Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy
Teams will just have to pay full price for a player and take the risk that they won't re-sign instead of attaching a conditional pick that waters down the value. At least that's how I see it.
I think it will help even more when it comes to players with more than a year left on their deals. Like if the Flames trade Johnny this off season, they won't have to have some BS 2022 pick attached to the deal that the value changes on based on whether or not he'll re up with them.
Tre won't have to listen to some GM whine "oh we can't be sure Johnny will sign an extension with us. We can't even talk extension for a year yet, so instead of 2 picks in 2020 plus a prospect and roster player, we'll just give you one pick for 2020 and then attach a second pick in 2022 and if he signs with us it will be a higher pick"
You get every GM on the east coast pulling that crap and then you're waiting two years for that asset to come to fruition and you don't even have a clue how valuable it will be.
|
I’m not sure it’s really “pulling that crap” when in reality they don’t know the value of the asset they are obtaining.
I’m guessing now that the value of the player will depend on how likely the player traded will eventually sign an extension. So, somewhere between the value of the player with an extension in place and the value of the player as a pure rental.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk