So Ceci is worth less than Ty Emberson who was on waivers and couldn’t break into the Sharks team consistently? Not only worth less but a good amount less considering they got a mid round pick too. But is still not a cap dump.
Cody at 3.25 is worth less than Ty. If their salaries were the same we're probably adding.
Edmonton valued Emberson over Ceci because they needed to shed ~2M to be cap compliant when Kane gets back.
Both are examples of cap dumps.
This is an incredibly narrow and self serving definition of a cap dump, a cap dump is any asset in a trade offloaded purely to make salaries work
Yes, I am hoping that Emberson is something decent to solid and think for a non-competing team that riding out that hope is a better decision than selling him for a relatively nothing return. Did the same thing with Eyssimont and sure enough he's a real player on a playoff team and the 4th round pick we got for him is highly likely to never play an NHL game. Meanwhile we're chasing some of the stuff Eyssimont brought to the table this offseason/TDL in Goodrow, Dellandrea, Grundstrom, and Kostin.
Because Ceci is objectively a bad NHL defenseman by virtually any real metric that isn't just the appeal to authority fallacy.
I get the point of view that many hold that agrees with this, and I can't reiterate enough how I don't really care if I'm wrong or right here, but two devil's advocate points:
There is no world in which Ty Emberson, a 24 year old with 30 career NHL games who could not stay healthy, would return a 3rd round pick on his own. Ergo, Cody Ceci was a cap dump.
You insisted just a week ago that the Oilers didn't have to trade Ceci to match the Broberg offer sheet, that losing Broberg for a 2nd would be terrible asset management for Edmonton, and that keeping Kane out of their lineup all year via LITR wouldn't hurt them at all. Now you're saying that Edmonton only traded Ceci so they can be cap compliant when Kane gets back?
Not true. The Brent Burns trade was a cap dump trade for us with a positive value asset coming our way even if it was middling. Lots of times players get dealt for draft picks or prospects only that are examples of cap dump trades with positive value assets going the other way. You only want it to be the way you're framing it for the sake of winning an argument but it isn't actually what it is.
All of this is still true and explains why it wasn't a cap dump. Edmonton didn't *need* to dump Ceci but clearly they valued the cheaper Emberson over him in order to create cap flexibility by the deadline. Also I was only talking about what I would have done in the Oilers situation, not trying to predict what the worst run org in the league would do.
Burns was not a cap dump. We literally did not need to dump any cap. Burns was traded because he asked to be.
Burns was absolutely a cap dump trade. Just because the motivation was because he was asked to be doesn't mean the end result of the trade wasn't a cap dump. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can admit you made an incorrect statement. It's okay.
Define cap dump trade because it sounds like you're arguing every trade where the cap hits aren't perfectly balanced is a cap dump trade.
I wouldn't want to fallaciously appeal to the authority of NHL coaching staffs that have consistently used Ceci in a top 4 role and enjoyed regular season and playoff success while doing so. Much better to appeal to the authority of charts some dork made based on the deficient public NHL dataset.
Any trade where one side is receiving a significant amount of cap savings through the process of the trade is a cap dump trade.
To #2, I look at Ceci's relative numbers compared to his teammates (CFrel, FFrel, xGF% with D partners vs without, etc.) to make the pretty universally known observation that he just isn't good. None of those are perfect on their own, but each one of those stats tells the same story basically every year of his NHL career.
What year is this? 2013? Who the hell is still using "CFrel" and "FFrel" to judge players? I assure you no NHL club is using Natural Stat Trick to decide whether to acquire a player. They have troves of RFID tracking data capable of generating granular analysis of how a player individually contributes to team success or failure rather than simply making an assumption based on what occurs when he's on the ice. They also have professional scouts.
That's a fair critique, though, as you mentioned, your criticism only really pertains to small potatoes moves. To me that's the biggest factor towards the idea that we shouldn't be looking at this trade under a microscope. With small-time players like this there is too much behind the scenes we don't know about to make any sort of logical conclusion about the fairness of the deal.
No it really doesn't but even if it did, so what? In a cap league, the cap savings is a significant motivator for pretty much everyone.
Of course cap hits are a significant consideration in every trade but there's a difference between that and a pure cap dump trade like Glass to PIT, Walman to SJ, Gostisbehere to ARI, etc.
There's a difference but not in whether or not it's a cap dump trade. And you did say that earlier. You are still wrong. It is still a cap dump and still makes Ceci a cap dump. Plenty of useful players have been traded as cap dumps.
