2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

All the time. But it doesn't work with some people. At some point I have to say, look, you're simply wrong about this, and you are wrong because you are showing a clear incomprehension of the other side's argument.

Saying that you have to tank to win the Stanley Cup because 90 percent of Stanley Cup winners have a high pick is bad statistics. You have to look at the fact that 90 percent of ALL TEAMS have a high pick. Other people have done the work and presented the numbers to show that the correlation is very weak, but you just don't seem to get it.

There's also so many thing wrong with the 'work' that was done in this argument that you are so emphatically using to prove a point and use to attack and disparage other posters.

It's complete confirmation bias at its finest.

There was no analysis of tanking vs non tanking teams- the 'work' created its own definition of tanking - Which is a top 5 draft pick, and then picked their own timeline, and found a statistic that supports (or in this case disproves) the argument they didn't agree with.

For starters, many non tanking teams get top 5 picks. Injuries, bad performance, bad coaching, etc can lead to a top 5 pick

Teams can win the lottery and move into the top 5. Were the Islanders tanking this year? But they now have a top 5 pick (Top overall pick). If they don't win a cup now in the next 10 years does that support that tanking doesn't win cups - They have a 1st overall pick!!!

There is a long lag between getting a high pick and when you would be expected to compete for a cup (from recent cup champs its 5-10 years) so using the same 10 year period is a pretty silly way to look for correlation. The worse teams usually have the worse picks and take time to get good. The teams winning cup certainly aren't picking top 5 during that timeframe.

So all that was actually shown is there is not a strong correlation between having a top 5 overall pick over the last 10 year period and winning the cup during that same 10 year period. (Because the cup winners had drafted their stars before 2014)

Non of this actually answers the question of do you need to tank or does it increase your chances of winning a Stanley Cup vs the alternative, because classifying what is a tank/tanking team was never done, lag periods not defined, and timeframes of success arbitrarily chosen.

One of the biggest reasons is "tank" itself is such a buzzword lazy way to describe a teams situation - usually used in a negative connotation against teams fans don't like!

At what point does the Flames rebuild become a tank? If they trade Anderson and Kadri and Coleman asked for a trade would they now be tanking? But what if they continue to do well? Is that a failed attempt to tank? or good roster management?

Or is it only if they do really bad that matters? If the Flames finish last next season and trade nobody but Anderson at the deadline are they now tanking because they finished last when the roster is very similar to the one that missed by 1 game the year before?

Is a team getting a single 5th overall pick over a decade the same as what Chicago or SJ are attempting to do? Clearly not, but this 'work' groups them all together.

There is also a giant difference between homegrown/drafted 1st and 2nd overall picks obtained through 'tanking' or lottery luck vs 3-4-5 overall drafted players. I have done the analysis on this board before and shared the results taking into consideration time lag, but because it actually shows a fairly strong correlation it was ignored and people go back to the "top 5 pick" or the other favorite "Any player drafted top 3" argument because it fits the narrative better!

In fact, the 'work' you like to refer too shows that you are more likely to win the Stanley Cup WITHOUT a top 5 pick since only three of the 25 teams with a top 5 pick had won. (Colorado, LA and Florida, and Florida's top 5 was in 2014 meaning next year they 'fall off' the list as well)

While Wash, Pitts, St.L, Vegas and TB all won without a top 5 pick. By your logic you have a 70% (7 in 10) chance of winning the cup if you don't draft top 5 / don't tank (and next year when Florida falls off the draft list 8 of the last 10 champs won't have drafted in the top 5!!) Drafting high has an inverse relationship to success according to this work! By not ever tanking and finishing low the Flames will almost guarantee themselves a cup over a 10 year period.

I wonder why that is? Almost like the teams winning the cup were bad, drafted good players at the top of the draft, and now aren't drafting high cause they are winning the cup. Is anyone looking at Pitts, TB and Washington and thinking they are where they are without tanking at some point?

So while you are correct that finishing bottom 5 from 2014-2024 doesn't correlate strongly/at all to winning a cup in those same years and is a bad statistic to use - It tells us nothing about the likelihood of tanking being successful or not.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

All the time. But it doesn't work with some people. At some point I have to say, look, you're simply wrong about this, and you are wrong because you are showing a clear incomprehension of the other side's argument.

