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

[FissionFire]

I think you will see more deals with LV made where they select a guy and trade them back or take a prospect/pick for future considerations (being not to select a certain player) than you will see guys dumped off to another team for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

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

 

[CREW99AW]

What

Teams will absolutely try to mitigate their loses. Some will be able to due to the nature of how their team is constructed and who they need to protect. Others will not be able to. But teams would be absolutely foolish not to at least attempt to ensure that the player they're going to lose is the least valuable one possible or that they at least have a replacement for who they may lose.

Yes. Mitigate their losses by limiting the loss to 1 good player. Not 2.
Knowing Vegas is going to very likely take 1 good player, teams will have no reason to want to trade a 2nd good player for scraps.
This idea of quality players available for scraps , is simply wishful thinking on the part of some posters

 

[glovesave_35]

I think we may see a couple trades that wouldn't have happened without the expansion draft coming. But, I don't think all of these frantic moves are going to happen like some seem to think. I doubt we see any more than the normal amount of "wow, that is what X player went for?"

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Look at the leafs fan talking about other teams:

Jackets = Better than Leafs

Arizona = Better than Leafs

Vancouver = Better than Leafs

Absolute garbage is the last team in the league...

I don't believe either of those teams will be better than Toronto this season but this Isn't the place to get into that.

 

[benjiv1]

The OP isn't wrong, but it entirely depends on the makeup of the team. Take Ottawa for example, they would protect:

-Turris, Brassard, Stone, Ryan, Hoffman, Pageau, MacArthur/Lazar
-Karlsson, Phaneuf, Ceci/Methot
-Anderson

As it stands Ottawa is likely going to lose one of Methot or Ceci for nothing. But if they were to move one of them for a young top for 4D that is exempt, instead they lose one of MacArthur Lazar for nothing.

It would be much easier losing Mac or Lazar for nothing than Methot or Ceci.

Even if we traded one of them for picks and prospects, it would likely be better than anything we'd get for Mac and Lazar.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

The OP isn't wrong, but it entirely depends on the makeup of the team. Take Ottawa for example, they would protect:

-Turris, Brassard, Stone, Ryan, Hoffman, Pageau, MacArthur/Lazar
-Karlsson, Phaneuf, Ceci/Methot
-Anderson

As it stands Ottawa is likely going to lose one of Methot or Ceci for nothing. But if they were to move one of them for a young top for 4D that is exempt, instead they lose one of MacArthur Lazar for nothing.

It would be much easier losing Mac or Lazar for nothing than Methot or Ceci.

Even if we traded one of them for picks and prospects, it would likely be better than anything we'd get for Mac and Lazar.

Zaitsev will be exempt

 

[Weltschmerz]

The OP isn't wrong, but it entirely depends on the makeup of the team. Take Ottawa for example, they would protect:

-Turris, Brassard, Stone, Ryan, Hoffman, Pageau, MacArthur/Lazar
-Karlsson, Phaneuf, Ceci/Methot
-Anderson

As it stands Ottawa is likely going to lose one of Methot or Ceci for nothing. But if they were to move one of them for a young top for 4D that is exempt, instead they lose one of MacArthur Lazar for nothing.

It would be much easier losing Mac or Lazar for nothing than Methot or Ceci.

Even if we traded one of them for picks and prospects, it would likely be better than anything we'd get for Mac and Lazar.

So you lose 2 players instead of one and still don't get full value for the one you trade, great plan.

 

[Mr Misty]

It could be who they protect. Keep in mind that there is the option of 8 skaters or 3 defensemen/7 forwards. A team may have 4 defensemen they feel they need to protect, but as a result they will have to leave 3 forwards exposed. This is where a team would potentially trade a defenseman at a reduced cost. Another example is a goaltender if a team has 2 that they would like to protect.

So in your hypothetical, a team went with 8 skaters and had 3 good forwards exposed. You are suggesting that instead of losing one, they trade one for peanuts and still lose one. You are saying they choose 1 good forward plus peanuts instead of 2 good forwards. Nobody would do that.

SO nobody has traded a pending UFA for anything significant? Happens every year. Teams give up top picks and prospects.

