2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ST20

But they were in the mushy middle last year without adding and are trending towards it this year as well. I don't think we can really say what they hope to do since actions do not always align with words from team management or from media insiders giving insight into team management. They seem to be reacting one day a time based on team play rather than having a larger plan. They seem to be okay with mushy middle as long as there is a chance for making the playoffs and what worries me is that the recent play is probably more indicative of the quality of the team then the play at the beginning of the year. If we want to avoid the mushy middle based on the quality of the current team then we need to talk about what the team can do to deliberately lose. It doesn't have to be a fire sale but it is becoming more and more apparently that simply not adding is only going stretch out how long it takes to re-build. I am not sure that losing one good dman in Anderson would not be enough to for the team to get a top 5 pick either.

I think a team in a playoff spot that desperately wants to make the playoffs adds at the trade deadline when they have all the cap space they'd need and all the draft capital needed to make it happen.

They didn't.

That same team wouldn't sit out a summer not adding anything when they were essentially tied for the last playoff spot the previous season if they wanted to make the playoffs.

They're not trying to get better. They are trying to get youngers. They're likely not progressing things as fast as the average fan would like.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What is the evidence of them reacting one day at a time?

If you subscribe to the fact that Francis speaks for ownership then the most recent Flames talk with Francis is pretty telling. He went from the team really needs to lean into this rebuild year to the team is going to wait and see how this plays out and shouldn't just trade guys... Not the exact words but that is what I took from it. It's similar to last year where they did not want to discuss trades while the team was in contention for the playoffs.

In my opinion alot of moves over the past 3-4 years have been reactionary but these are my interpretations that we don't need to argue as they have been argued over and over in the past.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by browntrout

I doubt you will find a team willing to trade a 1st line potential center for Andersson, if you were on the other side, would you make that trade.

It needs to happen through the draft, there is no other way around that

No other way.. except trading and free agent signings. The reality is not "draft or bust" because the NHL has systems to enable trades and RFA/UFA signings as paths to acquiring the desired player.

A lot of posters continue to discount the fact that Andersson is an excellent trade piece with a lot of teams in need of his services specifically. They keep pigeonholing the Flames into accepting spare-parts-package offers because that is all the Stars / Knights / Leafs can offer. Not only is Andersson personally playing really well this season, he is a positional asset that is almost as coveted as a #1C, which is a RHS #1RD (not to be confused with a LD).

Also, we do not have to subscribe to the notion that the only way to trade the Flames' assets is to accept some form of package with a secondary prospect and a late 1st round pick. If someone flips the script and suggests that the other team should accept a package of Andersson with a late 1st round pick, that is insufficient and never going to work. Weird that it is acceptable one way but not the other.

Anyway, if the only way to acquire a #1C is through the draft then this draft should really be Lawrence or bust. McKenna, Stenberg, and Verhoeff do not play C and those positions can be acquired through other means, like offering a B prospect and a late 1st in a trade.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by ST20

If you subscribe to the fact that Francis speaks for ownership then the most recent Flames talk with Francis is pretty telling. He went from the team really needs to lean into this rebuild year to the team is going to wait and see how this plays out and shouldn't just trade guys... Not the exact words but that is what I took from it. It's similar to last year where they did not want to discuss trades while the team was in contention for the playoffs.

In my opinion alot of moves over the past 3-4 years have been reactionary but these are my interpretations that we don't need to argue as they have been argued over and over in the past.

Yeah, its what many of us have noticed. There is no overall direction or longer term strategy to build a contender. There are day to day activities and shifting priorities that are situational.
This would be good operation if we were built properly. But we arent, so its an error because theres no way to build properly without top of draft talent, and currently no plan on how to acquire that talent.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think a team in a playoff spot that desperately wants to make the playoffs adds at the trade deadline when they have all the cap space they'd need and all the draft capital needed to make it happen.

They didn't.

That same team wouldn't sit out a summer not adding anything when they were essentially tied for the last playoff spot the previous season if they wanted to make the playoffs.

They're not trying to get better. They are trying to get youngers. They're likely not progressing things as fast as the average fan would like.

I agree. I just think the wait and see how the team performs approach really adds years to the re-build. We see this all the time when people talk about other team's rebuilds. "Chicago/San Jose's rebuild didnt really start until x year because that is when X happened" but in reality those years were bad to mid for all those years regardless of when the "rebuild" actually started. In my opinion, that is because usually because these teams took similar wait and see approaches rather than committed strongly to the re-build one way or another.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah, its what many of us have noticed. There is no overall direction or longer term strategy to build a contender. There are day to day activities and shifting priorities that are situational.
This would be good operation if we were built properly. But we arent, so its an error because theres no way to build properly without top of draft talent, and currently no plan on how to acquire that talent.

Agree that it often looks that way externally, but we have no idea what the plan is internally. To say that there isn’t one at all reeks of hyperbole.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think there has been a consistent strategy. Perhaps not the one you want, but it seems like the organization has functioned in the same way for the last few years:
- Accumulate draft picks and younger players in their RFA ages
- Don't walk pending UFAs to walk for nothing
- Avoid spending cap or trade capital on veteran players
- No really strong moves to improve the team to compete today
- Maintain a core group of veterans to lead the younger players

Again, we can debate if that's the right strategy or not, but I generally see a lot of consistency under Conroy in terms of what they have been doing.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

While I agree with everything you said, it does seem there are a handful of posters who try to gate keep and do not want any negativity about the Flames posted. They are like sharks lurking around the forum, ready to pounce if you criticize anything.

A lot of the posts back and forth are actually productive. But I think some people get way too emotional and turn to insults if they do not agree with you.

I have no problem with any name calling, but I find it funny that 80% of my posts are replied to by the same 5 or so posters ready to attack lol. If constructive criticism of the team gets you that riled up, it seems odd to me.

I think there are definitely posters who value accuracy and fact based arguments. Those posters seem to run against other posters who think that one should be able to just make up facts and have them stand as facts.

One example from yesterday was an interaction with you where you said that the Flames had the ability to trade Kadri to the Avs last year for the Nelson package. Royle made it clear that that package was never available for the Flames because Kadri wanted to stay in Calgary. You cited his statement as saying the opposite. You were then called out on misrepresenting what he said and said others were making stuff up. Then Diss (who Royle said would be closer to the Kadri situation) also confirmed that Kadri never would have agreed to a trade last year.

Surely you would agree that on that point at least we have hopefully put to bed the ridiculous notion that the Flames could have ever traded Nazem Kadri last year. We can disagree whether getting agreed facts is sharks lurking or not but for me that was a positive exercise to get rid of this crazy notion that has existed for a long time that the Flames could have even traded Kadri last year.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

While I agree with everything you said, it does seem there are a handful of posters who try to gate keep and do not want any negativity about the Flames posted. They are like sharks lurking around the forum, ready to pounce if you criticize anything.

A lot of the posts back and forth are actually productive. But I think some people get way too emotional and turn to insults if they do not agree with you.

I have no problem with any name calling, but I find it funny that 80% of my posts are replied to by the same 5 or so posters ready to attack lol. If constructive criticism of the team gets you that riled up, it seems odd to me.

If I understand this correctly, a bunch of people want to be able to offer up opinions, namely the same opinions that have been offered up repeatedly, but don’t want anyone to respond to them because they either don’t like when people respond to them (particularly when the response disagrees or is “negative”) or don’t see the point in posting the same responses that have already been made to the same opinion that was already shared previously numerous times.

On top of that, regulars shouldn’t reply to anyone, as then they are “sharks” “lurking” to “attack” (what most would call “responding to an opinion they see”) and that is considered bad.

Sounds really fun. Instead of a message board we could turn off the ability to see anybody else’s posts and people could just use this as their online diary.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think there has been a consistent strategy. Perhaps not the one you want, but it seems like the organization has functioned in the same way for the last few years:
- Accumulate draft picks and younger players in their RFA ages
- Don't walk pending UFAs to walk for nothing
- Avoid spending cap or trade capital on veteran players
- No really strong moves to improve the team to compete today
- Maintain a core group of veterans to lead the younger players

Again, we can debate if that's the right strategy or not, but I generally see a lot of consistency under Conroy in terms of what they have been doing.

I think you summed it up correctly and I would add drafting for skill to that (at least recently). However, this is my exact fear. I think it is the wrong strategy that will only make the re-build go much longer since it is relying on drafting a start internally without doing what you can to get high draft picks as quickly as possible. If we don't win the lottery with a mid pick like the Islanders did we are really hoping for a draft pick within the 8-16 range hits big rather than a top 5 draft pick to hit.

[Rhett44]

And here come the sharks lol. Funny you bring up Royle and Dissentower, those are 2 great posters who are respectful and I agree with most of their posts.

And again, it was said Kadri preference last year was to stay here. We did not ask him to waive. We do not know if he would have.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think there are definitely posters who value accuracy and fact based arguments. Those posters seem to run against other posters who think that one should be able to just make up facts and have them stand as facts.

One example from yesterday was an interaction with you where you said that the Flames had the ability to trade Kadri to the Avs last year for the Nelson package. Royle made it clear that that package was never available for the Flames because Kadri wanted to stay in Calgary. You cited his statement as saying the opposite. You were then called out on misrepresenting what he said and said others were making stuff up. Then Diss (who Royle said would be closer to the Kadri situation) also confirmed that Kadri never would have agreed to a trade last year.