Saying that you have to tank to win the Stanley Cup because 90 percent of Stanley Cup winners have a high pick is bad statistics. You have to look at the fact that 90 percent of ALL TEAMS have a high pick. Other people have done the work and presented the numbers to show that the correlation is very weak, but you just don't seem to get it. I'm not sure if you're unwilling to see the point or incapable of seeing it, but in either case, you aren't seeing it and there is simply no help for that.



Nobody has said anything like that. But trust you to lie about what other people are saying in order to have an excuse to put them down.

The argument isn't you need to tank to win a cup. The argument is you need elite players to win a cup. I think we can all agree on that. There is no debate there. And statistically where are the elite players found? At the top of the draft. I don't think there is any argument there. Yes some are found later but the highest percentage is at the top of the draft. Your highest odds are at the top of the draft. So trying to build a cup winner without using the highest probable method is likely an uphill battle you will not win. Especially since Calgary isn't a top destination for free agents and is likely on a lot of top players no trade lists.

Posters here against tanking love to point to the absolute lowest probability scenarios like Brayden Point and Kucherov which is so statistically low in probability it almost certainly will never happen. Even a team like Florida who obtained a bunch of top players through trade and waivers will likely never be repeated. These are compete outliers where the odds of repeating something similar are less than 1 percent.

If you're trying to build a team you should be using every method available to try and find talent. Why you would be against using the most probable method is kind of baffling.

[Royle9]

On a few day break with my kids in Sushwaps so I’m not as dialed in at the moment.

There appears to be significant smoke around McTavish and I still feel like ANA get it done but was told late today that if he goes to market it would be Calgary’s to lose in terms of best offer with the most interest.

Feel like Zary would likely have to certainly be apart of it unless you’re comfortable trading our 1st next year.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Royle9

On a few day break with my kids in Sushwaps so I’m not as dialed in at the moment.

There appears to be significant smoke around McTavish and I still feel like ANA get it done but was told late today that if he goes to market it would be Calgary’s to lose in terms of best offer with the most interest.

Feel like Zary would likely have to certainly be apart of it unless you’re comfortable trading our 1st next year.

I kind of feel like it might be Zary a top 10 protected 1st and a prospect. I don’t want to lose Zary. But I could see it being something like that.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Royle9

On a few day break with my kids in Sushwaps so I’m not as dialed in at the moment.

There appears to be significant smoke around McTavish and I still feel like ANA get it done but was told late today that if he goes to market it would be Calgary’s to lose in terms of best offer with the most interest.

Feel like Zary would likely have to certainly be apart of it unless you’re comfortable trading our 1st next year.

I am assuming they would want Zary and our 1st and maybe more. I definitely would not trade next year's 1st unless it was protected.

Seems like an interesting trade situation. It would depend on the return. Do you happen to know why they would be trading him? I don't understand trading him in the 1st place.

[dino7c]

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.

I'm not trying to get into it...like I have barely been posting because there is nothing to post about

but any poster who wants no part in any deal that improves the team...even if it makes them younger, is pretty hard to talk hockey with.

We will just talk in circles forever...When posters were turning down Ras for Robertson I sould have just packed it in for Summer.

[dino7c]

...and you suck me back in lol

If the Flames were getting McTavish you wouldn't need top 10 protection...maybe top 3 or 5. Adding a player that high end you can take a risk...just not the ultimate risk

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by dino7c

...and you suck me back in lol

If the Flames were getting McTavish you wouldn't need top 10 protection...maybe top 3 or 5. Adding a player that high end you can take a risk...just not the ultimate risk

Oh, I meant more lottery ball protection, because there is a generational player available. Probably top 5 protection. I am not saying at all I wouldn't trade a 1st for him.

Edit: now that I look at his stats, I don't know that I'd be overly thrilled giving up a 1st for a second line center. We likely just drafted one of those, and didn't need to give up assets.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Hackey

The argument isn't you need to tank to win a cup. The argument is you need elite players to win a cup. I think we can all agree on that. There is no debate there. And statistically where are the elite players found? At the top of the draft. I don't think there is any argument there. Yes some are found later but the highest percentage is at the top of the draft. Your highest odds are at the top of the draft. So trying to build a cup winner without using the highest probable method is likely an uphill battle you will not win. Especially since Calgary isn't a top destination for free agents and is likely on a lot of top players no trade lists.

