2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

Strictly speaking he'd have to waive the NMC for them to buy him out, so that threat lacks teeth.

Not true I think. They just can’t put him on waivers to see if someone takes him for free.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Then after next year you tell Seguin waive the NMC or we buy you out

I think Seguin would be okay with that. He's owed 7.1 this year, 6.1 of which is a bonus, and 6.75 next year of which 5.75 is bonus money.

So he'd still get 6.42 in actual money if he got bought out for the final year and likely still gets a 2 million dollar deal as a free agent.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Not true I think. They just can’t put him on waivers to see if someone takes him for free.

Doesn't a player have to go on unconditional waivers before they can be bought out though?

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Royle9

I think Calgary would agree from what I’ve heard.
Just not sure they have or want to give what it would take.
Next years first would have to be included

I can't believe I'm saying this, but to get #2 overall, is putting the '26 first on the table out of the question?

If we don't think the Flames are top 5 pick bad next year, then it's a good gamble.

And if you're SJ, you don't have to squint too hard to see the Flames could very likely be lottery pick bound.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Doesn't a player have to go on unconditional waivers before they can be bought out though?

I’m pretty sure players with NMCs can just decide to skip them

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I can't believe I'm saying this, but to get #2 overall, is putting the '26 first on the table out of the question?

If we don't think the Flames are top 5 pick bad next year, then it's a good gamble.

And if you're SJ, you don't have to squint too hard to see the Flames could very likely be lottery pick bound.

I think it's too hard to say that the Flames are for sure not a bottom-5, or bottom-10. There is a lot of volatility in the NHL standings year to year, and despite what culture did for them last year, they're a team that is one injury away from being a bottom-5 team.

The Flames should absolutely not trade their 1st round pick in '26. That's a hard no from me.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I think it would be foolish to think the Flames aren't bottom-5, or more importantly bottom-10.

The Flames should absolutely not trade their 1st round pick in '26. That's a hard no from me.

If they think Misa is #1C then they should go for it imo.

[Toast_Man]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

If I'm Dallas I'm moving Marchment, Dumba, and Lybushkin before I even think about trading Robertson.

Then after next year you tell Seguin waive the NMC or we buy you out most likely and move him when Robertson needs a raise.

Hintz, Johnston, Robertson, Rantanen, Heiskanen, Harley, Oettinger

That is the core, if I'm Dallas i'm not moving pieces out of that core with the cap rising.

The only problem with threatening Sequin with a buyout is that his contract is buyout proof. Almost zero savings if bought out.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

Strictly speaking he'd have to waive the NMC for them to buy him out, so that threat lacks teeth.

NMC doesn't prevent teams from buying out a player.

His contract being buyout proof is more of the issue.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I think it would be foolish to think the Flames aren't bottom-5, or more importantly bottom-10.

The Flames should absolutely not trade their 1st round pick in '26. That's a hard no from me.

I generally feel the same but it's an interesting debate.

Ultimately, I think it messes with their trajectory too much, and I'd worry that without next year's pick they'd try to build this thing up too quickly and make the same mistakes as the last rebuild.

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by Bonded

If they think Misa is #1C then they should go for it imo.

McKenna looks way better, you don't trade that lottery chance for misa

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by browntrout

McKenna looks way better, you don't trade that lottery chance for misa

I'd rather a sure thing than a 10% chance lottery ticket.

Unless McKenna is 10x better

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

NMC doesn't prevent teams from buying out a player.

yes it does.

https://offsidenewsco.com/news/explaining-nhl-buyouts

Buyout starts with unconditional waivers. NMC blocks waivers (unless the player agrees to waive and go on waivers). That's the entire difference between a NMC and a NTC.

Further, a player with a NMC can agree to forgo the waiver period for a buyout... but they have to agree. Therefore, the NMC still blocks the buyout if the player wants it to. If a player with a NMC wants to stay put, he stays put.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

yes it does.

https://offsidenewsco.com/news/explaining-nhl-buyouts

Buyout starts with unconditional waivers. NMC blocks waivers (unless the player agrees to waive and go on waivers). That's the entire difference between a NMC and a NTC.

Further, a player with a NMC can agree to forgo the waiver period for a buyout... but they have to agree. Therefore, the NMC still blocks the buyout if the player wants it to. If a player with a NMC wants to stay put, he stays put.

As per Cap Friendly:

"A player can only be bought out after clearing unconditional waivers. A waiver-claim by another team pre-empts the buyout process. If a player has a no-movement clause, the player can reject the option of waivers and proceed to the buyout process."

Pretty sure they just get to skip the waivers.

Actually even in your article:
a player has a full no-move clause (NMC) in place then the player can agree to forgo clearing waivers before having their contract terminated.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

If I'm Dallas I'm moving Marchment, Dumba, and Lybushkin before I even think about trading Robertson.

Then after next year you tell Seguin waive the NMC or we buy you out most likely and move him when Robertson needs a raise.

Hintz, Johnston, Robertson, Rantanen, Heiskanen, Harley, Oettinger

That is the core, if I'm Dallas i'm not moving pieces out of that core with the cap rising.

Seguin will welcome a buyout if ever offered so he can probably join the party down in Florida.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Solstice

And Dumba is from Calgary. Works for me!

Especially now that Hanifin is gone, he can go back to using #55. Dumba55. It has to be done.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

I think it makes sense as a 3-team trade and Dallas keeps Robertson.

Flames trade Coleman to Dallas for Seguin, Bourque and 1st in 2027

Flames trade Seguin to team that he is willing to waive to for a 2nd

Flames get Bourque, 1st and 2nd for Coleman, cap they lose is whatever Bourque signs for. 50% of Seguin is around the same as Coleman's deal.

That would never happen. Coleman is worth maybe a 2nd. Why would they also give a 1st and Bourque?

Coleman is aging and players who play his style drop off in play quickly usually.

[Toast_Man]

It doesn't matter what the rules are around a NMC for a Seguin buyout. His contract is buyout proof!

[Ba'alzamon]

Originally Posted by Bonded

As per Cap Friendly:

"A player can only be bought out after clearing unconditional waivers. A waiver-claim by another team pre-empts the buyout process. If a player has a no-movement clause, the player can reject the option of waivers and proceed to the buyout process."

Pretty sure they just get to skip the waivers.

Actually even in your article:
a player has a full no-move clause (NMC) in place then the player can agree to forgo clearing waivers before having their contract terminated.

the player can reject. The player. I literally addressed that in the post you responded to.

If the player doesn't reject the waiver period, he has to go through waivers... except he has a NMC, so he can't be placed on waivers without his permission.

Everything you quoted verifies what I'm saying. Literally everything.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Ba'alzamon

the player can reject. The player. I literally addressed that in the post you responded to.

If the player doesn't reject the waiver period, he has to go through waivers... except he has a NMC, so he can't be placed on waivers without his permission.

Everything you quoted verifies what I'm saying. Literally everything.

You need to read more carefully. All the NMC does is allow them to not go on waivers, it doesn't stop them from being bought out. They can agree to go unconditional waivers to see if someone claims them. That is the choice they have.


a player has a full no-move clause (NMC) in place then the player can agree to forgo clearing waivers before having their contract terminated.


"A player can only be bought out after clearing unconditional waivers. A waiver-claim by another team pre-empts the buyout process. If a player has a no-movement clause, the player can reject the option of waivers and proceed to the buyout process."

Another one from Sportsnet

An NMC prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless that player permits a move by one of these means. An NMC does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.