Speculation: Players that will be moved cheap due to the exspansion draft.

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

So exspansion is coming and thats going to force teams to make some moves, players that teams don't want to move are going to get moved and some solid players are going to get moved cheap.

What I want to know is who do think gets moved that causes us to go "that's all he got?" because I think we are going to see some shocking moves and I think teams wuth cap space will benefit from it.

Click to read more...

 

[Mr Misty]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

 

[boredmale]

The type of deals I can see is a team trading a guy they won't protect for 2 lesser players

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

Not if they need to move a player in order to protect a more important player

 

[madhi19]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

If you got a glut at some position you might want to parlay a player that you lose for a few picks, and a lesser player that you won't mind losing. So expect to see a bunch of quality third liner or 4th D get traded for picks and lesser players. It could make for a interesting trade deadline, if the GM's don't all blow their load early.

 

[Mr Misty]

Not if they need to move a player in order to protect a more important player

This makes no sense. Absolutely none. Just protect the more important player.

If you mean to say there's an NMC, then your premise is flawed. If you have an NMC player who isn't in your top 3 defensemen or 7 forwards, by definition that player is in fact not "solid" and nobody is going to be surprised if they get traded for peanuts. You are imagining there are a bunch of teams with both cap space and empty protection slots when in fact there are almost none.

This very offseason has seen teams pay through the nose to be rid of contracts like Bickell and Boland. There's every reason to think the cost of moving a Callahan or Girardi that the new team would be forced to protect would exceed the expansion draft benefit of doing so.

 

[Mr Misty]

If you got a glut at some position you might want to parlay a player that you lose for a few picks, and a lesser player that you won't mind losing. So expect to see a bunch of quality third liner or 4th D get traded for picks and lesser players. It could make for a interesting trade deadline, if the GM's don't all blow their load early.

The situation you are describing is not a thing. The limiting factor isn't good players, it's slots to protect with.

And what you said makes no sense. Nobody is going to trade you a few picks and a lesser player for a 3rd liner or 4th defenseman. Plus, you lose that "quality" player plus the next best expansion candidate while getting an inferior player and maybe a late round pick. Trading a player because you are afraid of losing him for nothing is almost always a losing move and it isn't going to be a thing.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

If you got a glut at some position you might want to parlay a player that you lose for a few picks, and a lesser player that you won't mind losing. So expect to see a bunch of quality third liner or 4th D get traded for picks and lesser players. It could make for a interesting trade deadline, if the GM's don't all blow their load early.

A team is only going to lose 1 player. How many teams are going to lose a guys who is worth a player that is still worth being selected, plus a couple of picks.

Hawks are likely to lose either Pokka or TVR. Does anyone think that Pokka or TVR is worth a player player better than the other guy (and would thus be selected in expansion, plus a couple of picks?

Only situation I see is a relatively deep team (and thus don't want to protect 8 skaters + 1 goalie), who are deep on the blueline (NASH or NYI come to mind). They might be willing to trade their #4 d-man (Ellis or DeHaan) for an equivelant forward to improve the post expansion draft roster.

That being said - it's a hockey trade or what's the point. Why trade a guy for $.25 on the dollar, and then lose the next best guy on your roster regardless?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

A team is only going to lose 1 player. How many teams are going to lose a guys who is worth a player that is still worth being selected, plus a couple of picks.

Hawks are likely to lose either Pokka or TVR. Does anyone think that Pokka or TVR is worth a player player better than the other guy (and would thus be selected in expansion, plus a couple of picks?

Only situation I see is a relatively deep team (and thus don't want to protect 8 skaters + 1 goalie), who are deep on the blueline (NASH or NYI come to mind). They might be willing to trade their #4 d-man (Ellis or DeHaan) for an equivelant forward to improve the post expansion draft roster.

That being said - it's a hockey trade or what's the point. Why trade a guy for $.25 on the dollar, and then lose the next best guy on your roster regardless?

I actually think you guys might lose Kruger

 

[Vitto79]

Not gonna happen till trade deadline for teams out of it and I expect a lot of moves right before expansion draft

 

[Djp]

The situation you are describing is not a thing. The limiting factor isn't good players, it's slots to protect with.