Posters here against tanking love to point to the absolute lowest probability scenarios like Brayden Point and Kucherov which is so statistically low in probability it almost certainly will never happen. Even a team like Florida who obtained a bunch of top players through trade and waivers will likely never be repeated. These are compete outliers where the odds of repeating something similar are less than 1 percent.

If you're trying to build a team you should be using every method available to try and find talent. Why you would be against using the most probable method is kind of baffling.

You can get them in free agency as well. That’s what the flames are going to do next year or the year after

[Jiri Hrdina]

He’s a very different centre than Reschney. Size and skill. Will he end up a first line centre? Hard to say. But he’s the kind of guy you certainly look to acquire and chances of drafting one like him are not high.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

There's also so many thing wrong with the 'work' that was done in this argument that you are so emphatically using to prove a point and use to attack and disparage other posters.

It's complete confirmation bias at its finest.

Denied.

There was no analysis of tanking vs non tanking teams- the 'work' created its own definition of tanking - Which is a top 5 draft pick, and then picked their own timeline, and found a statistic that supports (or in this case disproves) the argument they didn't agree with.

The definition was created by the people who insist that a tank is necessary, and it was, in fact, a top-3 draft pick.

For starters, many non tanking teams get top 5 picks. Injuries, bad performance, bad coaching, etc can lead to a top 5 pick

Which is beside the point. The point the tankers were trying to make is that a top-3 (not 5) pick is necessary to win the Cup. They, not I, asserted that tanking is necessary to get such a pick.

Teams can win the lottery and move into the top 5. Were the Islanders tanking this year? But they now have a top 5 pick (Top overall pick). If they don't win a cup now in the next 10 years does that support that tanking doesn't win cups - They have a 1st overall pick!!!

It's irrelevant one way or the other, because, as you point out correctly, they did not tank to get the pick. That is actually another argument against the necessity of tanking.

There is a long lag between getting a high pick and when you would be expected to compete for a cup (from recent cup champs its 5-10 years) so using the same 10 year period is a pretty silly way to look for correlation. The worse teams usually have the worse picks and take time to get good. The teams winning cup certainly aren't picking top 5 during that timeframe.

The work shown a few months ago, when this argument came up before, was not about top draft picks in the last 10 years. In fact, it covered the whole cap era, and thus included virtually every top-3 pick who is still an active player.

So all that was actually shown is there is not a strong correlation between having a top 5 overall pick over the last 10 year period and winning the cup during that same 10 year period. (Because the cup winners had drafted their stars before 2014)

Since there was no cutoff date of 2014, this is incorrect.

Non of this actually answers the question of do you need to tank or does it increase your chances of winning a Stanley Cup vs the alternative, because classifying what is a tank/tanking team was never done, lag periods not defined, and timeframes of success arbitrarily chosen.

Tell that to the people who are making the positive assertion that tanking is the only way to win.

One of the biggest reasons is "tank" itself is such a buzzword lazy way to describe a teams situation - usually used in a negative connotation against teams fans don't like!

Agreed, but not relevant one way or the other.

At what point does the Flames rebuild become a tank? If they trade Anderson and Kadri and Coleman asked for a trade would they now be tanking? But what if they continue to do well? Is that a failed attempt to tank? or good roster management?

I suspect the pro-tanking crowd would want the team to be in the bottom 3 of the standings, so that it would get a top-3 pick if the lottery were not a consideration.

Or is it only if they do really bad that matters? If the Flames finish last next season and trade nobody but Anderson at the deadline are they now tanking because they finished last when the roster is very similar to the one that missed by 1 game the year before?

Search me. I'm not the one claiming that a tank is necessary.

Is a team getting a single 5th overall pick over a decade the same as what Chicago or SJ are attempting to do? Clearly not, but this 'work' groups them all together.

Change that to top 3. I should point out that San Jose did not voluntarily tank at all, but simply became that bad when their core aged out and they had traded away a lot of picks and prospects to try to keep their competitive window open. As for Chicago, they were supposed to be finishing their rebuild when they collapsed and drafted Bedard.

