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

[Tripod]

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 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

I guess it's impossible to trade someone for a pick....to avoid losing them for nothing, then using that pick they gained to add a person after expansion?

All we are saying is that it COULD happen since a few teams DO have moves they need to make.

 

[Mr Misty]

I guess it's impossible to trade someone for a pick....to avoid losing them for nothing, then using that pick they gained to add a person after expansion?

All we are saying is that it COULD happen since a few teams DO have moves they need to make.

You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing.

Consider that prices of players are going to jump back up after the expansion draft relative the the prices of picks because every team is going to be in a state of freakout over losing a player. A new roster hole doesn't really inspire a GM to make another roster hole for the sake of a pick.

By my count there is one team that has a move to make, and it is Pittsburgh. And it is in Fleury's financial interest to take a buyout rather than waive his NMC, so I'm not holding my breath for any moves.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Depends on what deal would be out there for Fleury or Murray. The Pens could always trade a D too.

I agree, but the premise of the thread isn't about normal "hockey" trades, but rather unbalanced trades due to expansion. I expect several "normal" trades, but no one taking $.25 on the dollar to move someone that they would lose to expansion.

 

[Lunatik]

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.

I said moved at a reduced cost, not trade someone for peanuts. You are too focused on this "losing 2 players instead of one" mindset that you are ignoring this prevalent thing in the NHL thing called asset management.

Simply put, it is better to lose an lesser asset for nothing.

Take Calgary for example. Right now their protected listed list looks like:

G: Elliott (if he re-signs)
D: Giordano, Brodie, Hamilton
F: Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund, Brouwer, Frolik and _______

Now for that final spot there could be Ferland, Shinkaruk, Poirier, Bouma... etc in the mix. For that sake of this discussion say Ferland and Shinkaruk both have good breakout years. Now the Flames have to choose to protect one. What they would probably do is move one of those 2 players for an asset and protect the other. Thus forcing the expansion team to take a lesser player.

Now lets be clear I am talking about moving the player for a little less than market value, not move them at bargain basement prices.

 

[Some Other Flame]

I said moved at a reduced cost, not trade someone for peanuts. You are too focused on this "losing 2 players instead of one" mindset that you are ignoring this prevalent thing in the NHL thing called asset management.

Simply put, it is better to lose an lesser asset for nothing.

Take Calgary for example. Right now their protected listed list looks like:

G: Elliott (if he re-signs)
D: Giordano, Brodie, Hamilton
F: Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund, Brouwer, Frolik and _______

Now for that final spot there could be Ferland, Shinkaruk, Poirier, Bouma... etc in the mix. For that sake of this discussion say Ferland and Shinkaruk both have good breakout years. Now the Flames have to choose to protect one. What they would probably do is move one of those 2 players for an asset and protect the other. Thus forcing the expansion team to take a lesser player.

Now lets be clear I am talking about moving the player for a little less than market value, not move them at bargain basement prices.

If both Shinkaruk and Ferland had breakout years then both would be protected and one of Brouwer or Frolik would be exposed.

 

[Lunatik]

If both Shinkaruk and Ferland had breakout years then both would be protected and one of Brouwer or Frolik would be exposed.

The point.
















You

 

[Some Other Flame]

The point.
















You

I think you might want to redirect that towards yourself

Your 'point' was obvious and not at all what I was commenting on. Call it semantics or details or whatever you want but if two young players breakout, they'll be protected.

 

[Lunatik]

I think you might want to redirect that towards yourself

Your 'point' was obvious and not at all what I was commenting on. Call it semantics or details or whatever you want but if two young players breakout, they'll be protected.

I was giving a simple hypothetical situation to explain when a team might trade a player to get something for them, why would you bother wasting my time or yours trying to argue the hypothetical given?

 

[McSuper]

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.

Not true . If a team got 4 good D Men and good forwards depth and there going to be 1 odd man out from their group they may want to move a quality player for picks and let Las Vegas take a lessor player . All depends on a teams depth .

 

[Some Other Flame]

I was giving a simple hypothetical situation to explain when a team might trade a player to get something for them, why would you bother wasting my time or yours trying to argue the hypothetical given?

Because semantics are fun?

You need to relax a little

 

[McSuper]

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.

This . I made this point but you have it worded better then I did

 

[Mr Misty]

I said moved at a reduced cost, not trade someone for peanuts. You are too focused on this "losing 2 players instead of one" mindset that you are ignoring this prevalent thing in the NHL thing called asset management.

Simply put, it is better to lose an lesser asset for nothing.

Take Calgary for example. Right now their protected listed list looks like:

G: Elliott (if he re-signs)
D: Giordano, Brodie, Hamilton
F: Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund, Brouwer, Frolik and _______

Now for that final spot there could be Ferland, Shinkaruk, Poirier, Bouma... etc in the mix. For that sake of this discussion say Ferland and Shinkaruk both have good breakout years. Now the Flames have to choose to protect one. What they would probably do is move one of those 2 players for an asset and protect the other. Thus forcing the expansion team to take a lesser player.

Now lets be clear I am talking about moving the player for a little less than market value, not move them at bargain basement prices.

Then you are ignoring the premise of this thread.

Even if we are talking 75 cents on the dollar, Shinkaruk etc are returning a sub NHL player. Again, the premise of the thread is somebody decent shaking loose for peanuts. Your premise is an intensely specific hypothetical about two replacement level players suddenly becoming not worthless. Why you think it is important to respond with this off-topic, reality-free speculation is beyond me.

