2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

Honestly, when was the last time we saw the Flames play non-dump-and-chase hockey? The last time I remember it was when Gaudreau, Lindholm, and Tkachuk ignored the “safe” stuff and just played exciting hockey. Granted, they were better players than we have now, but it feels like we haven’t seen a truly dynamic system in what feels like forever. That’s what makes the games feel so boring right now, regardless of the roster.

Would you not like to see a more aggressive style of defense and a more free-flowing style of hockey with the likes of Parekh, Zary, Gridin, and the next wave of young players coming through? That’s the kind of hockey that could actually develop talent while making the games fun to watch.

Have we not had a dynamic system or have we not had dynamic players?
We don't have anyone that can do the things that Johnny and Tkachuk did.

Again I realize we are ending up in the same place. You think the system is a big factor. I think it's a small one because it is way more about talent.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Have we not had a dynamic system or have we not had dynamic players?
We don't have anyone that can do the things that Johnny and Tkachuk did.

Again I realize we are ending up in the same place. You think the system is a big factor. I think it's a small one because it is way more about talent.

Yeah, the only thing worse than what we have now would be the same group of guys playing run and gun pond hockey. We'd be looking at a lot of embarrassing score and not much more offense (if any).

[HighLifeMan]

I don't know - is it really that shocking that a core group of guys who have been told year over year by it's coaches that they lack talent and need to play a certain style of hockey to have success would struggle with their confidence and execution at that end of the rink?

We don't have a regulation win in eight games and have scored a total of 12 goals on the season and people still think it's unfair to criticize the coach and his approach to creating offense.

This team absolutely does play a predictable, risk-averse, uncreative, and easy to defend style of hockey, and it has to be a complete drain on the skill players on this roster.

We may not have the most talent in the world - but there are ways to work around that. Washington finished 2nd in the NHL in goals scored last year while being led by Dylan Strome of all people.

Ryan Huska has had diminishing returns on his teams ability to score goals every season (3.09 ----> 2.74 ----> 1.63) - maybe his approach needs to change?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

I see a couple of things:

1) Limited offensive potential / bias towards the safe play. There was a loose 3 on 2 yesterday, and i think it was backs who had the puck along the left side. All 3 flames players were basically in a horizontal line. The far forward wasn't offensively inclined enough to slow himself and move into the slot for a pass, Backlund wasn't confident enough to shoot it on net with 2 other Flames crashing, so he chose to dump it behind the net for the opposite winger to fight for it. Other than Huberdeau, there isn't really a player that will look for a trailer on that play. And outside of a few players, the rest don't have the instinct to offer a better selection for the puck carrier. That's not really on Huska imo.

2) Huska repeatedly talks about low to high, and I think it's part of the problem. Yes, the puck moves faster than the player. So if you gain possession down low and get it to the point, the point player is likely going to have time to get off a shot. Issue is that type of play simply leaves the defensive team huddled around their net, so your point shot is unlikely to get through and your 3 forwards are outnumbered around the crease. So you get low percentage shots and the occasional goal (a la Lomberg the other night) but it's not enough.

And also, referring to 1 above, the team isn't offensively creative enough to use the space generated by going low-to-high for anything other than a point shot.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It really feels like some of the "move all the assets now! we need to rebuild" crowd have pivoted to find something else to complain about now that the team is losing and they are getting what they want.

Had a high school buddy that used to change sides of the argument if you agreed with him.

And that man was Ryan Pinder

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

Ryan Huska has had diminishing returns on his teams ability to score goals every season (3.09 ----> 2.74 ----> 1.63) - maybe his approach needs to change?

It's almost like they lost a a couple 30 goal forwards and as .5 PPG defenceman in that time.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

I don't know - is it really that shocking that a core group of guys who have been told year over year by it's coaches that they lack talent and need to play a certain style of hockey to have success would struggle with their confidence and execution at that end of the rink?

Would they suddenly have that talent if the coaches told them they had it?

Go find a 1996 Honda Civic and tell it over and over that it's a Lamborghini. I promise you, it won't work.

[P-bobby]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's almost like they lost a a couple 30 goal forwards and as .5 PPG defenceman in that time.

It’s almost like you want to keep the same boring, low-event hockey going just because the roster got weaker. I’m not part of the tank team….. I hate watching the Flames lose, even if it’s the “right” thing long term. I just want to see a more exciting brand of hockey again.

Again I am not talking for everyone.. just my opinion.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

It’s almost like you want to keep the same boring, low-event hockey going just because the roster got weaker.

Boring, low-event hockey is proven to be the only thing that can give a bad roster a fighting chance. If you allow 9 goals to be scored in a game, the team with more offensive talent will almost always win. If there are only three, the team with less talent will grind out a 2-1 win from time to time. Low-scoring games favour the less skilled competitor.

