How far out can you actually trade a pick? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

How far out can you actually trade a pick?

LEAFANFORLIFE23

Registered User
Jun 17, 2010
46,274
17,978
Credit to @McJedi for the comment that inspired this topic.

There is a proposa lthread on the main board sending Tavares to Buffalo and McJedi made the comment that nobody would take Tavares full cap hit 72 years from now.

That comment got me thinkingh ow far out can you actually trade away picks?

Like if the Leafs and Oilers wanted to do a pick swap of their 2042 1st and 2nd round picks would that be allowed?

Trading picks 18 years out seems ridiculous because it is but as far as I'm aware there is no real against it so I assume They'd have to allow it.
 
Think it's 4 years, because that's the highest possible compensation in a offer-sheet.

I sometimes saw a rule about it, but can remember at all or find a link.

Offer-sheets usually happen at off-season, after the draft, so it's technically 5 years. The furthest future pick you will lose if offering something sky-high.
 
This thread came up before and I vaguely recall the answer ended up being there is no technical limit (other than common sense).

There had been some conjecture that you couldn't trade a pick past the expiration of the current CBA but that was debunked. For example. there were a couple of 2006 picks traded in 2004 and that CBA expired September 2004. Ditto 2013 picks traded in 2011 when the CBA expired September 2012.
 
Last edited:
You have the rules and you have common sense. Trading a pick 20 years from now would get vetoed
 
There's probably a practical limit to it, but I'm not aware of a formal one. The NBA has a rule - I think 5 years - but that's because someone [Cleveland?] was trying to trade 1st-round picks 7, 8 years out.

In reality? These can you trade a pick out in 2099 ideas require the acquiring team to agree to it, and no GM is doing that. If for some reason such a trade was submitted to Central Registry, I suspect the league would at a minimum put the trade on hold and scrutinize the hell out of it. Where the league might invalidate it is an open question and we've not seen anyone test it and I don't know what the league's argument might be for nixing a trade that trades a pick "too far" out in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
I always thought this would have to be fixed at some point. Every year it seems they are pushing the limits a year more. They might have to negotiate that in the next CBA.

GM's can't police themselves. It's like those 12 and 15 year contracts back in the day...at some point they get out of hand and it has to be reigned back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry
Future considerations always made me wonder.....who considers what and when. How many of these are ever re-visited and made good on?
 
LEAFANFORLIFE23 said:
Credit to @McJedi for the comment that inspired this topic.

There is a proposa lthread on the main board sending Tavares to Buffalo and McJedi made the comment that nobody would take Tavares full cap hit 72 years from now.

That comment got me thinkingh ow far out can you actually trade away picks?

Like if the Leafs and Oilers wanted to do a pick swap of their 2042 1st and 2nd round picks would that be allowed?

Trading picks 18 years out seems ridiculous because it is but as far as I'm aware there is no real against it so I assume They'd have to allow it.
Click to expand...
Lou, you're not fooling anyone. And you really should have changed your username when you left TOR. :rolleyes:
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: dukeofjive, banks, Ted Hoffman and 1 other person
No GM would trade for a pick further out than they expect to last with that team. From their perspective it's just giving asset(s) away for nothing. GMs aren't doing what is best for the team, they are doing what is best for themselves and their job security. That often lines up with what is best for the team as both GM and team are just judged by results, but it wouldn't in the case of future assets that the current GM would never see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gatorbait19 and Ted Hoffman
As others have said, I don't think there's any set in stone, written down limit. That said, I think the league would look really hard at/veto anything over, say five years.

And as a practical matter, any team wanting a player 'now' & willing to trade their first five years from now might be screwing themselves pretty badly. If that team is in 'win now' mode this season, five years from now they could very well be out of contention & starting a rebuild/tear down. Not having that pick could really hurt.

/not that the GM will care, he'll probably be gone by then given the fairly short shelf life GMs tend to have these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted Hoffman and Bubbles
I don't see why the league should really care, if both clubs agree to it.
The hard part would be selling an acquiring GM on a pick so far in the future.

But it would be hilarious to see.
 
A GM might not see the value on acquiring a pick that far out, but an active/meddling owner definitely could. I could have seen something like that from a Charles Wang-type owner.

I'm guessing there's a limit though. What's the farthest out a pick has been traded recently? Boston just traded away a 2027 3rd rounder (4 drafts away). Far less recently, the Gretzky trade in August 1988 included a 1993 1st round pick (5 drafts away).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guttersniped
Bruins4Lifer said:
A GM might not see the value on acquiring a pick that far out, but an active/meddling owner definitely could. I could have seen something like that from a Charles Wang-type owner.

I'm guessing there's a limit though. What's the farthest out a pick has been traded recently? Boston just traded away a 2027 3rd rounder (4 drafts away). Far less recently, the Gretzky trade in August 1988 included a 1993 1st round pick (5 drafts away).
Click to expand...

It’d be really funny to see 2070-2073 1st and 2nd round picks traded for a decent piece because f*** it, I dunno that future team at all.
 
As a fan I hope they put a limit on it. If my team were in a rebuild, I would be pissed that they don't have any first round picks because a GM from several years ago wanted to rent a player with a popular name like say Scott Gomez, for a run that lead to no where. For a player that wasn't going to move the needle at all.
 
McGarnagle said:
A GM should make a series of moves to assure all 32 1st round picks in the 2052 NHL draft, then assemble a super team.
Click to expand...
The issue with GMs accepting a trade for a pick too far in the future is that it’s unlikely he’ll be there to benefit as their shelf lives are often not that long.
 
snag said:
Future considerations always made me wonder.....who considers what and when. How many of these are ever re-visited and made good on?
Click to expand...
This could be something, but it's often the team that "sent" the FC likely pays for the next round of golf, or drinks, or something. I believe it was 32 thoughts where this has been mentioned as the outcome wsy more often than not.

However, at one point FC was Scott Stevens, or Brendan Shanahan. One got signed and had to give up FC and it ended up being the other player and this happened when both were already established and good players in the league
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom