2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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.

Why would you be guaranteed to lose?
I still reject what you're saying entirely. A good leader should be able to pull the players through with proper expectation management and again, mass acknowledgment of the need to learn and grow.

[P-bobby]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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.

I’m not asking for a run-and-gun system. I just don’t want the dump-and-chase, perimeter-shot mentality we see every night. You can still play structured hockey while giving skilled players some freedom to create instead of constantly defaulting to low-danger plays.

[Jiri Hrdina]

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?

Because I'm not a fan of doing something just for the sake of it. If one doesn't believe the system is the root cause, then why would one change it?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

I’m not asking for a run-and-gun system. I just don’t want the dump-and-chase, perimeter-shot mentality we see every night. You can still play structured hockey while giving skilled players some freedom to create instead of constantly defaulting to low-danger plays.

Again you are assuming the coach wants low danger plays.
I don't think that's the case.
I think the team doesn't have the talent to regularly create high danger chances.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

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?

I think it's hard to tell an NHL coach that he should approach games with winning not being the #1 priority. Plus, I suspect the system does represent how they want the team to play, to some unknown extent, but it will also evolve and change over time as the horses on the team change.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Psytic

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

Maybe we can trade for Taylor Hall to up our chances even more. If there's a couple years to bottom out, it sounds like these next few are the years to do it. So it's not the end of the world for the Flames to finally hit rock bottom.

[GioforPM]

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.

You are arguing a premise I dont think exists - that they are being coached not to score and to be boring.

I think they just don't yet have the players to do so. Their goalscoring is down because their players who scored goals have been reduced.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

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?

This is a good point, but I can't see what bad habits the team is developing? Cautious 200ft hockey isn't a bad habit. Habits aren't really what is killing the Flames. All of their problems stem from the fact that they don't have a single forward who they can trust the carry the puck through the neutral zone. If anything Huska is telling them to watch out for the fact that the puck is almost never going to get a clean entry. The Flames have struggled with this since Johnny left.

[P-bobby]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again you are assuming the coach wants low danger plays.
I don't think that's the case.
I think the team doesn't have the talent to regularly create high danger chances.

Huska literally said in an interview today that he is asking the defense to shoot more, which is basically the definition of low danger, perimeter hockey.

Personally, I think we actually have the personnel to play a more free flowing, creative style. Just my opinion though, I am no head coach, far from it.

[P-bobby]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are arguing a premise I dont think exists - that they are being coached not to score and to be boring.

I think they just don't yet have the players to do so. Their goalscoring is down because their players who scored goals have been reduced.

That’s a fair opinion. It’s just not how I see that’s all.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

Huska literally said in an interview today that he is asking the defense to shoot more, which is basically the definition of low danger, perimeter hockey.

Personally, I think we actually have the personnel to play a more free flowing, creative style. Just my opinion though, I am no head coach, far from it.

Huska literally said he didn't want them to play perimiter hockey.

EDIT: Asking D to shoot more doesn't necessarily mean perimter shots. Hutson and matheson took plenty of shots, from the point, the high slot and from the side.

[Geeoff]

I actually think we're better off losing 2-1, than 5-4, for Wolf's sake, since he is our most important player right now. So, keep the dump and chase comin'!!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by P-bobby

Huska literally said in an interview today that he is asking the defense to shoot more, which is basically the definition of low danger, perimeter hockey.

Personally, I think we actually have the personnel to play a more free flowing, creative style. Just my opinion though, I am no head coach, far from it.

That’s not the definition of low danger, perimeter hockey. Perimeter hockey is cycling along the blue line and the boards instead of driving to the net. That’s literally the opposite of what he’s asking players to do.

Instead of the defence passing the puck, he wants them to shoot the puck and expects players his forwards to be driving the net in all situations.

What you’re asking for, which is players staying outside the and creating chances through passing, is perimeter hockey.

[Bleeding Red]

Tampa may be the first team to panic and try to trade out of the Atlantic basement.
Think they would part with 2 of their prospects + Bjorkstrand (cap dump) for Andersson + Coleman both 50% retained?


Geekie - 6.4 LHS C
O'Reilly - 6.1 RHS RW
Mercuri - 6.3 RHS C
Finley - 6.6 RHS C
Czata - 6.1 LHS C

[Always Earned Never Given]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again you are assuming the coach wants low danger plays.
I don't think that's the case.
I think the team doesn't have the talent to regularly create high danger chances.

To me it seems like they have some talent to create HDC but not the talent needed to convert those HDC created.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by 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.

Right. But you need to win to learn how to win too. Only losing teaches you how to lose and what made you lose. You don't learn how to win until you also figure out how to win. There is learning lessons on both sides of the equation.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by 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.

And that's why the Sabres are a Dynasty.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think it's hard to tell an NHL coach that he should approach games with winning not being the #1 priority. Plus, I suspect the system does represent how they want the team to play, to some unknown extent, but it will also evolve and change over time as the horses on the team change.

I think that may be a differentiator between top-end organizations and not top-end organizations.

I don't think it's too much to ask that a larger vision include short-term concessions so long as it aligns with long-term plans and development of the team. If the focus is exclusively on whatever 60 minutes is in front of them, then they're not doing a good job of building a culture & organization.

We, as fans, actively paid the price for this in the form of Sam Bennett and Glen Gulutzan/Geoff Ward - not to mention the under-utilization of Matthew Tkachuk. Conroy has to make sure he does whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen again, which I think includes making sure that the coach has a bigger picture view of things. I think the coach is so important to success that it HAS to be big picture. If it's not, it's an organizational failure.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

And that's why the Sabres are a Dynasty.

The sabres have had some of the worst and most inconsistent coaching in NHL history over the last decade.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Why would you be guaranteed to lose?

I've already explained that. The more goals that get scored in a game, the greater the probability that the team with more scoring talent will get the majority of them. This is simple, basic statistics.

I still reject what you're saying entirely. A good leader should be able to pull the players through with proper expectation management and again, mass acknowledgment of the need to learn and grow.

You vastly overestimate the power of coaches, and completely ignore the psychology of the actual players.