2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Wolven

McQueen is not needed by the Ducks, at all.

They have:

• McTavish locked up long term (after the drama over the summer where it looked like he might ask out because he didn't want to play wing). #1/2C
• They are about to extend Carlsson long term. #1/2C
• Strome signed for 2 more years #3C
• Granlund signed for 3 more years #3C
• Gaucher (2022 1st round pick) #2/3C
• Pettersson (2024 2nd round pick) #2/3C
• Nilson (2025 2nd round pick) #3C

McQueen is redundant after the first 2 bullets. From his perspective there is no way he wants to cap out as a #3C and, like McTavish said over the summer, I doubt McQueen wants to convert to a winger (and even if he did, who is he going to bump out of the top 6?). I also doubt he wants to get buried and stuck making third line money when he could be a top 6 center elsewhere and the other young options may actually be better in the bottom 6 role.

From Verbeek's perspective, this is literally one of those moments that all the "BPA" people talk about. Draft the best player available no matter what and if you end up overloaded in a position then you trade away one of those players to get what you need. Keeping McQueen doesn't really make sense for the Duck's depth chart or salary cap structure. Also, Verbeek just traded Zegras with similar logic behind it.

From Conroy's perspective, if you have Dallas offering Bischel + 1st for Andersson and then you tell that to Verbeek and tell him he can beat it by putting up McQueen. If he turns around and offers you Mintyukov + 1st then I think you send Andersson to the Stars. I know Mintyukov was drafted higher than Bischel in the same draft year but I like Bischel's game (and size) more.

In the end, Verbeek could win the bidding war easily unless he cheaps out and offers similar assets to the perennial contenders who have very little to offer.

If McQueen is not needed, ‘at all’ by the Ducks, why did they draft him at 10th overall less than 7 months ago? Evidently the Ducks don’t see it that way. I doubt there’s opportunity for the Flames to take advantage of some redundancy here and get a prime prospect for a sweetheart deal.

Seems like a stretch to think they did just to flip him. If so, why didn’t they just trade the pick?throughout the entire league there’s no deal to be had for a younger RHS D with term? And does that deal need to happen right now, or do the Ducks have time? Seems like the latter.

Lotta mental gymnastics here making the argument this makes sense but if I’m Verbeek and if McQueen is on the table, I’m prioritizing an under 25 year old player with term/control and 8-10 year left of prime hockey, not 30 year old pending UFA who reportedly turned down a lucrative extension to play in your market less than 7 months ago.

Closest must recent example I can think of is the Hronek trade. At the time Hronek was 25 with term and traded for two picks, one of which ended up being 17th overall.

I think we’re far more likely to see a slightly better return than the Hanifin trade for Andersson. These names people are throwing out there, Iginla, Danielson, Hage, and now McQueen, would be surprising. Those deals just don’t happen for players like Andersson at his age and contract status. Even if there’s an extension in place.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

How much would a Coleman + Andersson both 50 percent retained and an extension signed for Andy command?

Minty + McQueen + conditional 2nd (becomes 1st if Anaheim makes it to the 2nd round) seems pretty fair/close in value to me.

Would you make that trade if the teams were reversed?

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Red Potato Standing By

Would you make that trade if the teams were reversed?

Not sure if I would include McQueen but I think Minty and a 1st is close. But with 50% RS, I think they Flames should get more.


I would be ok with McQueen and Minty, the 1st wouldn't be needed if we got that return.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wolven

McQueen is not needed by the Ducks, at all.

If that’s the case, they can put him on the market and there will be 10+ teams bidding on him. There could almost certainly get a younger player than Andersson with term.

[Rhett44]

Lol we are not getting McQueen.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If that’s the case, they can put him on the market and there will be 10+ teams bidding on him. There could almost certainly get a younger player than Andersson with term.

Ok so who is giving up that?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I don’t have to squint at all - I can read !

I however interpret it the same as most.

That doesn’t mean people who interpret the way it actually was written are idiots or 1/100 as was insinuated or outright said

Never called anyone an idiot.

