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

[TheScorpion]

This is very very funny, this whole string of posts. Ridiculous, but hilarious. I call it, 'Ridarious'.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Hey just following the definition set out by a NHL GM.

Boston kept Loui Eriksson who would have had more value in a trade than Hudler or Russell . The reason Boston GM Sweeney gave was that Eriksson was their own playoff rental. link

At the trading deadline Boston was 1 pt ahead of the Islanders. What is the difference between the NYI keeping UFA's that they are not likely to sign and Boston keeping Eriksson as their own rental player?

I guess it seems to me like Sweeney is misusing the term. Doesn't the term rental imply a player who is moving teams? An actual transaction has taken place, and the player being moved is a 'rental' for the new team if he is a pending FA. Retaining a final-year player through to UFA does not make them a 'rental' in the final months of their contracts imo.

I read Sweeney as saying 'we don't need a rental, we have opted to keep Eriksson', he's just playing on words. Definitely doesn't sound like Boston is going to re-sign Eriksson does it

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

This is very very funny, this whole string of posts. Ridiculous, but hilarious. I call it, 'Ridarious'.

And then you go ahead and ruin it.

[albertGQ]

You can look at it both ways. Lets say the Bruins could have gotten a 1st rounder for Eriksson. So Eriksson = 1st rounder.

The Bruins decided to keep Erkisson instead of trading him for a 1st rounder. Thus, they gave up a 1st rounder in order to retain Eriksson's services after TDL

Is it a leap? Perhaps. But not too much of one IMO. They chose Eriksson over a 1st round pick

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Wow, I have been getting UFAs all wrong with this new definition. Burke rented an amazing UFA in Cammy! Benning is brilliant in bringing in Vrbata and Hamhuis at no cost!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

You can look at it both ways. Lets say the Bruins could have gotten a 1st rounder for Eriksson. So Eriksson = 1st rounder.

The Bruins decided to keep Erkisson instead of trading him for a 1st rounder. Thus, they gave up a 1st rounder in order to retain Eriksson's services after TDL

Is it a leap? Perhaps. But not too much of one IMO. They chose Eriksson over a 1st round pick

Right, all that is good except for using the term 'rental'. They're just opting to keep Eriksson, but that doesn't mean they're renting him, they're retaining him. He is a "Retainer".

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

You can look at it both ways. Lets say the Bruins could have gotten a 1st rounder for Eriksson. So Eriksson = 1st rounder.

The Bruins decided to keep Erkisson instead of trading him for a 1st rounder. Thus, they gave up a 1st rounder in order to retain Eriksson's services after TDL

Is it a leap? Perhaps. But not too much of one IMO. They chose Eriksson over a 1st round pick

It's a big leap. Litterally the difference between selling and buying.

Acquiring another 1st round pick for example for an existing asset, or more appropriately, forgoing the opportunity to acquire a second 1st round pick by not trading away an expiring contract, is very very different than giving up your existing 1st round pick for an expiring contract.

[MrMastodonFarm]

It's a Luigi in Mario Bros 2 leap.

[Strange Brew]

I don't get the Ricardo, or any individual posters hate in general. It's fun reading diverging opinions.

I think Ricardo is fully right in one point: the return on Hudler looks very solid right now. Better than I thought.

As for future trades. Well if BT builds a reputation for fleecing guys in trades, I suppose that may make future trades more difficult. Seems like that's a good problem to have.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Came to this thread to say...Ricardo....you da man!

I dont agree with you most of the time but I love how you get people worked up.

PhD in Trollology. Or maybe people on CP are just too horny to correct people and care too much what some other person wants to post on a forum.

I feel like ricardo is subtly teaching people on here art of having opinions and not caring what people think.

Also I agree with Itse. Ricardo isnt doing anything but posting his thoughts. Its the other users who come home after a bad day and want to take their frustrations out on the forums resident wind up merchant by basically 'OMG HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT' 'HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT'.

News flash.. People think and say a lot of ridiculous crap or simply things that you wont agree with both online and in real life. Come to terms with it.

I had someone pick up their child and their small dog at the dog park and threaten to call the cops on me because my perfectly trained 10 year old 'dangerous breed' dog according to her has a "brain too big for its skull"...and "locking jaws" so it could snap at any moment and eat her child and dog.

So I giggled and continued my walk.

Dont be so sensitive to other peoples opinions.

I love you ricardo!

