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

[Hackey]

[AC]

Quick Hudler interview about Jagr:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/h...e-compliments/

"He told me to shut up, he doesn't like the compliments".

[mikephoen]

Interesting debate between Jay Random and Enoch Root, two of my favorite posters.

I'm going to score it in favor of Jay Random for two reasons. 1. Enoch got a little bit snarky toward the end and 2. Jay used the word 'picayune'. I had to look that one up.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Would almost be interesting to see a re-run on the votes after all the trades (and especially for me, the non-trades) went down.

I did expect more for Hudler - and I still think that once he gets a bit comfortable in Florida, he will be looked upon as such as I think he will produce nicely.

However, the trades were really up and down. It seems that a few teams who went after a certain player perhaps paid a premium (Ladd), while others got a bit of a bargain as the player they targeted didn't attract as many bidders. Market seemed really flat.

With that in mind, I was underwhelmed a bit with the trade itself, but taking in the market, I think Treliving did well on the trade. Hudler was obviously not going to attract any more attention this deadline, and perhaps the value would have gone down if anything.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Beer sales can sure as hell tell the difference between a good economy and a bad one. It isn't the team's record that is damaging the bottom line this season, but the fans' disposable income.



Yes, and what they are is declining – in ancillary, day-to-day matters first; next year, probably, where it will really hurt, in season-ticket sales. This makes the owners particularly keen not to take on unnecessary expense. They will therefore be reluctant to retain salary on trades, even if they have no actual policy against it. Which was my whole damned point to begin with.



Which is why hedging is irrelevant in this context. I was arguing against Enoch Root's claim that all the team's financial worries were solved by hedging. Hedging can't solve a crappy economy.

Without commenting on the overall discussion between you and Enoch (and I don't want to enter the fray!), I just wanted to chime in on this one point.

I am not sure you are right about the Flames being unwilling in retaining salary. Perhaps on a long-term deal, you may be right, but I don't think they would have balked at any salary retention in the deadline deals.

For instance, the Jones trade. They agreed to take back Backstrom - he is highly paid, and hasn't played this year yet. One could argue that in essence, they traded cap space for a pick. David Jones would have probably added more to the team for the rest of the season than what Backstrom is likely to do, but the agreed to take him to assure themselves of the extra 6th round pick. One could argue it is akin to 100% retention on David Jones.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

For instance, the Jones trade. They agreed to take back Backstrom - he is highly paid, and hasn't played this year yet. One could argue that in essence, they traded cap space for a pick. David Jones would have probably added more to the team for the rest of the season than what Backstrom is likely to do, but the agreed to take him to assure themselves of the extra 6th round pick. One could argue it is akin to 100% retention on David Jones.

There is much in what you say. However, it does look as if Hartley actually is thinking of letting Backstrom play, which suggests that his confidence in the other goalies is at absolute zero. So not quite the same as 100% retention.

This I do believe, though: With cheap oil and the resulting economic uncertainty, the owners probably wouldn't want to be retaining any salary beyond the end of the current season. And I believe they were especially keen to save a few bucks by unloading those contracts at the deadline, because this would be a terrible time for the team to make a cash call.

If I'm in their shoes, I look at the Jones trade and say: ‘Well, we don't actually save any money by making this deal, but we do get a draft pick and it doesn't cost us anything out of pocket. Since the alternative is no deal and pay the same money to Jones… meh, whatever.’

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There is much in what you say. However, it does look as if Hartley actually is thinking of letting Backstrom play, which suggests that his confidence in the other goalies is at absolute zero. So not quite the same as 100% retention.

This I do believe, though: With cheap oil and the resulting economic uncertainty, the owners probably wouldn't want to be retaining any salary beyond the end of the current season. And I believe they were especially keen to save a few bucks by unloading those contracts at the deadline, because this would be a terrible time for the team to make a cash call.

If I'm in their shoes, I look at the Jones trade and say: ‘Well, we don't actually save any money by making this deal, but we do get a draft pick and it doesn't cost us anything out of pocket. Since the alternative is no deal and pay the same money to Jones… meh, whatever.’

So they are cool with a trade that doesn't save them any money (in order to get a pick).

But they wouldn't be cool with a trade that did save them money, just less money, in order to get a better pick? (retaining some of Hudler's salary to improve the return)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Would almost be interesting to see a re-run on the votes after all the trades (and especially for me, the non-trades) went down.

I did expect more for Hudler - and I still think that once he gets a bit comfortable in Florida, he will be looked upon as such as I think he will produce nicely.

However, the trades were really up and down. It seems that a few teams who went after a certain player perhaps paid a premium (Ladd), while others got a bit of a bargain as the player they targeted didn't attract as many bidders. Market seemed really flat.

With that in mind, I was underwhelmed a bit with the trade itself, but taking in the market, I think Treliving did well on the trade. Hudler was obviously not going to attract any more attention this deadline, and perhaps the value would have gone down if anything.

Yeah, I was kind of hoping for a thread to vote on and assess the deadline in the aggregate.