Questioned the interpretation. He pushed back. Then said that I felt a vote of 100 people would have 2 that saw it his way.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I find the validity of insiders and whether to take them with a grain of salt is directly tied to whether the insider info confirms what a poster wants to hear to further their point or goes against it. And that's everyone, not just "the negative crowd", the title some have given a bunch of posters here to quiet them down.

I would also argue that if you're going to say we take insiders with a grain of salt I would say the same thing of players comments when being asked about potential trades and reports tied to them. We know these comments are often fabricated/dismissive to avoid speaking about rumors and details of behind the scenes talks involving their contracts/trades.

Not sure I agree on paragraph two.

If Conroy is saying he won't be walking players to free agency I think you can book it. Andersson has a reputation of being pretty straight forward, so I think he hasn't talked to his agent.

Neither are paid to get a response like rumour websites or pod casts. Nor are they saying "someone told me" or "word on the street is" ...

Plus I think we can all discern the platitudes speech from actual information to some degree.

Agree that you need to take the latter group with a grain of salt in all cases though.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fan69

Ok so who is giving up that?

McQueen would be the type of player asked for in a Quinn Hughes trade, not Andersson.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Wolven

McQueen is not needed by the Ducks, at all.

They have:

• McTavish locked up long term (after the drama over the summer where it looked like he might ask out because he didn't want to play wing). #1/2C
• They are about to extend Carlsson long term. #1/2C
• Strome signed for 2 more years #3C
• Granlund signed for 3 more years #3C
• Gaucher (2022 1st round pick) #2/3C
• Pettersson (2024 2nd round pick) #2/3C
• Nilson (2025 2nd round pick) #3C

McQueen is redundant after the first 2 bullets. From his perspective there is no way he wants to cap out as a #3C and, like McTavish said over the summer, I doubt McQueen wants to convert to a winger (and even if he did, who is he going to bump out of the top 6?). I also doubt he wants to get buried and stuck making third line money when he could be a top 6 center elsewhere and the other young options may actually be better in the bottom 6 role.

From Verbeek's perspective, this is literally one of those moments that all the "BPA" people talk about. Draft the best player available no matter what and if you end up overloaded in a position then you trade away one of those players to get what you need. Keeping McQueen doesn't really make sense for the Duck's depth chart or salary cap structure. Also, Verbeek just traded Zegras with similar logic behind it.

From Conroy's perspective, if you have Dallas offering Bischel + 1st for Andersson and then you tell that to Verbeek and tell him he can beat it by putting up McQueen. If he turns around and offers you Mintyukov + 1st then I think you send Andersson to the Stars. I know Mintyukov was drafted higher than Bischel in the same draft year but I like Bischel's game (and size) more.

In the end, Verbeek could win the bidding war easily unless he cheaps out and offers similar assets to the perennial contenders who have very little to offer.

Just because they can afford to give up McQueen, doesn't mean they will for a 30 year old dman. If they decide they can move on from McQueen, they would trade him for another young stud in a position of need.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Wolven

McQueen is not needed by the Ducks, at all.

They have:

• McTavish locked up long term (after the drama over the summer where it looked like he might ask out because he didn't want to play wing). #1/2C
• They are about to extend Carlsson long term. #1/2C
• Strome signed for 2 more years #3C
• Granlund signed for 3 more years #3C
• Gaucher (2022 1st round pick) #2/3C
• Pettersson (2024 2nd round pick) #2/3C
• Nilson (2025 2nd round pick) #3C

McQueen is redundant after the first 2 bullets. From his perspective there is no way he wants to cap out as a #3C and, like McTavish said over the summer, I doubt McQueen wants to convert to a winger (and even if he did, who is he going to bump out of the top 6?). I also doubt he wants to get buried and stuck making third line money when he could be a top 6 center elsewhere and the other young options may actually be better in the bottom 6 role.

From Verbeek's perspective, this is literally one of those moments that all the "BPA" people talk about. Draft the best player available no matter what and if you end up overloaded in a position then you trade away one of those players to get what you need. Keeping McQueen doesn't really make sense for the Duck's depth chart or salary cap structure. Also, Verbeek just traded Zegras with similar logic behind it.

