2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I get this.

Markstrom was traded because they had Wolf ready to take over. I think that was a special case.

Carried $20M worth of cap space because there was no one really to spend it on. Same for UFA's this summer. Conroy isn't going to sign long term contracts that he thinks will stink at the end. But he's also made offers to Andersson, Hanifin, Lindholm. That's not what a rebuilding team would have done.

I think Conroy was largely forced into the things on your list.

I believe he would have signed Marner if he was available to Calgary.

I guess I agree that he's not trying to win "at all costs". But he's not doing what is in the best interest of the franchise long term by hanging on to vets while their value decreases.

You can always spend money on July 1st - 3rd.

They didn't for two years in a row essentially.

Trading an established number one instead of just trying a season with Wolf as his backup isn't a mandate to win as many games as possible.

Sooner or later I think we need to start paying attention to what is happening instead of what could have happened. Especially without all the information.

You didn't address sitting out the trade deadline in a playoff spot. Even a depth player for a 5th rounder would have indicated a "get in" mentality in a watered down state.

But nothing ...

[traptor]

I think it’s important to keep some veterans around to help maintain team culture and provide continuity to the core identity.

Vets (Age 28+):
Backlund

Kadri

Huberdeau

Coleman

Weegar

Andersson

Hanley

Lomberg

I see Huberdeau and Weegar as long-term pieces. They offer long term vet leadership that’ll be valuable as the team evolves.

I get the hesitation to move Kadri, especially with Backlund aging and limited options at center. But to me, Kadri feels like the key pivot point, if he's moved, it signals a full teardown rebuild. With the price impact centers have been going for and the demand, I would try to maximize his value when they can.

As for Rasmus, it's probably safe to assume he won’t be around much longer, though you never know.
Backlund likely has a year or two left, whether that ends in a trade or retirement.

Coleman is similar to Kadri, just a tier below. The question is whether they try to move him now (with term left) or wait until the final year of his deal and move him at the deadline. I'd move him sooner then later.

Hanley and Lomberg are solid bottom-half vets, dependable short term vets who help round out the roster.

If it were up to me:

• Trade Rasmus, Kadri (I understand the NTC. Do it asap though), and Coleman.
  
• Let Backlund make his own call.
  
• Keep Huberdeau and Weegar as long-term vets.
  
• Always leave room for a couple depth veterans like Hanley or Lomberg to keep the room steady.
  
• Then let the young guys buck.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I get this.

Markstrom was traded because they had Wolf ready to take over. I think that was a special case.

Carried $20M worth of cap space because there was no one really to spend it on. Same for UFA's this summer. Conroy isn't going to sign long term contracts that he thinks will stink at the end. But he's also made offers to Andersson, Hanifin, Lindholm. That's not what a rebuilding team would have done.

I think Conroy was largely forced into the things on your list.

I believe he would have signed Marner if he was available to Calgary.

I guess I agree that he's not trying to win "at all costs". But he's not doing what is in the best interest of the franchise long term by hanging on to vets while their value decreases.

From what I recall, he made offers to Lindholm and Hanifin.

Hanifin is in the age range that would have fit in the rebuild, so I'd argue that was totally in line with the rebuild.

Lindholm, I think you'd have more of a legit argument. But I'd argue Flames needed a stop gap #1 centre, so I could see Conroy's thought process there. But the important thing was he stuck to his guns and didn't budge from whatever he was offering. (now in hindsight, seeing Lindholm's performance so far, we obviously did dodge a bullet there).

I'm still of the belief that you can't just strip it down to the studs and only have young guys. You still need guys as stop gaps as well as some vets mentoring the young guys.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You can always spend money on July 1st - 3rd.

They didn't for two years in a row essentially.

Trading an established number one instead of just trying a season with Wolf as his backup isn't a mandate to win as many games as possible.

Sooner or later I think we need to start paying attention to what is happening instead of what could have happened. Especially without all the information.

You didn't address sitting out the trade deadline in a playoff spot. Even a depth player for a 5th rounder would have indicated a "get in" mentality in a watered down state.

But nothing ...

This. The Flames needed half a point...they would have been a playoff team with even a VERY minor sacrafice of future

There was no "just get in" mentality

This is why I keep saying you can't debate these guys

[Vinny01]

The flames clearly are not leaning into a strip down to the studs and build it back up but more of a rebuild on the fly approach which means they will move on from vets if they are not part of the plans or willing to stay and are only looking to add young players to the core.
Conroy’s first year he moves Toffoli, Zadorov, Lindholm, Hanifin, Tanevand outside of Sharangovich and Kuzmenko all the pieces received were picks and prospects. He did not want to lose these assets for nothing so he got futures based returns and that team had a rough year and picked 9th in the draft

The following summer he moved Markstrom and Mangiapane and only received Bahl back as a roster player. The team did have Wolf and Coronato/Zary ready to step into those roles so they moved off the vets. Important to note that a year previously Markstrom was a negative asset so Conroy took advantage to sell high and make arguably his best trade.

This summer with the team having Parekh waiting to be unleashed and Andersson coming up on a ln extension the topic of trading him is front and center it will happen.

Buy what is not happening is the organization seeing a league where no one is looking to sell and deciding they will not change their path and try and tape advantage of that to try and cash in further on their vets to position themselves for a high pick next year. They prefer to address pieces when required either due to someone on the farm being ready or the veterans contract being up for extension.

I think the mandate is to be able to sell hype and hope for the new building. Ideally in hindsight they tear it down 3 years ago but in order to be a team to sell hope around in 2027 they do not have time to execute a full year down and build up so I think they continue this model they are doing now which I think has potential to payoff as long as they make multiple picks in the first 2 rounds over several drafts.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

This. The Flames needed half a point...they would have been a playoff team with even a VERY minor sacrafice of future

There was no "just get in" mentality

This is why I keep saying you can't debate these guys

But I am debating these guys.

It takes two to get into some personal back and forth attack. Just don't do it.

[Calgary4LIfe]

This is the 'spectrum' - at least how I see it:


Tanking - Rebuilding - Retooling/fine-tuning - Competing


Given all the vets that have been traded out for futures, the accumulation of draft picks used on selections in the draft rather than on established players, the number of vets on the team and the huge cap space used - I have this team FIRMLY in the "rebuilding" spectrum. I would even go as far as to say that this is a fairly deep rebuild.


If Andersson moves for picks/prospects, that pushes it towards - not quite over - the tanking line. Subtract Coleman at the trade deadline (I expect anyway), and you get within a whisker of a tank.



I think this will quickly turn into a tank with the Kadri wildcard here. Yeah yeah don't want to talk about Kadri, I get it. This is not a 'Flames should trade" Kadri post, so just relax. If the Flames come out of the gate a little slow and the losses start to pile up, then Andersson gets traded, and then Coleman gets traded. What would you do if you are Kadri? Do I ask to be moved this season, or take the chance that Conroy will NOT move me in the next two seasons at least, assuming I am not tired of the losses and where I live is more important to me than having a chance to win? Kadri has a full no move clause. He can exchange that for a small list of teams he is willing to go to this year, or he can roll the dice that next year Conroy won't trade him, and if he does, that he doesn't land on his 18th, 17th, 16th (etc) preferred spot. That's his conundrum this season to figure out (along with Conroy - I think the smart thing would to have a conversation about it). Point is, that if he is traded for futures along with Andersson and Coleman, I put this team on the "tanking spectrum".


I prefer not to tank to be honest. I prefer this deep rebuild. I also argue that this season you don't HAVE to tank to get a top 3 or 4 pick. What team is tanking? Chicago is likely going to be last, but they they aren't tanking - they are trying to improve. San Jose is definitely improved, but is likely to be in the bottom 3-5.



Everyone else is climbing. I would have said that the Flyers are likely to tank this year, but I think they actually improve. I think the 'floor' will raise this season. I think if you add up the point totals from last seasons' 5 worst teams, it will be noticeably lower than the point totals of this season's 5 worst teams. Pittsburgh to me is the wildcard here, but I do think that if they were going to tank this year, they would have made their moves by now.


Is Calgary adding or subtracting? I have them subtracting.



I do think that the Flames overachieved last season, and significantly so. I guess we will see what happens this season, but I have them in the 'deep rebuild', and I expect them to bottom-out over the next couple of seasons, and then start rising. Too much in the pipeline, and they have some decent young players already in the lineup as well. I don't think they hang around at the bottom of the standings for too long.


Also, count me out as someone who believes there is a mandate to win. Conroy would have been fired by now if that was the mandate. Conroy didn't even make a single move to prop-up the team at the deadline. This is not the body of work for someone that is mandated to try and get into the playoffs.



I also think that using Buffalo as an example of a rebuild should be a bannable offence:
1) They tanked, and didn't rebuild
2) They are a putrid organization. They have been for some time. They are no more a poster child for the rebuild as they were for a poster child for competing as they were trying to right before the rebuild.


Buffalo is a poster child for what happens when you have a terrible hockey operations, period. Likewise, Edmonton is not a poster child for rebuilding - they "Tried to compete all the way to McDavid". Remember Tambellini's ####-eating grin at the Hall draft? I remember Katz saying "This is the first and last time this happens!". Haha stupid Oilers!



Arizona - another bannable offence when it comes to rebuilding. They screwed up their move, period. They had to carry a light cap because of that. That's such a unique case.


I am not advocating that we simply cross every team off that has rebuilt in the last 20 seasons but didn't win a cup to prove a point. Just to dig a little deeper on things, that's all.


For instance, I have seen some posters make points like:
1) Blackhawks haven't made the playoffs in 7 of their last 8 season!
or
2) Blackhawks have been rebuilding for the last 5 seasons and they are nowhere close (this is the most common argument, thankfully).


This argument is basically trying to the start of a team's inability to make the playoffs to that of the start of a rebuild. Did the Flames start their rebuild in 2009-10? No, they didn't, so why not dig a little deeper and figure out when the Blackhawks started theirs? They started theirs at the 2022 deadline (IMO) when they traded Hagel away. Then that off-season, they traded Debrincat. They still had Toews and Kane. I actually think that they make an excellent poster child for what happens when you refuse to rebuild. That's what Kane and Toews pressured the Blackhawks with - they fought against a rebuild. The Blackhawks became a poorly managed team - in addition to being a despicably-run franchise (but that's a different point I guess).


I count 4 tankers off the top of my head since I can remember (and I am sure there have been more).
1) Pittsburgh for Lemieux - won a cup.
2) Colorado in their post-Roy era - Burke made the claim that the draft lottery rules were changed because of them specifically at a season ticket holder event - they won a cup
3) Buffalo for McDavid - no cup
4) Arizona - I think they tried to tank over a few years - would accumulate a lot of dead salaries, and traded away decent players trying to remain bad, but maybe others won't agree.


Either way, I hope that the Flames don't burn it down and tank. However, I used to believe this destroyed a team's culture. I know Conroy has stated as much saying that he doesn't feel it is fair to say it is ok to lose, and then to ask them to turn the dial back up. I think you don't accept any player turning down that dial - they play hard regardless of the win or loss record. You just build a team that is designed to fail. A good example of that in which I feel gets forgotten was the 2013-14 Flames. That team played hard all the time, but lost much more than they won. However, they were often serenaded by the fans at the Dome with a standing ovation after many losses. I haven't forgotten that at all. I think coaching has been the single biggest factor here in Calgary when it comes to culture. I do worry about it disappearing, but it has disappeared and reappeared plenty in this organization over the years, even within the last era with Gaudreau and Tkachuk.



Still wouldn't be happy with an all-out tank, however. If there was a window to do one, it is the next 2-3 drafts, however. I just think that the Flames bottom-out during this period. Still get great lottery odds at a "Franchise-Superstar", but also likely to draft high-end core players just a few spots back. Flames will find a few diamonds too like they did with Gaudreau, Brodie, Ferland, etc.