Like you, I wasn't thrilled with the Hudler return, but Treliving said he thought the market for forwards would weaken and he turned out to be absolutely dead on. You have to give him credit for that, and in hindsight, it improves the look of the trade.

Then add on the Russell homerun, and IMO, Treliving at least gets an A, and I think he wins the deadline from the sell side (with Chicago winning the buy side and overall).

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So they are cool with a trade that doesn't save them any money (in order to get a pick).

But they wouldn't be cool with a trade that did save them money, just less money, in order to get a better pick? (retaining some of Hudler's salary to improve the return)

I think the difference may be that the Jones trade wasn't there unles they took salary back. So it's a question of do nothing vs. make the trade. Both decisions were economically about the same. In your Hudler scenario they are economically worse off by retaining salary. If that was even on the table.

I agree with your assessment of the Hudler trade. I was mildly disappointed in the return but it did look like the market for forwards was moving away from them. I give BT an A minus. An A for the Russell trade and a B for Hudler since ultimately there were other, somewhat comparable forwards moved for a better return.

In total, I think selling is easier than buying. I want to see what he can do in building vs. tearing down.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think the difference may be that the Jones trade wasn't there unles they took salary back. So it's a question of do nothing vs. make the trade. Both decisions were economically about the same. In your Hudler scenario they are economically worse off by retaining salary. If that was even in the table.

I agree with your assessment of the Hudler trade. I was mildly disappointed in the return but it did look like the market for forwards was moving away from them. I give BT an A minus. An A for the Russell trade and a B for Hudler since ultimately there were other, somewhat comparable forwards moved for a better return.

In total, I think selling is easier than buying. I want to see what he can do in building vs. tearing down.

I agree with you. But I'm not sure Benning does!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree with you. But I'm not sure Benning does!

Benning has shown buying is equally as difficult for him as selling.

[ricardodw]

Very likely the Hudler era is over in Florida.

They have to be very disappointed in both Hudler (2nd and 4th) and Purcell (3rd)

Not quite the total playoff rental fail as Glencross, but pretty darn close. The Panthers were not very deep with only 3 lines and Hudler had the opportunity to play himself into a much larger role and just couldn't do it.

Hard to imagine Hudler getting the 4M he was making with the Flames. Will be interesting what happens with him in the UFA market.

Thank goodness Russell is meeting or exceeding expectations or the other GMs might start devaluing Flames UFA rentals.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Very likely the Hudler era is over in Florida.

They have to be very disappointed in both Hudler (2nd and 4th) and Purcell (3rd)

Not quite the total playoff rental fail as Glencross, but pretty darn close. The Panthers were not very deep with only 3 lines and Hudler had the opportunity to play himself into a much larger role and just couldn't do it.

Hard to imagine Hudler getting the 4M he was making with the Flames. Will be interesting what happens with him in the UFA market.

Thank goodness Russell is meeting or exceeding expectations or the other GMs might start devaluing Flames UFA rentals.

I don't think it's hard to imagine at all. Hurler maintained his typical pace this year, he'll likely take home 4M.

Overall, silly, terrible post.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Thank goodness Russell is meeting or exceeding expectations or the other GMs might start devaluing Flames UFA rentals.

Good gravy. Do you actually believe this?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Good gravy. Do you actually believe this?

We should trade for a GM who is not so good at trades. That will fix things, ugh.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Very likely the Hudler era is over in Florida.

They have to be very disappointed in both Hudler (2nd and 4th) and Purcell (3rd)

Not quite the total playoff rental fail as Glencross, but pretty darn close. The Panthers were not very deep with only 3 lines and Hudler had the opportunity to play himself into a much larger role and just couldn't do it.

Hard to imagine Hudler getting the 4M he was making with the Flames. Will be interesting what happens with him in the UFA market.

Thank goodness Russell is meeting or exceeding expectations or the other GMs might start devaluing Flames UFA rentals.

There isn't a single accurate statement in this entire post. Well done sir, you've out-Ricardo'd yourself.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

There isn't a single accurate statement in this entire post. Well done sir, you've out-Ricardo'd yourself.

What's your assessment of Hudler, Cali? As someone who has watched him both at his peak last year, and on both teams this season, I'm interested in your comments.

[nik-]

ricardo strikes again

[Weitz]

Doesn't Hudler only playing 11:20 in a double overtime elimination game last night mean anything? Only Sean Thornten played less.

Or was he injured?

[JJ1532]

I think for ricardo, this isn't all that unfair.

Hudler and Purcell were added for depth going into a play off run. Last night, Gallant barely used them, choosing instead to heavily ice his top 2 lines. They managed 3 points in 5 games between them. I agree that I think Hudlers lack of impact with the Panthers(and the fact that he was sat on the 3rd line in the end) will hurt his position in free agency. I don't see teams lining up to sign him and I think in the end, he will struggle to command a decent salary. He looks like a declining asset that couldn't even crack the Panthers top 6. You don't pay $4m+ for a guy that you aren't even sure can make your top 6.

As for other GMs devaluing our rentals, that is rubbish.