Bruins, Hurricane, Leafs, etc. but not the Golden Knights.

Yeah, I definitely don't mind the discussion, nor am I trying to claim that Andersson is bad. If I was the GM, and trading for him, I would probably find it too risky to sign him to $8.5M x 8, so I would probably treat him as a rental.

Cellebrini and Bedard definitely get the benefit of the doubt from me. The same way Parekh would for mistakes, Andersson wouldn't. The main reason is experience, it takes several years before a player starts defending well at the NHL level.

The reason I am a bit more skeptical is that Bahl did better away from Andersson. While Andersson struggled away from Bahl. That's why, I have a hard time figuring out who was carrying whom defensively on that pairing. Hanley and Bean both played much better with Weegar. Hanifin and Gio played better with Tanev than with Andersson. If my memory doesn't betray me, Zadorov also struggled when he was paired with Andersson.

Bahl   - Andersson 48.7%xG, 2.63xGA/60
Hanley - Andersson 47.4%xG, 2.18xGA/60
Bean   - Andersson 43.5%xG, 3.63xGA/60

Bahl   - Weegar    64.9%xG, 1.62xGA/60
Hanley - Weegar    57.0%xG, 2.04xGA/60
Bean   - Weegar    58.7%xG, 1.81xGA/60

As far as trade value: I hope the Flames manage to get at least 1st + 2nd + 3rd in a trade. If the Flames could get someone like Robertson out of an Andersson trade, I would be pretty ecstatic.

PS: to the rest of CP I apologize for going a bit in circles on the Andersson discussion, but it's the off-season.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Seems kind of reckless to me. A guy who is turning 24 before the season has started and has never scored 15 goals or 35pts in a season, who has had injuries throughout his career would get a 7 year $42M commitment from the Flames. Insane bet on value in my opinion and a huge overpay.

It's the type of move that pays off if you're right about the player though.

Zary has played at a 43 point per 82 game pace to start his career, that's already worth about $5M.

I'd pay a little extra to lock him up long term, and you potentially have a great value contract when you're looking to contend.

If you don't think he's worth that $6M and don't think he is going to become that player then you shouldn't have been afraid to move him in deals for Cozens or Byram.

[Bingo]

I think teams in markets like Calgary are smart to gamble on younger players before they fully earn it.

Issue is gambling on the right players.

Get it right and you keep some players here longer and extend what a future window could be.

Get it wrong and you tie yourself to an average player eating up cap space.

I think the Coronato contract given a 25 goal and 50 point season was probably smart.

I have a feeling Zary is a good bet too.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It's the type of move that pays off if you're right about the player though.

Zary has played at a 43 point per 82 game pace to start his career, that's already worth about $5M.

I'd pay a little extra to lock him up long term, and you potentially have a great value contract when you're looking to contend.

I see the logic and in some ways agree Zary is an intriguing piece because he has flashes where we see a guy who could produce top line offense. The injuries date back to before his time with the Flames though so I am very hesitant to give up term because it is as big a bet on health as it is on talent.

If he wanted to go 6-8 years I would be in the $4.5-5.2M range. I think it makes sense to do a 2 year $3.25M deal to prove it or go long term at a much lower risk number for the flames.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It's the type of move that pays off if you're right about the player though.

Zary has played at a 43 point per 82 game pace to start his career, that's already worth about $5M.

I'd pay a little extra to lock him up long term, and you potentially have a great value contract when you're looking to contend.

If you don't think he's worth that $6M and don't think he is going to become that player then you shouldn't have been afraid to move him in deals for Cozens or Byram.

I agree - I would take the leap of faith with Zary at this point and lock him up. Along with his skill set, he seems to have solid leadership abilities