[Trade] Hudler traded to Florida for 2016 2nd + 2018 4th round picks

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

He got the best return he could. He didn't have a NTC to deal with, he wasn't worried about making a rival stronger. He called everyone and took the best offer. How is that hard to understand? It's not like someone was offering him more and he said "nah, I want less".

Assessments of guys running the NHL teams is what matters in the end.

It's like BT said, you want to sell your house for a huge profit but it's only worth what people are willing to pay for it.

"He got the best deal he could" is a silly, empty argument.

By that logic, every trade is a good return (because every trader got the best return they could).

Feaster got "the best return he could" for Iginla. etc.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Well, because of posts like this:




Why is so hard to understand that some of us are wondering why people think this was a bad trade? I have no idea how many of these posts there are in this thread, I just know I clicked random pages and found one on my second attempt.

Lol that Flames4ever guy is an Oilers fan and troll (or Canucks? I can't remember).

I wouldn't use that post as an example of anything. Just FYI

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

"He got the best deal he could" is a silly, empty argument.

By that logic, every trade is a good return (because every trader got the best return they could).

Feaster got "the best return he could" for Iginla. etc.

Hmm no. This is a trade for a pick. When you trade a player for player then you can debate if player A would've been better then player B. In this case did he have bubble teams offering him a earlier 2nd? no, did he contenders offering a last 1st no?

Treiliving clrealy said the return might get worse by Monday that's why he pulled the trigger. His opinion, he's the one making decisions. He made a judgement call.

I'm not one of those people that rags Feaster for the Iginla trade. He could've done better in Boumeester trade but for Iggy, he clearly only wanted to go to Pittsburgh. Trade him there or lose him nothing. Sure he could have held on for longer and potentially get a better or worse value from Pittsburgh. We'll never know. Btw, I'm very high on Agostino still so hopefully it's a good trade in Flames history.

Let me ask you though, what would've been a sufficient return?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Hmm no. This is a trade for a pick. When you trade a player for player then you can debate if player A would've been better then player B. In this case did he have bubble teams offering him a earlier 2nd? no, did he contenders offering a last 1st no?

Treiliving clrealy said the return might get worse by Monday that's why he pulled the trigger. His opinion, he's the one making decisions. He made a judgement call.

I'm not one of those people that rags Feaster for the Iginla trade. He could've done better in Boumeester trade but for Iggy, he clearly only wanted to go to Pittsburgh. Trade him there or lose him nothing. Sure he could have held on for longer and potentially get a better or worse value from Pittsburgh. We'll never know. Btw, I'm very high on Agostino still so hopefully it's a good trade in Flames history.

Let me ask you though, what would've been a sufficient return?

Yes, a trade for a player is different. But it still applies. Saying he got the best he could says it couldn't have been better. And if he waited, it might have been better.

As for what I thought would be a good trade: as I have said, it was an ok return - anything better than a 4th 2 years from now would have been fine.

I went in thinking: a 2nd and a 3rd was the line in the sand (i.e. a good return). Two 2nds would be a very good return. A 2nd and a prospect - depending on the prospect - would have been a great return.

Packaging him in a hockey trade was also a possibility.

Lots of different options. So saying 'it's the best he could have got' is kind of meaningless since we simply don't know that.

[Flash Walken]

The best type of return you can get at the deadline is a value equal to what you're looking for but comprised entirely of picks vs a mix of assets.

This is where the Flames failed so hard for so long and a key component of why Feaster was canned. I started a thread about a few years ago.

The Flames are finally on the positive end of trades consistently because they've been getting draft picks back instead of prospects or roster players.

When those picks are then at their highest value, the draft, you can cash them in for assets with lower perceived value at that point (rights to players, prospects, trade up for specific players...).

I hoppe basically no prospects come back unless they are absolute blue chippers. Give me picks and picks only.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The best type of return you can get at the deadline is a value equal to what you're looking for but comprised entirely of picks vs a mix of assets.

This is where the Flames failed so hard for so long and a key component of why Feaster was canned. I started a thread about a few years ago.

