2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Then your argument would be even harder to make in my opinion Most stars would be on 11 year deals after their elcs or second contracts depending on their trajectory. You’d have to make the decision to sign or trade them even younger.

I argued in favor of giving stars max term deals after ELC. Now we are talking about a 27-28 year old asking you for one of these deals.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I argued in favor of giving stars max term deals after ELC. Now we are talking about a 27-28 year old asking you for one of these deals.

Longer contracts would eventually get them to mid 30s which is what you are trying to avoid.

Sign ELC, sign a three year contract, sign a 10+ year contract at 24/25. Eight year max contracts now give them another chance to cash in at 28/29. Longer contracts wouldn't.

[butterfly]

The longer the allowed max contract term is, the more it tests the skill of a GM. If the max term was 1 year, you could never mess up a team and pay everyone exactly what their projected value is. There would be no such thing as “cap jail”. A child could do it.

As the max term increases, players are going to demand it. Whatever the number is. Some GMs will cave and pay dead money. My hypothesis is that an increasing number of them are going to figure this out and refuse to do it as time goes by.

[Roof-Daddy]

I agree contracts are too long. 6 years should be the maximum allowed and no player should be able to sign more than one year deals past their age 35 season.

Protects against players who don't have the work ethic and just mail it in after cashing in on big deal.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Bonded

So let’s pretend the Tkachuk thing didn’t happen. Your boss tells you the goal is to win and they aren’t happy with a rebuild right now. Gaudreau signs in Columbus and now the Flames are worse and need to trade for a replacement or sign some worse filler UFAs.

I’m not ignoring this but I don’t know what I would do. They didn’t win with Gaudreau, and now I’m supposed to find some way to make the team better? I don’t see any way except to set up a prospect building system for the future, but you said the boss isn’t interested.

What would you do?

[SuperMatt18]

I kind of hate rules that protect the GMs from themselves to be honest.

Nobody forcing them to sign 8 year deals. If the GMs wouldn't give them out to 30 year old players then it wouldn't be an issue.

Let the bad GMs handcuff themselves if they want.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I agree contracts are too long. 6 years should be the maximum allowed and no player should be able to sign more than one year deals past their age 35 season.

Protects against players who don't have the work ethic and just mail it in after cashing in on big deal.

On the other hand, don’t you think this would simply benefit less skilled GMs and more attractive markets?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I kind of hate rules that protect the GMs from themselves to be honest.

Nobody forcing them to sign 8 year deals. If the GMs wouldn't give them out to 30 year old players then it wouldn't be an issue.

Let the bad GMs handcuff themselves if they want.

Yeah but most GMs are short sighted because they have a short life span. They're mostly just looking 2-3 years ahead and the majority of them ever see the end of any 8 year deal they sign.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah but most GMs are short sighted because they have a short life span. They're mostly just looking 2-3 years ahead and the majority of them ever see the end of any 8 year deal they sign.

Maybe they have a short life span because they are short sighted?

[Goriders]

Teams like the Flames would probably have to offer max term to get free agents to sign here rather than a bigger warmer market in the US.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by butterfly

There is no replacing 27 year old Nylander. You are signing up for 28-to-35 year old Nylander if you choose to. And each iteration is projected to be worse than the last. That’s not the same player.

If you use draft picks to create a perpetual pipeline of possible future 18-to-27 year old Nylanders, you capitalize on their artificially suppressed ELC salary years and make other teams pay for the sucker’s contracts.

Take a rip through the last 30 years of Flames first round draft picks. I did the other night. Not many Nylanders in there.

Yikes.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The longer the allowed max contract term is, the more it tests the skill of a GM. If the max term was 1 year, you could never mess up a team and pay everyone exactly what their projected value is. There would be no such thing as “cap jail”. A child could do it.

As the max term increases, players are going to demand it. Whatever the number is. Some GMs will cave and pay dead money. My hypothesis is that an increasing number of them are going to figure this out and refuse to do it as time goes by.

I think where we disagree is that you think GMs believe they will get full value out of those contracts whereas I think they know they won’t and they don’t care. They are going to prioritize winning in the next 3 years over cap space in 6. Their job is to win a cup and that is what they will aim to do. Having a pipeline of star prospects is basically impossible once a team becomes a contender.

Most teams will naturally cycle through rebuilds and playoffs. The good teams proactively manage into a rebuild while other teams don’t. That comes down to ownership.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by butterfly

On the other hand, don’t you think this would simply benefit less skilled GMs and more attractive markets?

I don't think it would benefit one more than the other, those teams already have the clear advantage and IMO this doesn't sway it any more. it would just cut down on the amount of untradeable contracts around the league and reduce the length of them.

