2025/2026 Season Trade Rumours and Speculation Thread

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not sure I agree, but then you know that.

Moving a host of veterans.
Acquiring a bunch of draft capital
Picking twice in the first round for three straight years.
Sitting on cap space.
Not acquiring any help at the deadline or the summer.

Pretty clear direction to me.

It is only a clear direction if they are doing exactly WHAT I WANT, WHEN I WANT IT. Everything else is a directionless log floating down a river.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

except thats literally what we did with both Kadri and Coleman.

These guys are available in FA and go to teams with promising, talented, young high draft picks. Hossa is an example referenced already in the thread.

Well that was good evaluation as opposed to Neal. I don't think there's an equivalent to either of those guys in the UFA market. And teams can't assume that pending UFAs will be available.

[CochraneKurt]

Seeing Bahl and Reschny as the final return for Markstrom sure makes a person feel good about that CC move. Same with the Elias trade as well. Those two returns stand out the most. Ageing vets someone else saw value in, that Calgary now is reaping the benefits of going forward. As much as I like all 3 players being discussed in this thread (Ras, Coleman and Naz), odds are we wont think much about them by this time next year if they are moved. The package of picks and players only helps the Wolf, ZP, MC, MG, CR core we are building for 2027 and beyond. Short term pain (we are already deep in the pain it feels the last few years) for long term gain. Its exciting at what potentially could be on the ice in the near future if we dont flub asset management (we havent...i am saying keep it up CC).

I love the speculation aspect of this thread, even if some are absolutely nuts.

[Badgers Nose]

It would be very boring in here without the crazy

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not really about the number of vets, it’s the type and the leadership qualities.

Kadri and Coleman aren’t the two being sought after just because of their on ice performance. For every guy like Kadri there’s a guy like Neal.

You don’t just plug a random 30 year old into the roster and say “there, now we have veteran leadership.”

I don’t buy Kadri as some amazing veteran leadership preference as to why the Flames are hanging on to him, personally. It’s the same guy who showed a lot of immaturity when Sutter was here, even though Sutter can grind on the best of personalities I’m sure. At other times in his career he’s faced criticisms on and off the ice when he was younger.

I think they’ve valued him because he’s a very good player, and there is still a struggle in the Flames org for how far to tear it down. And without him things get really bad, not to mention for the fanbase as you’d have almost no star power left.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I don’t buy Kadri as some amazing veteran leadership preference as to why the Flames are hanging on to him, personally. It’s the same guy who showed a lot of immaturity when Sutter was here, even though Sutter can grind on the best of personalities I’m sure. At other times in his career he’s faced criticisms on and off the ice when he was younger.

I think they’ve valued him because he’s a very good player, and there is still a struggle in the Flames org for how far to tear it down. And without him things get really bad.

It’s not something being sold. It was apparent in Colorado, it’s been apparent here, and players, coaches, management, and media have all spoken to it.

Just like you can’t predict someone will become a leader just because they get older, you can’t assume someone isn’t one just because they were a hothead when they were 25.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

I don’t buy Kadri as some amazing veteran leadership preference as to why the Flames are hanging on to him, personally. It’s the same guy who showed a lot of immaturity when Sutter was here, even though Sutter can grind on the best of personalities I’m sure. At other times in his career he’s faced criticisms on and off the ice when he was younger.

I think they’ve valued him because he’s a very good player, and there is still a struggle in the Flames org for how far to tear it down. And without him things get really bad, not to mention for the fanbase as you’d have almost no star power left.

To me its more that the rebuild as already started, and letting guys like Bhal and Wolf get shelled every night set the rebuild back to square one.

[howard_the_duck]

They’re hanging on to him because he’s a very good player. And there is some internal grappling with how far to tear this down.

I think his presence as a veteran leader is far less of a factor.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

They’re hanging on to him because he’s a very good player. And there is some internal grappling with how far to tear this down.

I think his presence as a veteran leader is far less of a factor.

If we’re just making stuff up, I’ll do one a little more realistic: they’re actually hanging on to him because they haven’t received a good enough offer to move him, and his trade protection and remaining contract (with potential need for retention) is playing a factor.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

They’re hanging on to him because he’s a very good player. And there is some internal grappling with how far to tear this down.

I think his presence as a veteran leader is far less of a factor.

That is a fair point, another factor is likely that returns aren't actually all that good given the age/ contract status. At some point it's better to keep him then to retain salary for a 2nd round pick or whatever.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

They’re hanging on to him because he’s a very good player. And there is some internal grappling with how far to tear this down.

I think his presence as a veteran leader is far less of a factor.

I think we can't also underestimate that they are hanging on to him, because his contract and movement clauses make it a difficult trade.

