Toggle sidebar

Arizona Trade Revisited

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Tawnos said:
The #7 wasn’t the only component to the deal and we don’t know what other components there were the year before. You’re acting like it’s the same deal, but it’s not. For one, who knows to what extent Arizona even entertained it the year before.[/QUOTE

Going by this logic no one knows anything for sure and all my and your assumptions are bunk. Ok.

[QUOTEIt’s pretty clear that Gorton was set on trading Stepan with the deadline being draft day. He took the best offer he had at that point. That makes it a contract and player dump.
Click to expand...

Except the Rangers had already looked to move Stepan in 2016, less than a year after he signed his extension and a more than a year before his NTC clause kicked in. So that makes no sense. He also, again, took an offer, at least at the core, that was similar to the one he asked for the year before: the 7th overall pick. There’s no evidence showing or logic behind the assumption Gorton took whatever he could get for Stepan. None.

What is so complicated about this? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
 
giphy.gif

Wtf has happened in this thread:laugh:

I blame the OP.. And Marc Staal..
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare
Tawnos said:
Rentals are 90% of trades, and the contract isn't really the primary concern there so much as 1.) not losing a player for nothing and 2.) moving the team in a different direction. So no.
Click to expand...
Your standard from earlier was:

Tawnos said:
It’s pretty clear that Gorton was set on trading Stepan with the deadline being draft day. He took the best offer he had at that point. That makes it a contract and player dump.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't most rentals fit that criteria as well?
 
McRanger said:
Except the Rangers had already looked to move Stepan in 2016, less than a year after he signed his extension and a more than a year before his NTC clause kicked in. So that makes no sense. He also, again, took an offer, at least at the core, that was similar to the one he asked for the year before: the 7th overall pick. There’s no evidence showing or logic behind the assumption Gorton took whatever he could get for Stepan. None.

What is so complicated about this? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Click to expand...

The difference is the deadline he set of draft day. A year earlier, his NTC wasn’t about to kick in.
 
Thirty One said:
Your standard from earlier was:



Wouldn't most rentals fit that criteria as well?
Click to expand...

Sure, because you removed all context from the first quote, it looks like the same thing. But since that first quote was specifically in context of Stepan’s contract, it isn’t.

I’m not sitting here denying that major factors involved with moving Stepan were trying to get younger and also very likely concerns about him declining over the course of the deal. What I’m saying is that those things are equaled in motivation by the nature of his contract. These three factors (age, decline, and contract) created a situation where Gorton felt he absolutely HAD to trade Stepan.

In other words, being a cap dump isn’t mutually exclusive from other kinds of asset management. If you’d prefer, on equal level with other concerns, Stepan was a casualty of his contract (which means the same damn thing)
 
I know I am late here but I saw someone call Stepan a #1 center earlier and that's erroneous. For I am an informed member of the ice puck community and find this assertion to be ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thirty One
Tawnos said:
Sure, because you removed all context from the first quote, it looks like the same thing. But since that first quote was specifically in context of Stepan’s contract, it isn’t.
Click to expand...
I assumed that the standards for deciding which trades are cap dumps were less fluid than that.
 
Under normal non-mental gymnastics circumstances a contract dump is a move where the contract you are dumping has a negative value, and usually other assets are included on the dumping side to make the dump enticing to the receiving team. That or two bad contracts are swapped for beneficial reasons. Wanting to avoid having a contract on the books that has value because of your team's cap situation or decision to rebuild is not a dump. I don't see the Stepan trade as a dump at all. If you want to call it a dump because they avoided having his contract on the books knowing they were about to rebuild, that's fine, but that's not the traditional definition of a contract dump.