And what you said makes no sense. Nobody is going to trade you a few picks and a lesser player for a 3rd liner or 4th defenseman. Plus, you lose that "quality" player plus the next best expansion candidate while getting an inferior player and maybe a late round pick. Trading a player because you are afraid of losing him for nothing is almost always a losing move and it isn't going to be a thing.

Some teams will have 8 forwards while other have 4 Dmen. You will see some player swaps because most teams will want to go 7-3-1.

Ideally a team would want to trade potential list player for picks and prospects that are exempt.

Similarly in deal made you need to factor in how the other team will be affected in expansion draft.

For example say fowler is traded....if a team that was planning on doing 7-3-1 takes him thus they would need to go to 8-1 that means 2 other players are exposed or what caliber of player does fowler expose in defense that gets lost. A GM looking at fowler may offer 2 of these 5-6-7 protected forwards and then go 8-1 then look at that left over 5-6-7 protected forward and judge if there is a big drop off from other system players and say they are willing to risk it. That will factor into the trade value. Those that disagree with this are ****ing clueless.

 

[Mr Misty]

Some teams will have 8 forwards while other have 4 Dmen. You will see some player swaps because most teams will want to go 7-3-1.

Ideally a team would want to trade potential list player for picks and prospects that are exempt.

Similarly in deal made you need to factor in how the other team will be affected in expansion draft.

For example say fowler is traded....if a team that was planning on doing 7-3-1 takes him thus they would need to go to 8-1 that means 2 other players are exposed or what caliber of player does fowler expose in defense that gets lost. A GM looking at fowler may offer 2 of these 5-6-7 protected forwards and then go 8-1 then look at that left over 5-6-7 protected forward and judge if there is a big drop off from other system players and say they are willing to risk it. That will factor into the trade value. Those that disagree with this are ****ing clueless.

The average 4D is better than the average best 3rd liner, and defensemen are worth much more than forwards in general.

Your example is extremely poorly explained and I can't make heads or tails of it. What team would trade for Fowler if he wouldn't be in their top 3? If you have 3 better defensemen than him you don't need to pay the price for him. All teams are going to lose a player, and most will lose a good player.

 

[CREW99AW]

Not if they need to move a player in order to protect a more important player

I can't agree. Recently , I was in a HF Anders Lee thread and he is a good example. Isles have several quality, 20 something yr olds who will be exposed due to numbers.

Does not make sense to move Lee for an unwanted or low return, only to see another young player snatched up by Vegas. Keep Lee, Let Vegas take it's 1 choice. That is better then losing Lee for a lousy return and a 2nd youngster to Vegas

 

[Predatorbill]

Doesn't the team that trades for the player just have more players to protect. It is a zero sum game with only so many protected slots.

 

[Flukeshot]

I get the OP's point and think there will be some moves. Fleury and Murray being the obvious example.

There have to be other scenarios out there where a team would rather trade a guy and get something decent then lose him for free.

The Flyers example might be Scott Laughton. Sure the Flyers will still have a other forward they can lose but they don't have much value. I'd rather they trade Laughton and get a pick or something AND lose say Read. Then just lose Laughton and still have Read.

 

[Flukeshot]

Also there could be a scenario where a team doesn't have a great 3rd D to protect and there is a much better D out there that another team cannot protect. Those D will be traded with a pick going to the 2nd team. The better D will come at a discount to the first team but the 2nd would have lost him for nothing.

 

[57special]

I expect a very busy TDL this year, as the reality of the expansion draft kicks in for some teams. Good Dmen will be available at a cheaper price than usual, and draft ineligible players, prospects and draft picks will have more value. I'm trying to think of teams whose 8th best, draft elegible, forward is more desirable than a Brodin/Scandella/Ellis/Ekholm/Fowler.