One 'alternate timeline' that I hope gets repeated (but fixed this time!) is when the Flames took Wotherspoon and were going to take Kucherov next, and Gaudreau the following pick. By how this organization is drafting now, I think they would take Kucherov this time around (and Point over Smith too). If you remember, Panarin had decided to leave the KHL and come to the NHL in the 2015-16 season, and had Calgary as one of his final 4 teams he was considering signing with, before ultimately picking Chicago. I bet that if the Flames had Kucherov, he would have likely signed here that year. I like to live in that dream.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I get this.

Markstrom was traded because they had Wolf ready to take over. I think that was a special case.

Carried $20M worth of cap space because there was no one really to spend it on. Same for UFA's this summer. Conroy isn't going to sign long term contracts that he thinks will stink at the end. But he's also made offers to Andersson, Hanifin, Lindholm. That's not what a rebuilding team would have done.

I think Conroy was largely forced into the things on your list.

I believe he would have signed Marner if he was available to Calgary.

I guess I agree that he's not trying to win "at all costs". But he's not doing what is in the best interest of the franchise long term by hanging on to vets while their value decreases.

This is a great post. While Conroy is certainly not making any moves to win at all costs, he is not choosing to trade the vets while they still have a lot of value and before they turn to dust and lose all value.

Players like Coleman and Kadri are actively hurting the team. They are making our draft pick position worse by being on the team, and their value is only going down every day as age will have them regress very quickly. By that point when they regress, we will not get the value out of them that we could today. The same thing goes for Huberdeau, though I'm not sure anyone would take him.

Basically we will stay in the mushy middle because of the vets.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But I am debating these guys.

It takes two to get into some personal back and forth attack. Just don't do it.

There is nothing wrong with exchanging differing opinions in a polite way. Bingo may be disagreeing with my view, but he's not doing it in any way that is insulting to me, and he's making some valid points. Which is the purpose of this board.

[Jiri Hrdina]

As for the mushy middle, just because the Flames finished at 96 points last season, doesn't mean they don't take a step back this year. There are a lot of things that could go wrong, or just not as well.

I still think this team naturally finds itself in a position for higher picks. I thought they were a bottom 5 team last season (was wrong), but there is a lot of year over year variability for teams like this in the NHL.

Bottom 5 is not out of the question for me.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

This is a great post. While Conroy is certainly not making any moves to win at all costs, he is not choosing to trade the vets while they still have a lot of value and before they turn to dust and lose all value.

Players like Coleman and Kadri are actively hurting the team. They are making our draft pick position worse by being on the team, and their value is only going down every day as age will have them regress very quickly. By that point when they regress, we will not get the value out of them that we could today. The same thing goes for Huberdeau, though I'm not sure anyone would take him.

Basically we will stay in the mushy middle because of the vets.

Coleman maybe but again I think you maximize his return at a TDL.
Can you at least acknowledge that the option may not be there for Kadri due to trade protection, at least until it transitions to a modified NTC.

Part of having these debates is recognizing there are real-world constraints.

[shutout]

Think the mandate is:

1 - Get younger
2 - Get more skilled
3 - Get faster
4 - Utilize in house prospects to achieve first three goals
5 - Acquire players to achieve first three goals if not in the organization
6 - Acquire more draft picks - higher draft picks (first three rounds)
7 - Asset management - sign players for team friendly deals than do so, or move them
8 - Instill a culture where young players have to work and compete to get a spot
9 - Instill a culture where the expectation is to try and win every night
10 - Related to the last two have a strong veteran presence that helps to guide, coach, mentor, and set examples for the young players. On the ice, between shifts, between periods, between games, off ice, discipline, nutrition and fitness, and away from the rink habits (both at home and on the road - where to go, where to avoid in each city)
11 - Follow the plan step by step and prioritize each in individual circumstances but don't stop making changes and don't get over the skis trying to go faster than the organization, team, and individual players can adapt to productively.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Calgary has drafted higher than Nylander a few times and equal to Marner once. And they are losing Marner.

I see only forwards count as "best players" for you. How did they get Ekman-Larsson, Tanev and McCabe? How did they get their goalie?

Jason14h was referring to players the Flames currently have in regard to drafting.