In fact, the 'work' you like to refer too shows that you are more likely to win the Stanley Cup WITHOUT a top 5 pick since only three of the 25 teams with a top 5 pick had won. (Colorado, LA and Florida, and Florida's top 5 was in 2014 meaning next year they 'fall off' the list as well)

Only if you incorrectly assume that the pick has to have been made in the last 10 years.

While Wash, Pitts, St.L, Vegas and TB all won without a top 5 pick.

Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, etc., beg to differ. The analysis that was done some months ago INCLUDED those players, and the pro-tanking crowd includes them as well as part of their ‘proof’.

St. Louis and Vegas are actually the counterexamples of teams that did not draft high, yet still won the Stanley Cup, which the pro-tankers claim is impossible. (They also claim Vegas doesn't count because the league gave them a championship team out of the goodness of its heart. They don't seem to have settled on an excuse for St. Louis.)

By your logic you have a 70% (7 in 10) chance of winning the cup if you don't draft top 5 / don't tank (and next year when Florida falls off the draft list 8 of the last 10 champs won't have drafted in the top 5!!) Drafting high has an inverse relationship to success according to this work! By not ever tanking and finishing low the Flames will almost guarantee themselves a cup over a 10 year period.

Again, you are misrepresenting my timeline and my logic.

So while you are correct that finishing bottom 5 from 2014-2024 doesn't correlate strongly/at all to winning a cup in those same years and is a bad statistic to use - It tells us nothing about the likelihood of tanking being successful or not.

But that is not the claim that I or anyone made. The claim is that having drafted in the top 3 during the cap era does not correlate to winning the Cup. If we start with the 2004 draft (the first from which no players could have made the NHL prior to the salary cap), and end with 2015, and compare the list with Stanley Cup winners from 2014 to 2025, the correlation is still not what the pro-tankers make out. Nineteen teams had a top-3 pick from 2004 to 2015; six of those teams went on to win the Stanley Cup from 2014 to 2025 with at least one of those top-3 picks on the roster. St. Louis won the Cup after trading away its only top-3 pick, and Vegas won it despite not even having existed at the time those picks were made.

Of course, several other teams have had top-3 picks since 2015, and none of those additional teams have won a championship. This at any rate shows (as your own work also shows) that there is a time lag of at least a decade between drafting top-3 and winning the Cup.

Elementary as it is, this is a more sophisticated analysis than almost any of the pro-tank crowd have made. They place no time constraints on when the pick must have been made, or whether it is still on the team that actually wins the championship. They usually insist that you can't win the Cup without at some time having drafted in the top 3; well, 29 teams in the league have done that. If you say that 90% of Cup winners in the last decade came out of a group that includes 90% of all the teams in the league, you have not established correlation, and if you cannot establish correlation, you cannot establish causation either.

In short, you have misrepresented my argument, and you have also misrepresented by pretending that I was arguing against you and not against particular posters who advanced the simple-minded ‘must draft top 3 some time or other’ version of the argument. This is unhelpful.

If you refine your terms (as you did in your discussion of the issue, and I have attempted to do above, but most participants in the argument haven't), you can, in fact, find a correlation, though not a causation – because the great majority of teams that draft top-3 do not win a championship, and of the teams that can be argued to have tanked deliberately, only Pittsburgh has won.

In short, most of the wind is coming from the pro-tank crowd, and unlike you, most of them have not approached the question with any understanding of statistics. Their blunt analysis only shows that the odds of winning the Stanley Cup at some point after making a top-3 pick are no worse than if the championship were awarded by chance. That's mighty thin gruel, and I hope you'll agree with me that it's a kind of analysis we shouldn't have much patience with.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He’s a very different centre than Reschney. Size and skill. Will he end up a first line centre? Hard to say. But he’s the kind of guy you certainly look to acquire

I have seen comments from Ducks fans that he does not use his size well/plays passive. And that he is most suited as a 2nd line center, as he hasn't really progressed year over year.

Still a good asset to have, I am hoping to hit on a top line center or winger in the draft this year. Depending where we pick. So it would depend what Anaheim is asking.

[Goriders]

If we could somehow bring McTavish in for Zary and exteas as well as Robertson for Andersson Conman should get the key to the city.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Goriders

If we could somehow bring McTavish in for Zary and exteas as well as Robertson for Andersson Conman should get the key to the city.