Look at the Flames and Huberdeau. Nobody saw his production plummeting to around 50% of what it was in the first year. Sure would be nice to only have 5 more years left and not 7. By the time this team is rebuilt and ready to hand out big contracts to it's new core they will still be navigating that monstrosity.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I kind of hate rules that protect the GMs from themselves to be honest.

I don't kind of hate those rules... I just out and out hate them.

It's maddening... "It's not a good idea to sign a guy for more then 6 years!" Ok... don't sign a guy for more then six years then, problem solved. "But then someone else will get him!"... So? If it's a bad idea then let someone else make that mistake.

Why are so many people so eager to create rules (and lose hockey via lock-out) for the sole purpose of allowing hockey orgs to continue to employ people who don't have sound enough decision making to do the job? It's silly.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I’m not ignoring this but I don’t know what I would do. They didn’t win with Gaudreau, and now I’m supposed to find some way to make the team better? I don’t see any way except to set up a prospect building system for the future, but you said the boss isn’t interested.

What would you do?

The real step would have been committing to Gaudreau in the previous offseason if you thought he was a star and core piece or trading him for a similar type player if you didn’t. Not walking him to UFA.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I think where we disagree is that you think GMs believe they will get full value out of those contracts whereas I think they know they won’t and they don’t care. They are going to prioritize winning in the next 3 years over cap space in 6. Their job is to win a cup and that is what they will aim to do. Having a pipeline of star prospects is basically impossible once a team becomes a contender.

Most teams will naturally cycle through rebuilds and playoffs. The good teams proactively manage into a rebuild while other teams don’t. That comes down to ownership.

I don’t even think we disagree on that. I’m sure there are some GMs that operate that way. I just think it’s foolish for the long term health of the team. These are teams worth hundreds of millions of dollars being managed temporarily by someone making a paltry fraction of that amount and (ostensibly) prioritizing that over the franchise.

Going back to Nylander, yes, you are probably right that he’s going to end up with a max term deal. I just wouldn’t be the one offering it. I think things will change once more GMs refuse to give out max term deals to post-apex players. I think there will be a tipping point.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I kind of hate rules that protect the GMs from themselves to be honest.

Nobody forcing them to sign 8 year deals. If the GMs wouldn't give them out to 30 year old players then it wouldn't be an issue.

Let the bad GMs handcuff themselves if they want.

On the other hand though ultimately it's the fans that pay the price for those really bad decisions.

Then again, I don't see how the PA goes for anything like that without getting some big in return.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I don't kind of hate those rules... I just out and out hate them.

It's maddening... "It's not a good idea to sign a guy for more then 6 years!" Ok... don't sign a guy for more then six years then, problem solved. "But then someone else will get him!"... So? If it's a bad idea then let someone else make that mistake.

Why are so many people so eager to create rules (and lose hockey via lock-out) for the sole purpose of allowing hockey orgs to continue to employ people who don't have sound enough decision making to do the job? It's silly.

You know what, you're probably right.

Teams should set rules like this internally and over time they would probably be miles ahead of other teams, cap wise and asset wise.

I wish one rule the Flames had internally was:

Don't trade draft picks for players, only trade players for draft picks.


If you're drafting and development is on point you would be a perennial powerhouse.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I don’t even think we disagree on that. I’m sure there are some GMs that operate that way. I just think it’s foolish for the long term health of the team. These are teams worth hundreds of millions of dollars being managed temporarily by someone making a paltry fraction of that amount and (ostensibly) prioritizing that over the franchise.

Going back to Nylander, yes, you are probably right that he’s going to end up with a max term deal. I just wouldn’t be the one offering it. I think things will change once more GMs refuse to give out max term deals to post-apex players. I think there will be a tipping point.

The best thing for the long term health of a club is to be a Stanley cup contender and win a cup. If an UFA helps you be that for 4 years then it is worth it. That’s why I don’t think there will be any tipping point. It is just very hard to become a contender and there is a still a considerable amount of kick involved.
Rangers picked 1st and 2nd overall but most of their core pieces came via trade or UFA. Laf and Kakko aren’t doing much.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

You know what, you're probably right.

Teams should set rules like this internally and over time they would probably be miles ahead of other teams, cap wise and asset wise.

I wish one rule the Flames had internally was:

Don't trade draft picks for players, only trade players for draft picks.


If you're drafting and development is on point you would be a perennial powerhouse.

My other rule for the Flames would be basically stay away from signing players that weren’t drafted or traded for. Lose out on the odd guy like Tanev and Markstrom but at least they’d avoid all the other bombs that we saw with Tre.