I'll say again: as we move down the player ability curve from the best to the worst, the gaps between players shrink. There are almost zero teams that have a big dropoff between 8F and 9F, an 8F with actual value that can't be replaced by any of the Versteeg/Gagner/Hudler/Gaustad/Glencross/Stempniak types that can't seem to find jobs every offseason, and an appetite to sacrifice a good player for some kind of futures. For a trade to happen, either an idiot GM or this unicorn team must find a team with cap space and the desire to move futures to win now and an empty protection slot in the right position. The odds those two unicorn teams make a trade are slightly better than the odds Ferland or Shinkaruk breaks out, but not by much.

 

[Lunatik]

Then you are ignoring the premise of this thread.

And you blatantly ignored what I said when you quoted me. I can comment on things in this thread and not agree with eith absurd extreme being tossed around.

 

[Dr Quincy]

And you blatantly ignored what I said when you quoted me. I can comment on things in this thread and not agree with eith absurd extreme being tossed around.

So your premise is: Will a team trade a player for an equal value?

Yes.

I get your point: a team might take a very very slight hit in value if it means keeping someone else. But that requires there to be a perfect situation of a certain number of players to be protected/exposed and a perfect trade partner with a certain need on their roster and a certain number of players to be protected/exposed.

The Philly fan did point out his team, and I do think there might be a match there with a dman. But again, he was talking about Methot for a 2nd.... which isn't the original premise of this thread. Methot for a 4th would be what the OP was talking about.

And that's not happening.

 

[Lunatik]

So your premise is: Will a team trade a player for an equal value?

Yes.

I get your point: a team might take a very very slight hit in value if it means keeping someone else. But that requires there to be a perfect situation of a certain number of players to be protected/exposed and a perfect trade partner with a certain need on their roster and a certain number of players to be protected/exposed.

The Philly fan did point out his team, and I do think there might be a match there with a dman. But again, he was talking about Methot for a 2nd.... which isn't the original premise of this thread. Methot for a 4th would be what the OP was talking about.

And that's not happening.

You clearly did't read anything else I said. My opinion is a team may trade someone for slightly lesser value rather than losing them for nothing but won't move them for "peanuts"

 

[TaketheCannoli]

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.

We don't need to get into that if you are willing to stipulate that players with NMCs will not waive for the Leafs. Otherwise....back up your BS.

 

[Tripod]

You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing.

Consider that prices of players are going to jump back up after the expansion draft relative the the prices of picks because every team is going to be in a state of freakout over losing a player. A new roster hole doesn't really inspire a GM to make another roster hole for the sake of a pick.

By my count there is one team that has a move to make, and it is Pittsburgh. And it is in Fleury's financial interest to take a buyout rather than waive his NMC, so I'm not holding my breath for any moves.

No **** you are losing someone for nothing. But there is a difference in losing a core top 4 Dman, and someone who you deem expendable as a 8th-10th forward.

THAT'S THE POINT!

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Nope players waive their NMC all the time. It's not there to prevent a move it's there to prevent a move to a team like say, The Jackets or Arizona or Vancouver teams that are absolute garbage

That's a nice glass house you're living in...

 

[tjs*]

That's a nice glass house you're living in...

Clearly you just don't recognize the massive popularity of Toronto with free agents. Why I hear Tavares will be signing there in a year.

 

[uncleben]

You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing. You are going to lose a player for nothing.

Consider that prices of players are going to jump back up after the expansion draft relative the the prices of picks because every team is going to be in a state of freakout over losing a player. A new roster hole doesn't really inspire a GM to make another roster hole for the sake of a pick.

By my count there is one team that has a move to make, and it is Pittsburgh. And it is in Fleury's financial interest to take a buyout rather than waive his NMC, so I'm not holding my breath for any moves.

Yeah... but you can lose a player that's decent for nothing, and be left with a fringe NHLer as a replacement, or trade the decent player for a pick, have the fringe player be claimed and be left with another fringe player plus a pick.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

Nope players waive their NMC all the time. It's not there to prevent a move it's there to prevent a move to a team like say, The Jackets or Arizona or Vancouver teams that are absolute garbage

You forgot a few teams there

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Yeah... but you can lose a player that's decent for nothing, and be left with a fringe NHLer as a replacement, or trade the decent player for a pick, have the fringe player be claimed and be left with another fringe player plus a pick.

That's where a GM's skills come into question. If you can position your team to lose a player that expansion will take, and then get his replacement in return for another player that has depth behind them...then that's a win.

 

[Curufinwe]

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 necessarily.

The Flyers only have two dmen worth protecting who aren't free agents right now. If they could trade one of the Raffl/Weise/Laughton/Cousins for a defenseman before the ED that would make a lot of sense.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

That's a nice glass house you're living in...

I know that you think Toronto should be on that list and believe me if this was 2012-2014 they would be, but it's not

This team now has Mathews Nylander Marner Reilly and Andersen, the core is now in placebo think they are going to start becoming attractive to players that's why they aren't there

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Not necessarily.

The Flyers only have two dmen worth protecting who aren't free agents right now. If they could trade one of the Raffl/Weise/Laughton/Cousins for a defenseman before the ED that would make a lot of sense.

What type of dman would you expect to get for those players? I can't believe that NSH or the NYI would trade Ellis or DeHaan for that level of player.