Agreed; but I think the chances of that happening are about the same as the chances that the key to the city will actually open somebody's lock.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I have seen comments from Ducks fans that he does not use his size well/plays passive. And that he is most suited as a 2nd line center, as he hasn't really progressed year over year.

Still a good asset to have, I am hoping to hit on a top line center or winger in the draft this year. Depending where we pick. So it would depend what Anaheim is asking.

I would do Zary and the Vegas pick.

[Sandman]

McTavish is only 22, and just put up 52 points from Anaheim's third line. He's going to be a star in a few years, a future Captain, and will be a beast in the playoffs- I would easily trade Zary and a first for him.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Hackey

The argument isn't you need to tank to win a cup. The argument is you need elite players to win a cup. I think we can all agree on that. There is no debate there. And statistically where are the elite players found? At the top of the draft. I don't think there is any argument there. Yes some are found later but the highest percentage is at the top of the draft. Your highest odds are at the top of the draft. So trying to build a cup winner without using the highest probable method is likely an uphill battle you will not win. Especially since Calgary isn't a top destination for free agents and is likely on a lot of top players no trade lists.

Posters here against tanking love to point to the absolute lowest probability scenarios like Brayden Point and Kucherov which is so statistically low in probability it almost certainly will never happen. Even a team like Florida who obtained a bunch of top players through trade and waivers will likely never be repeated. These are compete outliers where the odds of repeating something similar are less than 1 percent.

If you're trying to build a team you should be using every method available to try and find talent. Why you would be against using the most probable method is kind of baffling.

take the pedo out of your avatar...speaking of baffling

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hackey

If you're trying to build a team you should be using every method available to try and find talent. Why you would be against using the most probable method is kind of baffling.

Because realistically, to have a decent shot at a top pick, the Flames would need to be about 30 points worse than they were last season, and stay there for several years until the lottery breaks their way. In other words, they would have to destroy the team before they could build it. The most probable method is not the best method, because to use it you have to be incredibly bad for an extended period. That means it takes ages to build back up to a contender again…which is why (as I was discussing with Jason14h in our long-winded posts above) teams that draft at the top very seldom win the Cup within 10 years thereafter.

Pittsburgh was an exception because they drafted the two best centres of their whole generation in consecutive years, and one of those years they won a league-wide lottery to do it. Chicago was an exception because they had built up a stable of young prospects before they bottomed out, and then got several top picks one after the other. The Islanders won the lottery without deliberately tanking, and might be able to shortcut the process; but that isn't the most probable method, either.

Statistically, you need to be worse than the Flames can expect to be even if they sell off every veteran without trade protection; you need to stay at the bottom for however many years it takes to win a lottery or two; and then it takes a decade to build back up. And you may never win a championship even then. The only teams to do it without major lottery help were Florida and Chicago, and now that Chicago is going through the process again, they've already had one failed rebuild and had to tear down the team halfway through. At least they're not as badly off as Arizona, which hasn't even got a team anymore.

There's no sure way to go about this; there isn't even a probable way to go about it. What pro-tankers call the most probable method also involves a decade of misery before seeing any results, and those results, when they come, usually do not include a championship.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

I have seen comments from Ducks fans that he does not use his size well/plays passive. And that he is most suited as a 2nd line center, as he hasn't really progressed year over year.

Still a good asset to have, I am hoping to hit on a top line center or winger in the draft this year. Depending where we pick. So it would depend what Anaheim is asking.

He put up 52 points in 76 games last year, on a team that somehow scored less than Calgary. Thats after 40 in 80 games two seasons ago when he was 20, so there is progression. He's 22, over 6' and 219 lbs. Last year as Sandman said, he put those numbers up in a reduced role. He's younger than Coronato and an 8-year deal takes him to 30.

I know, he makes the team better now which is counter to your hopes of bottoming out, but if a 22-year old, 219 lb C that fits in age-wise with our other young players is available, you make that move. Lottery protected as every 1st rounder seems to be nowadays anyway.

[Vinny01]

McTavish has been the dream target all summer as he is by far the best fit for the Flames from all the RFA’s. I top 3 pick being traded out of his ELC after scoring 0.6ppg in 3 seasons and hitting over 20 goals and 50 points last year.

I would trade Andersson, Zary and possibly the Vegas 1st to get him.