That said there are plenty of other examples other than Bishop that aren't UFA's.

We are talking expansion. The minimum threshold, which you have not yet met in 2 posts, is one example that has anything to do with expansion.

Just since we are using examples....Philly and Anaheim.

Anaheim doesn't want to lose Fowler for nothing.
Philly currently protecting Gudas and Ghost....then Hagg is the next in line.
So Philly could do a deal with Anaheim to add Fowler cheaper than he normally might be worth since Anaheim could lose him for nothing. And Philly losing Hagg is no big deal.
Then Anaheim exposes other guys they are fine with losing for nothing.

In the scenario we are talking about, it's only a big deal if there is a big drop off between the guy you might lose, and the next best guy. If there is little difference, then who cares.

At forward, Philly will be exposing 2 of Read, Weise, Laughton and Cousins. It really doesn't matter much....unlike Fowler for example.

Makes no sense from an Anaheim POV. Just imagine you are the Ducks. Which do you want:

Lose Fowler
OR
Lose Fowler AND another player
Gain magic beans

Unless you are offering more value, and in this context that means players who are currently contributing because Anaheim is trying to compete, panic trading Fowler is not a good idea.

To use your context, do you trade one of Read, Wiese, Laughton or Cousins so you don't lose them for nothing? When one gets traded for very little and another is taken by Vegas, you are left with 2 instead of 3.

Picks? Players that don't need protection?

Every team has the same preferences for young players who contribute, and those players are acquired with picks. There is going to be very little interest in trading those assets for players that must be protected.

 

[Dr Quincy]

The OP isn't wrong, but it entirely depends on the makeup of the team. Take Ottawa for example, they would protect:

-Turris, Brassard, Stone, Ryan, Hoffman, Pageau, MacArthur/Lazar
-Karlsson, Phaneuf, Ceci/Methot
-Anderson

As it stands Ottawa is likely going to lose one of Methot or Ceci for nothing. But if they were to move one of them for a young top for 4D that is exempt, instead they lose one of MacArthur Lazar for nothing.

It would be much easier losing Mac or Lazar for nothing than Methot or Ceci.

Even if we traded one of them for picks and prospects, it would likely be better than anything we'd get for Mac and Lazar.

Ok, now tell me 1 team out there willing to trade a young top 4D that is exempt. If he's a top 4D, it's extremely unlikely he's exempt (unless you are talking about a potential top 4 prospect).

 

[Mr Misty]

What about teams who protect 4D? Those teams are in real danger of losing a pretty decent forward. And in that case, I could see them looking to move the 5th best one for other assets. Either some depth to help offset what they will lose or just some futures. Same goes for teams with 4 good D of which they only want to protect 3 of them. Move the 4th for some decent pieces, and then move forward. Sure you'll still lose someone, but would you rather lose a quality player for nothing, or a slightly lesser player and still have something to show for that player (aka move C.Wilson for a 2nd and a 3rd liner - said 3rd liner gets drafted in the draft - NSH still has the 2nd). Is it ideal? Absolutely not. But that's still better than just losing a good player.

Teams will absolutely try to mitigate their loses. Some will be able to due to the nature of how their team is constructed and who they need to protect. Others will not be able to. But teams would be absolutely foolish not to at least attempt to ensure that the player they're going to lose is the least valuable one possible or that they at least have a replacement for who they may lose.

Do you want n expansion eligible good forwards or n-1? When you trade your 5th best forward, you subtract the 5th best and 6th best forwards. When we consider a team with enough depth to lose a good player is usually contending, the idea of trading a useful NHL player for futures becomes even less likely.

Say you have 9 A guys, but you can only protect 8. Perhaps a team would prefer to trade an A guy for a solid return, and lose a B guy for free instead.

Not terribly likely, but it's a possiblity.

You lose an A guy who you traded and a B guy instead of just the A guy. Your team is worse off than if you hadn't made the trade.

 

[benjiv1]

So you lose 2 players instead of one and still don't get full value for the one you trade, great plan.

You seriously don't get it do you?

Methot/Ceci hold at least double the value to the Sens, as MacArthur or Lazar.