PROVE ME WRONG
 
  • Like
Reactions: East Coast Bias, DanielBrassard, McRanger and 1 other person
Turbosperg said:
Under normal non-mental gymnastics circumstances a contract dump is a move where the contract you are dumping has a negative value, and usually other assets are included on the dumping side to make the dump enticing to the receiving team. That or two bad contracts are swapped for beneficial reasons. Wanting to avoid having a contract on the books that has value because of your team's cap situation or decision to rebuild is not a dump. I don't see the Stepan trade as a dump at all. If you want to call it a dump because they avoided having his contract on the books knowing they were about to rebuild, that's fine, but that's not the traditional definition of a contract dump.

PROVE ME WRONG
Click to expand...

There’s no such thing as a “traditional definition” of a contract or cap dump.

My standards are pretty simple. A team is dumping a contract when a major motivator is getting out of said contract.
 
Tawnos said:
There’s no such thing as a “traditional definition” of a contract or cap dump.

My standards are pretty simply. A team is dumping a contract when a major motivator is getting out of said contract.
Click to expand...

Okay well your arbitrary standards are irrelevant. Most people in the sports world consider a contract dump what I outlined in my post. 100% true, based and red pilled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanielBrassard and Thirty One
Turbosperg said:
Okay well your arbitrary standards are irrelevant. Most people in the sports world consider a contract dump what I outlined in my post. 100% true, based and red pilled.
Click to expand...

Why should that matter to me? My opinion is different than 90% of this board 90% of the time anyway.
 
I thought it was pretty clear at the time that the impetus for the Stepan trade was that the organization thought his contract was threatening to become an albatross. Whether that is a "contract dump" is a matter of semantics.
 
Crease said:
I thought it was pretty clear at the time that the impetus for the Stepan trade was that the organization thought his contract was threatening to become an albatross. Whether that is a "contract dump" is a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...
It's definitely semantics. I just don't know where else the word dump means getting rid of something where you receive significant value in return. I have never been offered a first round pick at the garbage dump. If we let this slide we may be putting ourselves on a course where words no longer have any meaning at all. I can't have that on my conscience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turbosperg
Turbosperg said:
Under normal non-mental gymnastics circumstances a contract dump is a move where the contract you are dumping has a negative value, and usually other assets are included on the dumping side to make the dump enticing to the receiving team. That or two bad contracts are swapped for beneficial reasons. Wanting to avoid having a contract on the books that has value because of your team's cap situation or decision to rebuild is not a dump. I don't see the Stepan trade as a dump at all. If you want to call it a dump because they avoided having his contract on the books knowing they were about to rebuild, that's fine, but that's not the traditional definition of a contract dump.

PROVE ME WRONG
Click to expand...

You be trying to dump something and then find a sucker at the right time.
 
Crease said:
I thought it was pretty clear at the time that the impetus for the Stepan trade was that the organization thought his contract was threatening to become an albatross. Whether that is a "contract dump" is a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...

So the Rangers thought in 2016 (when they first started trying to trade him) that the contract they had literally just signed him to, that ran from ages 25-31, was about to become an albatross based on... something, then him scoring 55 points reinforced that notion so they set a firm deadline and traded him to get away from his cap hit and pending NTC and promptly signed an older Kevin Shattenkirk to a larger contract with a more restrictive NMC over the same amount of years.

Ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turbosperg
Crease said:
I thought it was pretty clear at the time that the impetus for the Stepan trade was that the organization thought his contract was threatening to become an albatross. Whether that is a "contract dump" is a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...
I think it was more that his NMC was going to kick in, which would have been a problem if the team went down the path it ultimately did. Same thing happened with Subban and Montreal, they were concerned with his NMC kicking in, among other things and were looking to trade him. I don't think either scenario can be considered a cap dump by the definition that is usually used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare
Thirty One said:
It's definitely semantics. I just don't know where else the word dump means getting rid of something where you receive significant value in return. I have never been offered a first round pick at the garbage dump. If we let this slide we may be putting ourselves on a course where words no longer have any meaning at all. I can't have that on my conscience.
Click to expand...

And you've run into John Chayka at the garbage dump? I didn't think so. Until you do we will never know, will we?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turbosperg and Thirty One
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom