Toggle sidebar

Confirmed Trade: [VGK/CGY/PHI] Noah Hanifin (75% retained), Mikhail Vorobyov to VGK; 2026 1st , 2025 cond. 3rd, Daniil Miromanov to CGY; 2024 5th to PHI

Lunatik said:
Honestly retention for 2 months has almost no value. there is a reason why teams are only getting a 4th to 6th to retain 25%, and in a couple of those cases (both 4th rounders), the retaining team also sent a low prospect to the team needing retention

Where do you see Vegas in 2026? Frankly if we can get that pick unprotected, I'd be pretty happy.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and agree, but usually later year picks aren't typically considered worth as much as a recent year pick.

This could turn out like the Toffoli trade where it's all good, but initial optics look kinda weird and crappy right now.
 
Hanifin’s next contract will be a huge case of buyer’s remorse. I don’t think Vegas ends up signing him once they see him in action
 
Fig said:
I get what you're saying and agree, but usually later year picks aren't typically considered worth as much as a recent year pick.

This could turn out like the Toffoli trade where it's all good, but initial optics look kinda weird and crappy right now.
Click to expand...

I still want to see what happens with Shara in Calgary, what if walks to UFA in 2025?
 
TheBeard said:
I have no idea how that condition on the first is even legal. What’s stopping teams from saying “we’ll give you this player, but if we decide someone else wants them more then we’ll give you something else.

Vegas’ success is really more about finding creative ways to abuse the system than it is building and developing a team.
Click to expand...
Oh shit, Vegas is the first team to do a trade like this with conditions on picks? Come on.
 
TheBeard said:
Example please?
Click to expand...
1000057779.jpg

Here's one with a bunch of conditionals just from the most recent draft.
 
TheBeard said:
Protected is completely different.


Conditions where they can decided to just delay what they agreed to send if someone better comes along??
Click to expand...
1000057781.jpg


Well have fun with this one then. In any case, Calgary agreed to the conditions, so what do you care? No one put a gun to Conroy's head and made him accept these terms.
 
HanSolo said:
View attachment 831028

Well have fun with this one then. In any case, Calgary agreed to the conditions, so what do you care? No one put a gun to Conroy's head and made him accept these terms.
Click to expand...
Again, these are all conditions based on standings, not on “if something better comes along”.

I was just saying I’ve never seen conditions like that one in this trade and I have no idea how it’s even legal.
 
TheBeard said:
Again, these are all conditions based on standings, not on “if something better comes along”.

I was just saying I’ve never seen conditions like that one in this trade and I have no idea how it’s even legal.
Click to expand...
Why would they not be? The Flames are still getting a first round pick one way or the other. Your initial analogy doesn't really work because a pick isn't a player until a selection is made. You say that a conditional pick with protection is not the same, but it's still a deferred pick if the triggering condition is met. It's still an instance where a team is saying you can have the pick this year unless it's a guy with a higher than average chance of being a star/impact player, then you get the pick next year. The only discernable difference is Vegas is reserving the right to trade the intangible selection if they decide it's necessary.

It's weird, sure, but I don't see how it should be "illegal" under the rules, and again, the Flames consented to it, and if you stop and think about it, there's a higher chance that Vegas tails off in 2026 than in 2025, so assuming Conroy is thinking ahead, there's a rational basis to believe that the 2026 pick could be more valuable. There's no guarantee of that, but that goes to my above point. A draft pick is a speculative asset, not a tranferrable roster player under contract.
 
HanSolo said:
Why would they not be? The Flames are still getting a first round pick one way or the other. Your initial analogy doesn't really work because a pick isn't a player until a selection is made. You say that a conditional pick with protection is not the same, but it's still a deferred pick if the triggering condition is met. It's still an instance where a team is saying you can have the pick this year unless it's a guy with a higher than average chance of being a star/impact player, then you get the pick next year. The only discernable difference is Vegas is reserving the right to trade the intangible selection if they decide it's necessary.

It's weird, sure, but I don't see how it should be "illegal" under the rules, and again, the Flames consented to it, and if you stop and think about it, there's a higher chance that Vegas tails off in 2026 than in 2025, so assuming Conroy is thinking ahead, there's a rational basis to believe that the 2026 pick could be more valuable. There's no guarantee of that, but that goes to my above point. A draft pick is a speculative asset, not a tranferrable roster player under contract.
Click to expand...
Ok
 
*Conditions: If traded by March 10, 2024 OR if the pick is top 10, Calgary will instead receive 2026 1st round 'VGK'

I would hope that the condition would result in an unprotected 2026 otherwise its a lock that vegas deals it.
 
75% retainment is pretty dumb as far as I'm concerned. Sorta defeats the purpose of the salary cap.

50%, okay. But 75% is just not what I think is acceptable. You can get a 10mil player for the price of a 4th liner.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Haatley
The conditions on this trade is weird. Why include a condition that if the 2025 1st is traded my March 10th 2024, then Calgary gets a 2026 1st.

That is unless McCrimmon is trying to make another move that will cost a 1st.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhataKnight
Super Cake said:
The conditions on this trade is weird. Why include a condition that if the 2025 1st is traded my March 10th 2024, then Calgary gets a 2026 1st.

That is unless McCrimmon is trying to make another move that will cost a 1st.
Click to expand...
Guentzel probably. Guessing they are trying to get a forward and with the draft in Vegas this year, they dont want to move their 2024th.
 
Hanifin pulled an NBA move here. Basically forced himself to a certain location despite not having that much control on his NTC. It's going to be interesting how many more players end up doing this in the coming years. I also think this will have a negative affect for the NHLPA in the next CBA negotiation. We might see the return of conditional re-sign picks then. All the power to him though, afaik he played by the rules and got what he wanted, but it really screwed over Calgary in the process though. Other GM's are going to look at this situation and not like this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom