[Trade] Andersson (50% retained) to Vegas for 27 1st, cond 28 2nd, Whitecloud, Wiebe

[Johnny Makarov]

Vegas has 1 win in their last 6 games.

Thanks for the 2026 top 5 pick losers!

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I thought it was a good trade. People expected way too much.

At some point, some people legit thought we could somehow get Wyatt Johnston for an Andersson package. That was the craziest one I saw around here.

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Vegas has 1 win in their last 6 games.

Thanks for the 2026 top 5 pick losers!

They are 12th in the league, what do you mean top 5? I think i am missing a stipulation as there are so many. Please enlighten me

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

At this point, you have to assume any player you deal in their last season under contract is getting a rental value. Players have so much control over where they sign - and are willing to exercise it - that getting a better return for having an extension in place isn’t really a thing. And in most case ‘we’ll trade for him as a rental and then hope he extends’ is wishful thinking. The buying team will pay the price of a playoff run, that’s it.

That's why McDavid in Edmonton is interesting.

The Oilers last ounce of control is this summer. Then he's picking where he goes.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by redmile04

They are 12th in the league, what do you mean top 5? I think i am missing a stipulation as there are so many. Please enlighten me

They are going to miss the playoffs and win the lottery!

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

They are going to miss the playoffs and win the lottery!

It's too early to be drinking.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

At some point, some people legit thought we could somehow get Wyatt Johnston for an Andersson package. That was the craziest one I saw around here.

Wow. That is crazy.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

At some point, some people legit thought we could somehow get Wyatt Johnston for an Andersson package. That was the craziest one I saw around here.

Legit?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

At some point, some people legit thought we could somehow get Wyatt Johnston for an Andersson package. That was the craziest one I saw around here.

Yeah people went nuts with this trade. Anyone that suggested Johnston was smacked back to reality. The Danielson rumors let people somehow think Hagens might be on the table which was also a face palm type reaction. I doubt Danielson was ever legitimately on the table either

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

At this point, you have to assume any player you deal in their last season under contract is getting a rental value. Players have so much control over where they sign - and are willing to exercise it - that getting a better return for having an extension in place isn’t really a thing. And in most case ‘we’ll trade for him as a rental and then hope he extends’ is wishful thinking. The buying team will pay the price of a playoff run, that’s it.

Precisely why Coleman especially needs to go this year. Huge strategic error to hang onto him and would prove the Flames have learned nothing of past errors.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's why McDavid in Edmonton is interesting.

The Oilers last ounce of control is this summer. Then he's picking where he goes.

I think they have already missed the boat in maximizing the value for McDavid - he has a full NMC in his new contract, so he can't be traded anywhere. He will get to pick his one and only spot regardless of his intentions to re-sign or not. If he gets traded this summer, I would be sure that it would be a place he would want to extend in any way.

Originally Posted by Buff

Slight difference in scenarios. Panarin has a full NMC. He's only going to where he wants to go. Chances are that he's already picked the team and they just have to agree what the extension will look like. Once that is decided that is the only team that NYR can deal with. They aren't going to get a massive pay for him.

With Andersson the Flames could choose to trade him elsewhere because he didn't have a full NMC. If the Flames didn't like Vegas' offer then they could just say "You're trying to rip us off, no Andersson for you!". It sounds like they did that until Vegas offered something that Conroy was happy with. NYR just doesn't have that luxury. They only luxury they have is Panarin is an elite player in the league. He'll produce wherever he goes and he's practically guaranteed to do so at his next stop not just because of his talent but also because he's choosing the situation that works for him.

This is the way I see it too - I doubt that the Rangers get value for Panarin for the very reasons you explained. I also think that the relationship is strained anyway, and that Panarin probably isn't as wiling to be as 'helpful' as Andersson was anyway. I think Andersson wanted Vegas and Vegas only, but helped Conroy out by agreeing to talk to other teams in an effort to drum up interest and up the packages. I guess we will see, but I bet most people will think that the Rangers got fleeced in this upcoming Panarin deal.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Precisely why Coleman especially needs to go this year. Huge strategic error to hang onto him and would prove the Flames have learned nothing of past errors.

It's just not that simple and proves nothing. Not sure why people have to be so extreme in these statements.

Let's say they trade Kadri with retention.
That uses up the last retention spot until they get back 2 spots in the summer.

So then the math is what gets you a better return:
- Coleman now with no retention but another year remaining
- Coleman in the summer with retention but only one year remaining

That's just one element that could impact returns.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's just not that simple and proves nothing. Not sure why people have to be so extreme in these statements.

Let's say they trade Kadri with retention.
That uses up the last retention spot until they get back 2 spots in the summer.

So then the math is what gets you a better return:
- Coleman now with no retention but another year remaining
- Coleman in the summer with retention but only one year remaining

That's just one element that could impact returns.

Coleman is also old so most teams probably want him as a rental anyways. No one is going to line up to give him a 5 year deal or anything.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I would be perfectly happy to trade other players and keep Coleman around for another season. He is apparently one of the most respected leaders in that room, and he plays the right way every single shift of every single game. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Coleman, and I can imagine that he rubs off on a lot of kids. He is known as the "Texas Tiger", but I always have thought of him like a Wolverine, or a Honey Badger. He is smaller, but he plays with an edge and never gives up on plays, and fights like crazy in front of the net. He doesn't care how big you are - he is going to challenge you and he will get his hits and crosschecks in any time he can without fear. Plays hard right to the whistle.


If there is a single vet that I would be ok walking to UFA because of what he means to the team and inside that room, and who I want the kids to emulate, it would be Coleman and it isn't even close.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Precisely why Coleman especially needs to go this year. Huge strategic error to hang onto him and would prove the Flames have learned nothing of past errors.

I think fans make assumptions on what is an error.

There is zero guarantee the offers now are better than what he might fetch in future, because it’s a different and smaller subset of teams to take an extra year contract. Heck it might just be one. If all they offer is a 2nd and you think you can get a 1st, you push it forward. It’s a risk, but not necessarily an error.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I think they have already missed the boat in maximizing the value for McDavid - he has a full NMC in his new contract, so he can't be traded anywhere. He will get to pick his one and only spot regardless of his intentions to re-sign or not. If he gets traded this summer, I would be sure that it would be a place he would want to extend in any way.

His last contract had a full NMC the last 4 years too, so he always had that control and still has that control now.

However let's pretend he didn't for a second...

I'm usually on the other side of the "You can't trade a player because other Free Agents will never sign with you" argument, but this is one case where it is 100% the case that you can't trade McDavid this summer.

He signed what is probably the biggest annual discount on a contract ever when he extended for 2 x $12.5M - easily could have gotten $18.5M long term on an extension if he asked for it.

If he didn't have a NMC right now already, and they tried to trade him before his new contract kicked in, you'd actually never be able to attract a UFA again, and probably would need to give most RFAs a NMC too.

It would be talked about as McDavid giving the Oilers the biggest discount ever, and then them betraying him and trading him before that contract even kicked in.

I wish it was a possibility because it would be fun to watch that organization burn from that move.

[CKPThunder]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

His last contract had a full NMC the last 4 years too, so he always had that control and still has that control now.

However let's pretend he didn't for a second...

I'm usually on the other side of the "You can't trade a player because other Free Agents will never sign with you" argument, but this is one case where it is 100% the case that you can't trade McDavid this summer.

He signed what is probably the biggest annual discount on a contract ever when he extended for 2 x $12.5M - easily could have gotten $18.5M long term on an extension if he asked for it.

If he didn't have a NMC right now already, and they tried to trade him before his new contract kicked in, you'd actually never be able to attract a UFA again, and probably would need to give most RFAs a NMC too.

It would be talked about as McDavid giving the Oilers the biggest discount ever, and then them betraying him and trading him before that contract even kicked in.

I wish it was a possibility because it would be fun to watch that organization burn from that move.

Think Getbak showed this wouldn’t be possible. The NMC in the extension would also apply to the existing contract as well.

This came up when Rhett on Barnburner wanted to sign Rasmus and then flip him assuming his limited NTC was still in effect.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It's just not that simple and proves nothing. Not sure why people have to be so extreme in these statements.

Let's say they trade Kadri with retention.
That uses up the last retention spot until they get back 2 spots in the summer.

So then the math is what gets you a better return:
- Coleman now with no retention but another year remaining
- Coleman in the summer with retention but only one year remaining

That's just one element that could impact returns.

The starting point for me in that scenario is that someone is paying up a significant asset to get Kadri with retention for 4 years. I know a lot of people are downplaying retention and retention slots but they do have value, specifically the cap space and the limited retention slots more so than the actual dollars. For a cup contending team that is already up against the cap, maximizing their cap dollars is a significant benefit, especially with the playoff salary cap loophole closed. Teams that used to abuse the IR for cap space will now start turning to retention for advantages.

Kadri is already considered to be a high value trade target at $7M per year. At $3.5M he would be an absolute steal.

So, if we are in the situation where the last retention slot for this season is used by Kadri then chances are we are already getting a better return than Coleman ever could get in either scenario.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Wolven

.So, if we are in the situation where the last retention slot for this season is used by Kadri then chances are we are already getting a better return than Coleman ever could get in either scenario.

Thing is, that return may not be out there. If not, it makes more sense to retain on Coleman now, and trade Kadri with retention after a slot opens up at the end of the season.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Thing is, that return may not be out there. If not, it makes more sense to retain on Coleman now, and trade Kadri with retention after a slot opens up at the end of the season.

Sure and if the return is not out there because no GM wants to pay the price to get Kadri with retention then moving ahead with Coleman is a fine idea too.

The point was that in the given scenario where we pull off a retained Kadri trade we have already won. I do not think it really matters if we trade Coleman before the trade deadline without retention or in the summer with retention, the difference in value between those two choices is pretty small.

I think the frustrating thing is that the retention on Andersson put us in a situation where we have to choose between Kadri and Coleman for the last retention slot. I am not sure that we got enough value out of that retention slot when you consider how it could apply to Kadri and Coleman.