[howard_the_duck]

Coleman just isn't a guy that's moved in the offseason, IMO. He's the poster child for deadline pickup; a character middle-6 guy that can come complement what you're doing.

If he's moved, he's the perfect deadline candidate to recoup a pick or picks.

[Jason14h]

I don’t even see the Flames is a position to “tank” by the standard definition

Usually a team that decides to tank vs rebuild is trading their best 25-29 year olds / core to completely start over.

The Flames have no one in this category except Anderson a pending UFA

It’s actually quite remarkable to effectively be missing an age group of players who provide any real impact.

If the Flames were actually tanking for 1st overall they would trade Cornato , Weegar , Andersson , Shags (just extended) and now I guess Frost (who instead they acquired) .

Chicago moved guys like Debrincat and Dach . That’s a tank . Trading a 36 year old Kadri ? Huge difference

Trading your oldest players when you are no where near contention - even if they are your best players - isn’t tanking to me. That’s smart and normal team cycle management even if it makes you worse in the short term

You can trade all your old vets without tearing it to the studs . Would this team be worse without Coleman and Kadri next year ? Sure . Would they plummet to last ? No if they truely are a borderline playoff team (and added a UFA Center from example at start of the period )

This is where I have to most difficulty with the “non tank “ argument . Slowly trading all your old players to stay at 16th and pushing out the draft picks to future years vs trade them now , most likely get a better pick , AND draft capital to be used now

And if Huberdeau , Weegar , Backlund , Lombeg and the new guys coming in can’t keep a culture - the culture sucked to begin with

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Coleman maybe but again I think you maximize his return at a TDL.
Can you at least acknowledge that the option may not be there for Kadri due to trade protection, at least until it transitions to a modified NTC.

Part of having these debates is recognizing there are real-world constraints.

Coleman in the summer gets you the Mangiapane return. Deadline gets you a lot more. It would be crazy to trade him this summer imo.

Kadri can just say no and that is it, no trade.

Huberdeau is basically untradeable.

Leaving Rasmus, Backs and Weegar as the only veteran assets that are tradeable. Weegar has a full NTC so hard to move him, Rasmus likely will be moved and Backs has a NMC until Jan 1st of 2026.

Still don’t understand how Conroy is supposed to move any of those players right now without their permission where they tell him this is the only team or teams I will go to.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I don’t even see the Flames is a position to “tank” by the standard definition

Usually a team that decides to tank vs rebuild is trading their best 25-29 year olds / core to completely start over.

The Flames have no one in this category except Anderson a pending UFA

It’s actually quite remarkable to effectively be missing an age group of players who provide any real impact.

If the Flames were actually tanking for 1st overall they would trade Cornato , Weegar , Andersson , Shags (just extended) and now I guess Frost (who instead they acquired) .

Chicago moved guys like Debrincat and Dach . That’s a tank . Trading a 36 year old Kadri ? Huge difference

Trading your oldest players when you are no where near contention - even if they are your best players - isn’t tanking to me. That’s smart and normal team cycle management even if it makes you worse in the short term

You can trade all your old vets without tearing it to the studs . Would this team be worse without Coleman and Kadri next year ? Sure . Would they plummet to last ? No if they truely are a borderline playoff team (and added a UFA Center from example at start of the period )

This is where I have to most difficulty with the “non tank “ argument . Slowly trading all your old players to stay at 16th and pushing out the draft picks to future years vs trade them now , most likely get a better pick , AND draft capital to be used now

And if Huberdeau , Weegar , Backlund , Lombeg and the new guys coming in can’t keep a culture - the culture sucked to begin with

Yeah, it's more accepting their fate vs resisting it.

On balance, the margins for the Flames to be BAD are super thin. Maybe as thin as moving Ras and the ensuing dominoes.

The climb for them to get into contention if they don't rebuild? It's a steeper one.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I don’t even see the Flames is a position to “tank” by the standard definition

Usually a team that decides to tank vs rebuild is trading their best 25-29 year olds / core to completely start over.

The Flames have no one in this category except Anderson a pending UFA

It’s actually quite remarkable to effectively be missing an age group of players who provide any real impact.