The Flames are finally on the positive end of trades consistently because they've been getting draft picks back instead of prospects or roster players.

When those picks are then at their highest value, the draft, you can cash them in for assets with lower perceived value at that point (rights to players, prospects, trade up for specific players...).

I hoppe basically no prospects come back unless they are absolute blue chippers. Give me picks and picks only.

But... a huge % of the draft never plays more then 15 games in the NHL - if you get a prospect, isn't there an argument that you know what your getting and way less risk?

[Enoch Root]

Another way they might have improved the trade would have been by retaining salary.

WPG, CAR, EDM, and maybe 1 or 2 others, all enhanced their return that way.

No reason why the Flames aren't doing it.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Another way they might have improved the trade would have been by retaining salary.

WPG, CAR, EDM, and maybe 1 or 2 others, all enhanced their return that way.

No reason why the Flames aren't doing it.

It's been an organizational mandate since the salary retention kicked in in the new CBA that the Flames will not retain salary. I'd be surprised if that changes any time soon. .

[dissentowner]

I am glad there are so many CPers talking to 29 other GM's that we know what the value of the market is right now.

[GioforPM]

It makes no sense to compare the Hudler return to any deal last year (different market) or any deal for a different position this year (winger versus defenceman). So that leaves Ladd, and that is a completely different type of player.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Another way they might have improved the trade would have been by retaining salary.

WPG, CAR, EDM, and maybe 1 or 2 others, all enhanced their return that way.

No reason why the Flames aren't doing it.

So many factors. Expiring contract or not. Who the trade partner is etc...

They all did it cuz they're trading with Chi, Pit, NYR. Teams right up against the cap. Edmonton didn't retain anything with Purcell but they did with Schultz.

Florida didn't get retention on Hudler and Purcell but did with Kindl.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dammage79

It's been an organizational mandate since the salary retention kicked in in the new CBA that the Flames will not retain salary. I'd be surprised if that changes any time soon. .

Don't think it's ever been mandated. Link if it has been please.

Bottom line is that other teams are doing it. If the Flames don't they are not maximizing their opportunities. Plain and simple.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Don't think it's ever been mandated. Link if it has been please.

Bottom line is that other teams are doing it. If the Flames don't they are not maximizing their opportunities. Plain and simple.

It's a lot more costly for Canadian teams to eat salary at this point which is a factor as well.

Calgary may have been willing to before but that might have changed in the last 6-12 months.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am glad there are so many CPers talking to 29 other GM's that we know what the value of the market is right now.

I am glad there are CPers who would rather have silent boards than interesting debate.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's a lot more costly for Canadian teams to eat salary at this point which is a factor as well.

Calgary may have been willing to before but that might have changed in the last 6-12 months.

Revenues are locked in for the season. They aren't trading for budgetary reasons. They're trading to improve the team.

We paid for 45 games in advance. Now they are weakening the product. That's fine, but they better be trying to do what's best for the team.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Revenues are locked in for the season.

But expenses are not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But expenses are not.

Expenses are declining.

WPG and CAR retained. Neff said

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Revenues are locked in for the season. They aren't trading for budgetary reasons. They're trading to improve the team.

We paid for 45 games in advance. Now they are weakening the product. That's fine, but they better be trying to do what's best for the team.

Not sure I follow the logic. How does revenues being locked, which only applies to season ticket sales (which I agree is a huge portion of revenue) change FW's point. I'm not sure if the Flames are less willing to eat salary now or not, but it certainly got more costly to do so in last 6 months. That locked revenue from season tickets is all in Canadian dollars, which is now worth way less than it was, while the teams major expense, player salaries remain in US dollars. Even if you don't factor in the lost revenues the team is surely seeing in less non season ticket sales (factor of both the economy and weak season) and reduced concession and merchandise, the Flames certainly took a huge margin and profitability hit in the last 6 months, which when discussing the teams willingness to eat salary beyond cap space is really all that matters.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Expenses are declining.

WPG and CAR retained. Neff said

How are expense declining, nothing could be further from the truth, regardless of what the Jets did.

[Enoch Root]

Currency is hedged. Or they're idiots. Which is very unlikely.