From Conroy's perspective, if you have Dallas offering Bischel + 1st for Andersson and then you tell that to Verbeek and tell him he can beat it by putting up McQueen. If he turns around and offers you Mintyukov + 1st then I think you send Andersson to the Stars. I know Mintyukov was drafted higher than Bischel in the same draft year but I like Bischel's game (and size) more.

In the end, Verbeek could win the bidding war easily unless he cheaps out and offers similar assets to the perennial contenders who have very little to offer.

If McQueen becomes a better center than McTavish or Carlsson, then he will be one of the top 6 centers and McTavish easily goes back to LW. As others have already mentioned, if your reasoning is Strome, Granlund, Gaucher (lol) as reason they should trade him, then you're mistaken. Those are aged vets who will move down the lineup when McQueen is better than them. By the time McQueen is ready to play in the NHL, I guarantee Strome will not be re-signed and walk to UFA. It's only if a top end defenseman is available (like EE said with Hughes) that a top prospect would be offered in a package for a player of that caliber. Not a guy like Andersson who could just bounce on July 1st of next year.

[Tbull8]

Fair, wonder if they’d offer him up in an Owen Power trade

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Fan69

Ok so who is giving up that?

What kind of a question is this? What kind of an answer are you expecting?


Seems unreasonable to expect someone to go through all other 31 teams in the league and pick out a prospect or young player from each roster to lay out all the options. If you have the time, fill your boots.

What I think is reasonable is to think if the Ducks were to trade a prospect like McQueen, they would prioritize an age equivalent and talent upside that is commensurate with the player they are giving up. That is not Rasmus Andersson.

If the Ducks were one Rasmus Andersson away from being a serious cup contender this year, maybe. Reality, they’re not.

[Ped]

Like the Gauthier-Drysdale trade. Or the Yager-McGroarty trade.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Ped

Like the Gauthier-Drysdale trade. Or the Yager-McGroarty trade.

Or Jones - Johnson
Or Byram - Middlestat
Or Drouin - Sergachev

[Harry Lime]

Two things : teams draft for BPA, and position if it's close. That's how Anaheim ends up with McQueen.

Also, nobody said it was Anderson in a bubble. Calgary could add, probably from a stacked LW prospect base, which would make McKenna a no brainer over drafting a center. Should the flames get there.

Just throwing out possibilities about a GM with a history of moves like this.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by TOfan

What kind of a question is this? What kind of an answer are you expecting?


Seems unreasonable to expect someone to go through all other 31 teams in the league and pick out a prospect or young player from each roster to lay out all the options. If you have the time, fill your boots.

What I think is reasonable is to think if the Ducks were to trade a prospect like McQueen, they would prioritize an age equivalent and talent upside that is commensurate with the player they are giving up. That is not Rasmus Andersson.

If the Ducks were one Rasmus Andersson away from being a serious cup contender this year, maybe. Reality, they’re not.

And they certainly arent a mcqueen from contention either?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If McQueen is not needed by the Ducks, then why would they use a 10th overall pick on him? Some of you are just too pie in the sky.

I literally called it out in my post.... They selected BPA regardless of organizational depth.

Aren't you one of the BPA guys?

[Muta]

Unsure why Anaheim wouldn't want McQueen, he was the BPA to them - centres are always a valuable asset. We would be absolutely giddy to have three young centre prospects in MacTavish/Karlsson/McQueen here. What a great "problem" to have.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Braden

I mean I don't have time to go thru the entire list but to come on. They don't need a young 6'5 center because they have a 32 year old Strome and 33 year old Granlund? Or because they have Gaucher waiting in the wings with 46 points in 144 AHL games?

They literally have Poelhing as the one guy under 30 years old in there bottom 6. To say young good player isn't needed just comes off incredibly homer.

I appreciate your uninformed opinion. Maybe put an ounce of effort into understanding the situation before sounding off?

No, they do not need McQueen to play #3C. They have players that can do it immediately (Strome/Granlund) and they have 4 other prospects that are likely #3C or better as their ceiling that can take over the role in the future.