This is the fundamental reason for the Dead Puck Era. A bunch of expansion teams with little talent were joined by a bunch of small-market teams that couldn't keep their talent. The only way they could hope to beat the big-money clubs was to slow the game down and trap like hell; and since they were the majority of the league, the rules were enforced in their interest. Scoring didn't rise until the salary cap forced a more equal distribution of offensive talent.

[Psytic]

Huska will deliver McKenna and DuPont, then be removed. His work is not done yet.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

It’s almost like you want to keep the same boring, low-event hockey going just because the roster got weaker. I’m not part of the tank team….. I hate watching the Flames lose, even if it’s the “right” thing long term. I just want to see a more exciting brand of hockey again.

Again I am not talking for everyone.. just my opinion.

Again no one is saying they want to keep boring hockey. You keep on jumping to that conclusion which isn't what folks are saying
People are disagreeing with the reasons for that hockey. Talent v. systems and coaching. And therefore this is disagreement over what needs to change and when. Here again, some are accepting the belief that it won't change until you upgrade the talent v. believing you can change it now with a systems or coaching change.

No one is saying the like boring hockey.

[Bonded]

I think with how this season has started it should really make people appreciate how much they over performed last year but seems like the opposite. Losing games 6-4 isn’t the base line for a team without a top line

[P-bobby]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again no one is saying they want to keep boring hockey. You keep on jumping to that conclusion which isn't what folks are saying
People are disagreeing with the reasons for that hockey. Talent v. systems and coaching. And therefore this is disagreement over what needs to change and when. Here again, some are accepting the belief that it won't change until you upgrade the talent v. believing you can change it now with a systems or coaching change.

No one is saying the like boring hockey.

I don’t understand your reasoning then. What’s there to lose? We’re already at the bottom and the least offensive team in the league. Are you worried that changing the system might actually make us better and hurt the draft odds? If not, then what’s the harm in trying something different?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

I don’t understand your reasoning then. What’s there to lose? We’re already at the bottom and the least offensive team in the league. Are you worried that changing the system might actually make us better and hurt the draft odds? If not, then what’s the harm in trying something different?

The harm is that nobody learns anything by losing every night. If you want the young players to learn from experience, you can't go into the games knowing that the L is a foregone conclusion. That just teaches the players that there is no point in even trying to compete.

[P-bobby]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The harm is that nobody learns anything by losing every night. If you want the young players to learn from experience, you can't go into the games knowing that the L is a foregone conclusion. That just teaches the players that there is no point in even trying to compete.

But we are already doing that? We can win a game or score.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

But we are already doing that? We can win a game or score.

You can't win a game by playing run-and-gun against teams with superior talent, which is what you are asking them to do. You might score an extra goal here and there, but you will reliably give up more extra goals than you score and the results will get worse.

Every coach in the business knows this, which is why ALL of them implement tight defensive systems when they have a disadvantage in offensive talent.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

I don’t understand your reasoning then. What’s there to lose? We’re already at the bottom and the least offensive team in the league. Are you worried that changing the system might actually make us better and hurt the draft odds? If not, then what’s the harm in trying something different?

Blowout losses every night and young guys not learning a two way game. Parekh is the only young player that I think could benefit from being allowed to go full tilt offense. All the other young players aren’t offensively talented enough to be one dimensional.

[Monahammer]

What the hell? You can learn while losing. Failure is often thought of as the best way to learn.

The deciding factor is the coaching and leadership to take the lessons from the losses and pivot them into wins.

Winning isn't the only way to breed winners. If it were, there would never be any mobility.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again no one is saying they want to keep boring hockey. You keep on jumping to that conclusion which isn't what folks are saying
People are disagreeing with the reasons for that hockey. Talent v. systems and coaching. And therefore this is disagreement over what needs to change and when. Here again, some are accepting the belief that it won't change until you upgrade the talent v. believing you can change it now with a systems or coaching change.

No one is saying the like boring hockey.

Ok, I can grab on to this.

I think my point is that if you want to develop the young guys properly then you should play the system you want them to play when they're developed not try to adapt a janky system to cover their warts now. Because then later they will have to learn a new system/ unlearn bad habits from this system to take that next step.

If we jointly acknowledge the team isn't going to win, then why not try to get them playing the way you want them to play when we do get the horses to do it?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

What the hell? You can learn while losing. Failure is often thought of as the best way to learn.

You can't learn while losing if you are guaranteed to lose every time. That just teaches you that nothing you can possibly do will make a difference to the outcome. It teaches you that there is no benefit to trying and no cost to giving up.