Surely you would agree that on that point at least we have hopefully put to bed the ridiculous notion that the Flames could have ever traded Nazem Kadri last year. We can disagree whether getting agreed facts is sharks lurking or not but for me that was a positive exercise to get rid of this crazy notion that has existed for a long time that the Flames could have even traded Kadri last year.

Are we talking about 35-year old Kadri or 40-year old Kadri?

[Roko]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I think there are definitely posters who value accuracy and fact based arguments. Those posters seem to run against other posters who think that one should be able to just make up facts and have them stand as facts.

One example from yesterday was an interaction with you where you said that the Flames had the ability to trade Kadri to the Avs last year for the Nelson package. Royle made it clear that that package was never available for the Flames because Kadri wanted to stay in Calgary. You cited his statement as saying the opposite. You were then called out on misrepresenting what he said and said others were making stuff up. Then Diss (who Royle said would be closer to the Kadri situation) also confirmed that Kadri never would have agreed to a trade last year.

Surely you would agree that on that point at least we have hopefully put to bed the ridiculous notion that the Flames could have ever traded Nazem Kadri last year. We can disagree whether getting agreed facts is sharks lurking or not but for me that was a positive exercise to get rid of this crazy notion that has existed for a long time that the Flames could have even traded Kadri last year.

To be clear, it was confirmed staying was Kadri’s preference. Not that he would refuse a trade to Colorado. Since it’s required to present facts. You ask if he preferred to stay, and the answer was yes, but that didn’t confirm or deny he would have gone to Colorado if approached.

I don’t think it was ever going to happen last year, so now is our time to cash in from my perspective. We want to get good and exciting for the new building, cash in on the valuable vets and start a new chapter.

Edit: go Canada, go Parekh. Everyone have a great Sunday

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Roko

To be clear, it was confirmed staying was Kadri’s preference. Not that he would refuse a trade to Colorado. Since it’s required to present facts. You ask if he preferred to stay, and the answer was yes, but that didn’t confirm or deny he would have gone to Colorado if approached.

I don’t think it was ever going to happen last year, so now is our time to cash in from my perspective. We want to get good and exciting for the new building, cash in on the valuable vets and start a new chapter.

It is only required to present facts if you are on team tank. That is clear.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by ST20

If you subscribe to the fact that Francis speaks for ownership then the most recent Flames talk with Francis is pretty telling. He went from the team really needs to lean into this rebuild year to the team is going to wait and see how this plays out and shouldn't just trade guys... Not the exact words but that is what I took from it. It's similar to last year where they did not want to discuss trades while the team was in contention for the playoffs.

In my opinion alot of moves over the past 3-4 years have been reactionary but these are my interpretations that we don't need to argue as they have been argued over and over in the past.

YuYup franncis went so far to say that even if they set high prices for these guys and they are met, they shouldn't move them.


Its also a little strange to see friedman come out in HNIC and say there's nothing around the Flames currently, when the Olympic freeze is a few weeks away and theres only a week between the Olympic freeze and deadline.


You think st the very least they would be in heavy talks around Rasmus.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

And here come the sharks lol. Funny you bring up Royle and Dissentower, those are 2 great posters who are respectful and I agree with most of their posts.

And again, it was said Kadri preference last year was to stay here. We did not ask him to waive. We do not know if he would have.

Stop whining about people replying to you on a message board. It’s ridiculous.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Groot

Are we talking about 35-year old Kadri or 40-year old Kadri?

What’s that office picture meme?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

And here come the sharks lol. Funny you bring up Royle and Dissentower, those are 2 great posters who are respectful and I agree with most of their posts.

And again, it was said Kadri preference last year was to stay here. We did not ask him to waive. We do not know if he would have.

You think applying a label to a group of posters who just happen to disagree with your points is helpful to debate?

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Not exactly true. If you have a team that covets Andersson, and the Flames have to add to obtain a high potential center that is buried, you pull that trigger. Even if that means trading our late 1st, or a nice prospect from a place of positional strength.

If calgary offered the overpay of andersson, 1st and Mews I don't think that there wouldn't be a pause in any GM with established center depth.

For the record I am not against this idea, and CC has probably already tried this angle, but if it was that easy, it would already be done.

What much more likely to happen though is CC getting that type of special player through the draft.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ST20

I think you summed it up correctly and I would add drafting for skill to that (at least recently). However, this is my exact fear. I think it is the wrong strategy that will only make the re-build go much longer since it is relying on drafting a start internally without doing what you can to get high draft picks as quickly as possible. If we don't win the lottery with a mid pick like the Islanders did we are really hoping for a draft pick within the 8-16 range hits big rather than a top 5 draft pick to hit.

The irony is that winning the lottery and getting Schaefer (which I’m sure they are thrilled about) creates a potential problem for them as it pushes them back up the standings prematurely instead of the start of a few high picks