Losing one of them for 0 assets is worse than losing one of them + McArthur/Lazar. (We have pieces to replace Mac and Lazar quite easily)

It's about value to the team, not number of bodies.

If we lose one of Methor or Ceci, Ottawa would immediately need to obtain a top 4 D, thus giving up more assets to do it.

 

[Weltschmerz]

You seriously don't get it do you?

Methot/Ceci hold at least double the value to the Sens, as MacArthur or Lazar.

Losing one of them for 0 assets is worse than losing one of them + McArthur/Lazar. (We have pieces to replace Mac and Lazar quite easily)

It's about value to the team, not number of bodies.

If we lose one of Methor or Ceci, Ottawa would immediately need to obtain a top 4 D, thus giving up more assets to do it.

So what do you think you get for Methot?

Because every team has that same problem and won't pay a big price to protect him.

 

[Leafs87]

So in your hypothetical, a team went with 8 skaters and had 3 good forwards exposed. You are suggesting that instead of losing one, they trade one for peanuts and still lose one. You are saying they choose 1 good forward plus peanuts instead of 2 good forwards. Nobody would do that.



We are talking expansion. The minimum threshold, which you have not yet met in 2 posts, is one example that has anything to do with expansion.



Makes no sense from an Anaheim POV. Just imagine you are the Ducks. Which do you want:

Lose Fowler
OR
Lose Fowler AND another player
Gain magic beans

Unless you are offering more value, and in this context that means players who are currently contributing because Anaheim is trying to compete, panic trading Fowler is not a good idea.

To use your context, do you trade one of Read, Wiese, Laughton or Cousins so you don't lose them for nothing? When one gets traded for very little and another is taken by Vegas, you are left with 2 instead of 3.



Every team has the same preferences for young players who contribute, and those players are acquired with picks. There is going to be very little interest in trading those assets for players that must be protected.

What if say a gems went up to Pittsburgh and offered them a 2nd for fleury. Usually worth more but Pittsburgh either takes the 2nd or loses Murray. And the team trading the 2nd doesn't have any notable goalies to protect

 

[CraigBillington]

I think you will see more deals with LV made where they select a guy and trade them back or take a prospect/pick for future considerations (being not to select a certain player) than you will see guys dumped off to another team for pennies on the dollar.

That's how I see it too. Vegas will accumulate a lot of mid round picks over the next couple years I imagine

 

[Dr Quincy]

You seriously don't get it do you?

Methot/Ceci hold at least double the value to the Sens, as MacArthur or Lazar.

Losing one of them for 0 assets is worse than losing one of them + McArthur/Lazar. (We have pieces to replace Mac and Lazar quite easily)

It's about value to the team, not number of bodies.

If we lose one of Methor or Ceci, Ottawa would immediately need to obtain a top 4 D, thus giving up more assets to do it.

But in your scenario you ARE losing Methot or Ceci. And nobody is going to trade you a expansion exempt D as good as them. So in your scenario you are downgrading at D and at F.

 

[MikeyMike01]

You lose an A guy who you traded and a B guy instead of just the A guy. Your team is worse off than if you hadn't made the trade.

It all depends on what you're getting back in the trade.

If you just give the guy away, then yes it would be stupid.

 

[CB Joe]

I can see some cup contenders be much more willing to move some good young players that they will likely lose anyway for rentals.

 

[DaveG]

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

Bingo. You're not going to see any teams that are in the mix move anyone until it's absolutely necessary. Everyone knows and their dog knows that Pittsburgh needs to move one of their goalies (probably Fleury). But they'd be absolutely nuts to move one of them before they get a chance to defend their title. Same goes for Colorado with having to decide between Varlamov and Pickard. They'll move one of them when they have to, but they're not going to do anything to lessen their chances this season until they're out of the mix.

A team with a poor goalie situation but that's loaded at another position (say Carolina with dmen) could make a trade for one of those two rather easily. But it won't be done til after the season.

I think you will see more deals with LV made where they select a guy and trade them back or take a prospect/pick for future considerations (being not to select a certain player) than you will see guys dumped off to another team for pennies on the dollar.