[Huntingwhale]

Ricardo is actually one of my favourite posters on all of CP

[DazzlinDino]

I love ricardodw's posts. Just when you think the partly line has him cornered he comes out looking like Clint Eastwood with guns blazing and a scowl on his face ready to take on the seasoned gang. I don't agree with everything he says but I like the way he makes you look at it again!

For what it is worth, we don't live in a fish bowl so I don't think Hudler's performance will ave much bearing on other GM's. Some players work better in some situations and not as well in others.

[Point Blank]

Can we just go back to talking about Hudler please?

[FireGilbert]

I just wanted to add I agree with the concept that not trading an UFA you do not intend to re-sign is pretty much the same as a rental.

If even said for Glencross that if the Flames didn't trade him it wouldn't be a big deal because he could be considered a rental for the playoff run. In hindsight that would have been a very bad move though.

Also, Cammy was bad asset management and Hudler was great asset management as the Flames were no where near the playoffs and did not need a rental in those cases.

[Chingas]

I can't see Hudler going without a contract next year. I would bet that 30 teams would be all over a 2x2 million dollar deal. Maybe he doesn't agree to that. The number of teams interested would decrease as the dollar and length goes up, but he is unquestionably an Nhl player next year.

The two caveates would be a) Hudler chooses to retire (unlikely imo) and b) he gets a much larger offer from the KHL.

I don't think the notion that he will become Glencross take two is likley at all.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Exactly. It's just like when puckluck would turn threads into puckluck threads, and moon would turn threads into moon threads

Posters like them don't seem to realize it's not their opinion we have a problem with, it's how they deliver those opinions

puckluck was the first person I put on ignore here. He just had a way of going for blood.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

I just wanted to add I agree with the concept that not trading an UFA you do not intend to re-sign is pretty much the same as a rental.

The problem with the concept is that it is only "pretty much the same" in a specific, limited context, and is not at all the same otherwise. It is not relevant when determining how well "rentals" work out for the team acquiring them, because of the very, very obvious and inarguable difference between keeping a known quantity on your team, that the other players have already played with and the coaches have coached for an extended period, and who is familiar with the systems, culture, and team; and bringing in a player from another organization, with whom (if you are lucky) a few players on your team have previously played, or coaches have coached, and who is unlikely to have more than a general knowledge of your systems and team culture.

If someone wants to argue there's a cost involved in keeping an asset that will expire that may be equal to acquiring an asset that will also expire,that's a fair argument. If someone wants to argue that we should evaluate how rentals play for their new teams by including and comparing them to "rentals" that already played for their teams, they are making a terrible argument and should be mocked, if not mercilessly, at least vehemently.

PS: It's also not "the same" in the area of cap management. Or roster management. Or that spending picks to get is not the same as receiving picks to give. The similarities are far outnumbered by the dissimilarities, really.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

puckluck was the first person I put on ignore here. He just had a way of going for blood.

How well did that ignore feature work for you when he proposed we trade our 1st in 2013 for Chris Stewart?

Until there's a feature that cleans up all of the posts that are 'quoting' the guy you've got on ignore, I don't think I'll bother with it.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Chingas

I can't see Hudler going without a contract next year. I would bet that 30 teams would be all over a 2x2 million dollar deal. Maybe he doesn't agree to that. The number of teams interested would decrease as the dollar and length goes up, but he is unquestionably an Nhl player next year.

The two caveates would be a) Hudler chooses to retire (unlikely imo) and b) he gets a much larger offer from the KHL.

I don't think the notion that he will become Glencross take two is likley at all.

Neither do I. I doubt Hudler gets a good contract after a season like this, however, I'm sure teams will see some value in him. Rather than signing in the KHL, he might sign a shorter "prove yourself" contract in hopes of cashing in the NHL a year or two later.

Unlike Glencross, Hudler has remained relatively healthy for the whole of his career. He's also been quite consistent in terms of production of the past while. Who knows, maybe he'll be like Stempniak and Cammy as he finds a rather large role on a weaker team.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

How well did that ignore feature work for you when he proposed we trade our 1st in 2013 for Chris Stewart?

Until there's a feature that cleans up all of the posts that are 'quoting' the guy you've got on ignore, I don't think I'll bother with it.

I feel the same way everytime someone quotes TheScorpion. First poster that I've ever decided in going on 14 years on this site that their input was something I'd rather go without seeing.