ESPN: Trade block(ed)

[The Crypto Guy]

Time to get rid of the cap so we can have excitement again with trades. Poor teams(sens) are still bad with or without the cap so it's okay.

 

[SwedishFire]

GMs hang on to mid level prospects and picks like they will always turn into the next Tage Thompson.

We can't trade this guy because we drafted him 6 years ago and he might turn into a middling bottom 6 player for someone else!

Yes! I see this all the time. A drafted player seems to be their own baby. Who cares if a bottom 6er was drafted top 10 six years ago. He is not the diffrent from a cup or not. And if a GM thinks he really is, trade him!
And fans overvaluation of half busting 1st rounders... please help me.

Or another fans logic favourite
I laugh at this

You trade for player A that costs a rooster player or a pick. After some time player A stops producing, and getting trade proposals. The tradeproposal is lower than what he what traded for, so fans putting a halt to the trade.
The NET outcome gets negative.

Or in atrade tree
Player A gets player B becomes a 1st rounder pick (becomes player C) -> gets dissapointment , and you wont accept lower quality back in a trade for this player C because player A was this and that level...

 

[toddkaz]

Sort of takes the sails away from those disgruntled fans angry that their team hasn't "made a move" yet.

In a year or two when a GM gets fired for not doing a good enough job think this will come up as an excuse?

Get it done or get fired.

 

[dubplatepressure]

"Might not be busy for you now, but I think you'll be very busy on March 3 this year," one GM said. "There's going to be a lot of players, a lot of teams in the mix."






Why do nothingburgers like this get put into topics of discussion by media


that's the GM equivalent of getting pucks in deep

always the same. Every. single. year.

 

[Viqsi]

Time to get rid of the cap so we can have excitement again with trades. Poor teams(sens) are still bad with or without the cap so it's okay.

Except for the part where the cap was never about competitive parity - that was supposed to be a side effect. It's strictly about enforcing that 50/50 revenue split.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Except for the part where the cap was never about competitive parity - that was supposed to be a side effect. It's strictly about enforcing that 50/50 revenue split.

If that were true they would just have a luxary tax.

 

[Viqsi]

If that were true they would just have a luxary tax.

1) Luxury taxes don't do a damn thing to effectively control spending and everyone knows it. MLB doesn't even call it a "luxury tax", they call it the "competitive balance tax" - the goal is completely different.
2) That would have, at bare minimum, required a MASSIVE expansion of revenue sharing. You think people find it onerous and offensive now...

 

[AcerComputer]

In a year or two when a GM gets fired for not doing a good enough job think this will come up as an excuse?

Get it done or get fired.

If you look at GMs who made bad trades at the Deadline to save their job, it rarely works out. GMs who "do nothing" can fall back on, "I wasn't willing to make a bad trade, and was willing to be fired for it". Other teams will hire these types of GMs who stand their ground, and act in the best interest of the Team (not their job).

 

[toddkaz]

If you look at GMs who made bad trades at the Deadline to save their job, it rarely works out. GMs who "do nothing" can fall back on, "I wasn't willing to make a bad trade, and was willing to be fired for it". Other teams will hire these types of GMs who stand their ground, and act in the best interest of the Team (not their job).

If you look at GMs who made no trades and lost their jobs the list is longer.

 

[Chainshot]

Notably missing from the list of broker teams is the one with the 2nd highest total amount of free cap space.

 

[SEALBound]

*Some GM somewhere*

"I can wait for cap to open up with another team so that I can trade for Bo Horvat and sign him to a $8mil per year extension for the next 8 years"

There needs to be one compliance buyout option each year.

 

[toomuchsauce]

LOL. LMAO.

NBA GMs: "I'll trade my entire team plus all of our 2024 draft picks for your best player." "Deal."

NFL GMs: lol nothing matters because NFL players are ridiculously fungible and all but like 15 guys in the entire league can be easily replaced by a 4th round draft pick.

NHL GMs: *Gets mad and threatens to physically fight the other GM who claims a player he waived*

It is not possible for me to roll my eyes hard enough at the annual "unnamed executed says things are bottled up but trades are coming in the future" quote

 

[3074326]

"Might not be busy for you now, but I think you'll be very busy on March 3 this year," one GM said. "There's going to be a lot of players, a lot of teams in the mix."