If the Flames were actually tanking for 1st overall they would trade Cornato , Weegar , Andersson , Shags (just extended) and now I guess Frost (who instead they acquired) .

Chicago moved guys like Debrincat and Dach . That’s a tank . Trading a 36 year old Kadri ? Huge difference

Trading your oldest players when you are no where near contention - even if they are your best players - isn’t tanking to me. That’s smart and normal team cycle management even if it makes you worse in the short term

You can trade all your old vets without tearing it to the studs . Would this team be worse without Coleman and Kadri next year ? Sure . Would they plummet to last ? No if they truely are a borderline playoff team (and added a UFA Center from example at start of the period )

This is where I have to most difficulty with the “non tank “ argument . Slowly trading all your old players to stay at 16th and pushing out the draft picks to future years vs trade them now , most likely get a better pick , AND draft capital to be used now

And if Huberdeau , Weegar , Backlund , Lombeg and the new guys coming in can’t keep a culture - the culture sucked to begin with

I think that was the plan, the curveball was the team won way more games than expected. If they won the games that most of us projected, I bet a few vets on the team would have been gone now.

If this team has a bad start to the season and is under .500 in December, I could see them tanking.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

As for the mushy middle, just because the Flames finished at 96 points last season, doesn't mean they don't take a step back this year. There are a lot of things that could go wrong, or just not as well.

I still think this team naturally finds itself in a position for higher picks. I thought they were a bottom 5 team last season (was wrong), but there is a lot of year over year variability for teams like this in the NHL.

Bottom 5 is not out of the question for me.

Before they drafted Mackinnon, the Avs were in the so called mushy middle a lot. Then they cratered at an opportune moment. And note that Calgary "tanked" and was only 3 points ahead of Colorado (who passed Florida in the lottery draft). And TB, Carolina and Nashville still squeaked between as well. And TB drafted a mediocre player with the 3OA, and Calgary ended up with Carolina's player anyway.

Calgary tanked enough to have two other first round picks that year. And those players managed a total of 8 games played. Calgary could easily have had Mackinnon or Barkov, Burakovsky or Theodore, and Hartman, as opposed to Monahan, Poirier and Klimchuk. Luck is just so huge.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by ColossusXIII

To me, the urgency to tank these next couple years is three-pronged

1. There is elite talent at the top of the draft in 26 and 27. You don't go in expecting to get #1, but they're perfect years to have higher odds.

2. Wolf and Parekh set the timeline. It's painful to tank now, but delaying it would be even more devastating. We want to get to the other side of the pain with a couple more high caliber players as soon as possible, both so they can contribute meaningfully in the same window as our current big 2 and so the team can hopefully be back on the upswing and attractive when we need to retain all this drafted talent.

It's true full rebuilds are unlikely to work (no strategy is going to have high odds of being the singular winner in a 32 team league), but they still work more often than half measures do.

I think people are underestimating the timeline of even an optimistic time-to-recovery after a couple of seasons of tanking.

Look at the Sharks. I think it's fair to say people are excited about the prospects they have drafted from being bad/tanking. San Jose last made the playoffs in 2019, and were 8th in the pacific in 2019-2020. So they're already about 6 years into their tank, and likely not seeing their first playoff taste for another 3/4 years. They were still 40+ points outside of a playoff spot last year.

Next year they're what, 15-20 points out at best? And the following year? We know from the Red Wings trajectory that you can be right around that line without making it for a few years. Then you get into the playoffs and figure out that's a different beast on top of it.

If the Flames tanked for the next 2 years, you're looking at a minimum of 6 years from today to even get into the playoffs. Wolf is then 30, soon due for another contract, and seriously thinking if he can win anything here.

It's easy to discount the timeframe because we're not emotionally following those other teams year in and year out. It seems like San Jose is looking all exciting now because we're just tuning in, but it's pretty much been misery for 6 straight years.

That's bad.

Oh, and if the tank does 'work' for San Jose and they miraculously win a cup in the next 6 or so years, then it likely means that the tank didn't work for another poster child of tanking in the west: Chicago.