 

[Jumptheshark]

didnt have this thread already? but agreed it was a may 1st 2017 thread

 

[buttman*]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

Yes, but perhaps you are missing something? The player traded might be significantly better than the player they eventually lose. Ben Bishop for example. Tampa does not need to expose another goalie. They will have other players exposed that won't be that big of a loss. It would be foolish to not trade Bishop and lose him for nothing insteas of some marginal player.

 

[Dman88]

A team is only going to lose 1 player. How many teams are going to lose a guys who is worth a player that is still worth being selected, plus a couple of picks.

Hawks are likely to lose either Pokka or TVR. Does anyone think that Pokka or TVR is worth a player player better than the other guy (and would thus be selected in expansion, plus a couple of picks?

Only situation I see is a relatively deep team (and thus don't want to protect 8 skaters + 1 goalie), who are deep on the blueline (NASH or NYI come to mind). They might be willing to trade their #4 d-man (Ellis or DeHaan) for an equivelant forward to improve the post expansion draft roster.

That being said - it's a hockey trade or what's the point. Why trade a guy for $.25 on the dollar, and then lose the next best guy on your roster regardless?

I think what the OP is suggesting is that is Nash or NYI are going to lose either Ellis or DeHaan, that they trade them for something before the expansion. At least that way they can get a pick or prospect for them rather than losing them for nothing in the expansion.

 

[TT1]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

unless they move a player for futures? i dont really understand what youre trying to say.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

No chance, we don't need him and won't pay anything to take on that cap hit

What are you talking about

 

[4thline]

I think what the OP is suggesting is that is Nash or NYI are going to lose either Ellis or DeHaan, that they trade them for something before the expansion. At least that way they can get a pick or prospect for them rather than losing them for nothing in the expansion.

Exactly. I don't think the expansion draft is going to make players available cheap, but it may make some players available that wouldn't have been. From a pure value standpoint there will be a lot to consider for both parties. The buying team should factor the difference on the margin between the best player they would have exposed before the deal to the guy that gets bumped out as part of the acquisition cost, vice versa for the selling team etc.

 

[CREW99AW]

I think what the OP is suggesting is that is Nash or NYI are going to lose either Ellis or DeHaan, that they trade them for something before the expansion. At least that way they can get a pick or prospect for them rather than losing them for nothing in the expansion.

Makes no sense because then Vegas will l still have it's choice among Lee/Brock Nelson/Prince.

So the isles lose CDH, a very good 2nd pairing D AND then see Vegas take one of Lee/Nelson/Prince?

No thanks. Good teams will have too many quality players to protect. Cannot protect them all. I would rather lose 1, then lose one to Vegas and a 2nd quality player, in a lowball trade.

 

[Mr Misty]

Yes, but perhaps you are missing something? The player traded might be significantly better than the player they eventually lose. Ben Bishop for example. Tampa does not need to expose another goalie. They will have other players exposed that won't be that big of a loss. It would be foolish to not trade Bishop and lose him for nothing insteas of some marginal player.

Bishop is a UFA, they are going to lose him for nothing.

If we pretend you didn't make a horrific mistake right off the bat, you are describing a situation that doesn't actually exist. For what you say to make sense, there must be an acute dropoff at a very specific place in the team's depth chart. We know that as we look at progressively worse players, the difference in ability shrinks to the point of interchangability. For a trade to be made, there must be another team with cap space, budget room, the desire to sacrifice the future for the present, and assets to move. There might be one team in that position.

unless they move a player for futures? i dont really understand what youre trying to say.

Say your team has Player A and Player B, the most desirable and 2nd most desirable candidates on your roster from a Las Vegas perspective. You are going to lose one, so you have a choice

Player B
OR
Magic Beans you got from trading Player A

No GM is going to sacrifice the present success Player B represents today for the magic beans.

Before you say, "but what if Player C is the return instead of magic beans" consider this: If Player C > Player B, Player C goes to Vegas and you gain nothing by trading Player A. And in the event that Player C < Player B, you are worse off by trading Player A.

And no team is going to be trading good expansion exempt assets for an 8th forward or 4th defenseman, even if there wasn't an expansion draft those cheap contributors wouldn't be on the trade market except for big fish.