Why do nothingburgers like this get put into topics of discussion by media


that's the GM equivalent of getting pucks in deep

Because people always engage with it.

Might come as a surprise, but media is click and engagement driven..

 

[Chainshot]

It's not like the founders of this feast aren't NHL GM's themselves. Rare are the GM fools who aren't quickly parted from their cap money on the first day of UFA.

 

[Jumptheshark]

If we get rid of the cap we would see small market teams crushed

 

[Jumptheshark]

Look at the EPL and how the same 5 teams keep in the top 5 most of the time

 

[AcerComputer]

Time to get rid of the cap so we can have excitement again with trades. Poor teams(sens) are still bad with or without the cap so it's okay.

Except for the part where the cap was never about competitive parity - that was supposed to be a side effect. It's strictly about enforcing that 50/50 revenue split.

If that were true they would just have a luxary tax.

1) Luxury taxes don't do a damn thing to effectively control spending and everyone knows it. MLB doesn't even call it a "luxury tax", they call it the "competitive balance tax" - the goal is completely different.
2) That would have, at bare minimum, required a MASSIVE expansion of revenue sharing. You think people find it onerous and offensive now...

The caps also introduced revenue sharing, so that the bad teams would get a check, and the rich teams would not be too rich. I personally prefer the cap vs a luxury tax. In Luxury tax system the only people that win are the players, so you will see rich teams overspending, lowering their profits, while poor teams are outspent and fail to be competitive which drives down their revenues. So you end up with more teams going bankrupt and relocating vs steady growth and a stable league.

 

[Viqsi]

The caps also introduced revenue sharing, so that the bad teams would get a check, and the rich teams would not be too rich. I personally prefer the cap vs a luxury tax. In Luxury tax system the only people that win are the players, so you will see rich teams overspending, lowering their profits, while poor teams are outspent and fail to be competitive which drives down their revenues. So you end up with more teams going bankrupt and relocating vs steady growth and a stable league.

Technically various forms of revenue sharing programs existed before the cap. It's part of why Edmonton still has a team, for example.

 

[BurgoShark]

Nothing new here….

as for brokers…..Detroit, buffalo, and Ottawa can be brokers for rentals because thry have cap space

Ottawa won't be a broker. They don't sell cap space for picks. Didn't even do it during their rebuild.

 

[IslesNorway]

If only they stopped signing middle of the pack players to lengthy extensions and horrible UFA contracts, making a trade would be far easier.

 

[BurgoShark]

If only they stopped signing middle of the pack players to lengthy extensions and horrible UFA contracts, making a trade would be far easier.

If the league wants to increase the mount of trades they should limit the amount of NTCs/NMCs each team can have. It used to be only a handful of star players would get trade protection. Now you have teams painting themselves in to corners by giving NTCs to more than half the team.

 

[mouser]

If the league wants to increase the mount of trades they should limit the amount of NTCs/NMCs each team can have. It used to be only a handful of star players would get trade protection. Now you have teams painting themselves in to corners by giving NTCs to more than half the team.

Why would the league want to increase the number of trades?

 

[BurgoShark]

Why would the league want to increase the number of trades?

I'm not saying they do. I just mean that in addition to crazy contract length and dollars, the 1000% increase in players given trade protection compared to 15-20 years ago is another relevant factor.

 

[IslesNorway]

Why would the league want to increase the number of trades?

Because it generates interest. Fans like trades.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Montréal as a 3rd party broker? Are they not tight to the cap as is?

I know LTIR can and other trades can change that.

We have some wiggle room but that will be saved if we move guys like Monahan, Hoffman, or Eddy with retention.

We are not able to accrue cap space this season cause we had to put Price on LTIR before the season started. We did this because we got a 1st for taking Monahan.

Habs won't be a 3rd wheel to help in retention for two other teams. We don't have that much cap space. It's less than what we had at last years deadline.

Some people think you will save cap space even if you move Monahan at 50%... thinking that we only carry half his prorated cap hit. Sure, but he has to be replaced in the line-up too and most teams will want to send a contract back.