You'll see plenty of that as well, it's happened every other time there's been an expansion draft.

 

[CrypTic]

It all depends on what you're getting back in the trade.

If you just give the guy away, then yes it would be stupid.

This. If you can trade someone ("player A") for, e.g., 80 cents on the dollar, and get a useful player back ("player B") who you can or don't need to protect and the players you now need to expose aren't worth nearly as much as player B, it is still worthwhile but would need to be compared to paying LV off to not take player A. I don't think you'll see trades worth pennies on the dollar bc it's cheaper to just throw a pick or two at LV to not take a player but you might see a few trades you otherwise would not have seen.

Team - player A < Team - player A - player C + player B. make the deal provided that it's less expensive/better for the team using whatever considerations (long term, short term, etc.) than paying off LV to not pick player A

 

[Tripod]

So what do you think you get for Methot?

Because every team has that same problem and won't pay a big price to protect him.

That's where you are wrong and don't seem to understand.

Philly...for example...only is protecting Gudas, Ghost....then HAGG. That's not close to being the same as Ottawa exposing Methot.

Philly trades for Methot for a 2nd got example, Ottawa loses McArthur in expansion which they don't really care about losing anyways, and then have the 2nd to use to try and re-acquire another Dman after expansion.

This scenario is only present if there is a drop off in who your top guy that you could potentially lose, and the next guy in line. And for Ottawa, that looks to be the case. In Philly, it does not. Manning is the top D exposed and probably Read and Cousins/Laughton/Weise are exposed. Very little separating any of them right now so who cares who goes.

This should not be hard for people to understand.

 

[Tripod]

What if say a gems went up to Pittsburgh and offered them a 2nd for fleury. Usually worth more but Pittsburgh either takes the 2nd or loses Murray. And the team trading the 2nd doesn't have any notable goalies to protect

Another good example.

Mason and Neuvirth are UFA's so as of right now, would be using a protected spot to protect Stolarz....who would probably be the worst protected goalie out there.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Ok, now tell me 1 team out there willing to trade a young top 4D that is exempt. If he's a top 4D, it's extremely unlikely he's exempt (unless you are talking about a potential top 4 prospect).

That's the thing that people are missing. The "theoretical" deal has to have someone actually willing to move a ridiculously valuable asset (legit top 4 who is entering 2nd year of pro hockey), when a team is offering a lesser player.

The basic premise of the thread is that there is a team that is willing to spend $2 to save $1, just not going to happen.

 

[CrypTic]

That's the thing that people are missing. The "theoretical" deal has to have someone actually willing to move a ridiculously valuable asset (legit top 4 who is entering 2nd year of pro hockey), when a team is offering a lesser player.

The basic premise of the thread is that there is a team that is willing to spend $2 to save $1, just not going to happen.

Or, as others have pointed out, that the team you're trading with has protection slots available for that type of player (e.g., F, D, G) that the team they're trading with does not have and you're trading for picks or, e.g., 1 team has F slots and the other team has D slots available.

 

[Mr Misty]

What if say a gems went up to Pittsburgh and offered them a 2nd for fleury. Usually worth more but Pittsburgh either takes the 2nd or loses Murray. And the team trading the 2nd doesn't have any notable goalies to protect

You are getting super specific in your premise, ie that we are dealing specifically with Pittsburgh, Fleury's NMC, and Murray, while being super general in your conclusion. Fleury makes a lot of money and how many seasons do you have to go back before he has more "good" playoffs than not? He wasn't good last year or the year before, and I assume your nonspecific trade partner team is not looking to add a bunch of goalie salary that doesn't have any recent playoff success. You say he's worth more than a 2nd but I don't see that big of a market nor do I see teams anxious to add 5m or more in cap without sending any back. When we consider that Pittsburgh must do something to avoid exposing Murray, a 2nd would be a return that would surprise me because of how much value Fleurry got, not how little.

It all depends on what you're getting back in the trade.

If you just give the guy away, then yes it would be stupid.

It really doesn't have that much to do with the return at all. Teams with enough talent to lose a player to expansion do not want futures, they want productive NHLers