Kadri has a lot of control here, and seems to have no urgency to leave, and I do wager the Flames will treat this scenario with kid gloves in regards to how miss handling could lead to culture issues (if Kadri reacts poorly to some asks) and because of how they are perceived as handling veteran players from the outside. Kadri is a premier player who seems to have a positive view point on this market and franchise, they likely don't want to poison that well for a lot a reasons when / if they move on from him from a reputation perspective.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The real question is how many veterans do you need.

They will have Backlund, Huberdeau, and Weegar at the very least. Guys like Bahl, Frost, Farabee will all be in their upper 20s and have dealt with trades and struggles at the NHL level.

Not like they will just be throwing these guys to the wolves if they trade Kadri and Coleman.

Not sure I've ever bought into the how many argument.

It's not like counting eggs in a carton, they're all different, provide different levels of leadership etc.

I would guess that if you traded Backlund, Coleman, Andersson and Weegar the drop in lead by example leadership would be huge even if you still had Huberdeau and Kadri as veterans.

I think it's who more than how many.

[Beninho]

The same people complaining about gifs are the same type of posters who complain about not enough rumours being talked about.

I love gifs, give me more gifs

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If we’re just making stuff up, I’ll do one a little more realistic: they’re actually hanging on to him because they haven’t received a good enough offer to move him, and his trade protection and remaining contract (with potential need for retention) is playing a factor.

Not making anything up. His value on the ice, and yes his contract and appetite to eat money on any deal, are why he's here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Not making anything up. His value on the ice, and yes his contract and appetite to eat money on any deal, are why he's here.

And all the other things people have mentioned but go on.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I think we can't also underestimate that they are hanging on to him, because his contract and movement clauses make it a difficult trade.

Kadri has a lot of control here, and seems to have no urgency to leave, and I do wager the Flames will treat this scenario with kid gloves in regards to how miss handling could lead to culture issues (if Kadri reacts poorly to some asks) and because of how they are perceived as handling veteran players from the outside. Kadri is a premier player who seems to have a positive view point on this market and franchise, they likely don't want to poison that well for a lot a reasons when / if they move on from him from a reputation perspective.

For sure.

I think eating money to extract the best trade package is likely the biggest complication. Because of the duration left on his deal.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Not making anything up. His value on the ice, and yes his contract and appetite to eat money on any deal, are why he's here.

He quit on the team when Sutter was here, I am not sure why people are trying to dispute that. People were ready to run him out of town that year.

Maybe he is a better leader now and learned/matured from that, but I don't really think of Kadri as a great leader. And I really don't think that is a reason to keep him. If you are keeping him, it is because you are concerned about your center depth and don't want to tank, it has nothing to do with leadership.

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

He quit on the team when Sutter was here, I am not sure why people are trying to dispute that. People were ready to run him out of town that year.

Maybe he is a better leader now and learned/matured from that, but I don't really think of Kadri as a great leader. And I really don't think that is a reason to keep him. If you are keeping him, it is because you are concerned about your center depth and don't want to tank, it has nothing to do with leadership.

The Flames dressing room would definitely disagree with you on that. Kadri is absolutely seen as one of the most vocal and solid leaders in the room. That’s coming from people who actually know him.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

He quit on the team when Sutter was here, I am not sure why people are trying to dispute that. People were ready to run him out of town that year.

Maybe he is a better leader now and learned/matured from that, but I don't really think of Kadri as a great leader. And I really don't think that is a reason to keep him. If you are keeping him, it is because you are concerned about your center depth and don't want to tank, it has nothing to do with leadership.

I blame Sutter more for that than Kadri. Though I will admit to being very biased on that. i think Sutter's behavior in his final year was an embarrassing end to his coaching career. I think Kadri is a guy with a lot of pride I can see him basically deciding he wasn't going to play for that guy. Doesn't make it right, but speaks to how toxic Sutter was in that final year.

Again though, I don't claim to be objective on this one by any stretch.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think the leadership element is one dynamic, but another is what happens on the ice.
I'm still supportive of trading all of Kadri, Andersson and Coleman if the returns are there, but I think one has to factor in:
- Coleman/Backlund are stabilizing forces for whoever else is on that line. That's why guys constantly swap in there. Maybe that continues if it's just Backlund, or Backlund + Farabee but there is risk you lose that
- A team that trots out Morgan Frost as their #1 center could get destroyed pretty regularly including as Backlund starts to age, unless the fountain of youth that he's found this year continues. Now that may not be a bad thing, as it would drive the team down the standings next year (which is a pretty compelling draft) but I think if you make that move, you know that you are putting your team in a position to fail near-term. Again, that might be OK.

Losing isn't bad to get a higher pick, but we also can see how it can impact the development of players.