View Poll Results: What do you think of the trade after a week of getting your head around it?
|
Love it, think Lucic is an upgrade
|
|
109 |
16.80% |
Like it, clears some cap space even if Lucic is no better
|
|
197 |
30.35% |
Indifferent, both teams getting a failed project
|
|
187 |
28.81% |
Dislike it, Neal needed another year to bounce back
|
|
107 |
16.49% |
Hate it, Neal will be better in Edmonton
|
|
49 |
7.55% |
04-07-2020, 04:55 PM
|
#3741
|
Not the 1 millionth post winnar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rando
There are endless amount of "unfair" things due to this shutdown. All those teams that spent picks on rental potentially ending up with nothing. The league isn't going to waste one second on this stuff. The conditions weren't meet, end of story.
|
How do you feel if you were active at the trade deadline with rentals? Sorry, not going to revise those trades either.
The season is over. Nobody won. Everyone lost. Focus on the next one.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 04:58 PM
|
#3742
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
At least the Flames got a better forward than the one they had for less money.
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 05:08 PM
|
#3743
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Indiana
|
I don't think there is much of an issue, and if trades are anything like contracts, it's pretty obvious that the Flames won't get the pick.
Honestly, it would be pretty ridiculous to basically change in the condition in a matter that is favorable to the Flames.
Neal could have easily become sick/injured and missed the rest of the season. The only difference between that and Corona is foreseeability, which I don't believe matters.
Last edited by 1qqaaz; 04-07-2020 at 05:10 PM.
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 05:19 PM
|
#3744
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1qqaaz
I don't think there is much of an issue, and if trades are anything like contracts, it's pretty obvious that the Flames won't get the pick.
Honestly, it would be pretty ridiculous to basically change in the condition in a matter that is favorable to the Flames.
Neal could have easily become sick/injured and missed the rest of the season. The only difference between that and Corona is foreseeability, which I don't believe matters.
|
They wouldn't be changing it they would be pro-rating...I guarantee you players will be pro-rating for their arbitration cases, contract discussions ect.
If the season is cancelled there will be a lot of debate about this and other deals...If we are just gonna pretend the season ended normally are all the teams that traded picks for players at the deadline SOL?
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-07-2020, 05:33 PM
|
#3745
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1qqaaz
I don't think there is much of an issue, and if trades are anything like contracts, it's pretty obvious that the Flames won't get the pick.
|
I would be very surprised if player stats aren't prorated for the purposes of calculating performance bonuses. After the 2012 lockout, all performance bonuses were based on prorated stats. I don't see any reason why the same wouldn't happen for this season.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-07-2020, 06:33 PM
|
#3746
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1qqaaz
I don't think there is much of an issue, and if trades are anything like contracts, it's pretty obvious that the Flames won't get the pick.
Honestly, it would be pretty ridiculous to basically change in the condition in a matter that is favorable to the Flames.
Neal could have easily become sick/injured and missed the rest of the season. The only difference between that and Corona is foreseeability, which I don't believe matters.
|
No, if a player is sick and doesn't finish the season, the season still played out. The contract said 21 goals during the season. If he is injured and never played, he didn't get 21 goals during the season. Contract term expires, end of story.
However, if there isn't a full season, that is a completely different thing. I am not saying that it will be pro-rated (we'll have to wait and see), but the challenge is that the contract term is not complete. Very different than a condition not being met.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-07-2020, 06:48 PM
|
#3747
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: winnipeg
|
going to be a lots of pissed off players that are say at 19 goals and get a bonus if they get 20 if thats the way the NHL is ruling.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Burner For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-07-2020, 07:21 PM
|
#3748
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Northern Crater
|
It's all good. The Oilers need that pick to console them over the fact that their once every ten year playoff appearance was ruined. Honestly, the fact that the Oilers had their season cancelled takes the sting out it for sure. It's not like we were going to make noise in the playoffs and now they definately can't. Enjoy that 3rd boys. Make a ####ing banner.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 07:26 PM
|
#3749
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix
It's all good. The Oilers need that pick to console them over the fact that their once every ten year playoff appearance was ruined. Honestly, the fact that the Oilers had their season cancelled takes the sting out it for sure. It's not like we were going to make noise in the playoffs and now they definately can't. Enjoy that 3rd boys. Make a ####ing banner.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
|
No, you're doing it wrong.
Screw them and their once-in-a-decade playoff appearance, for sure. But also, force them to give us our 3rd round pick. Because, #### them.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-07-2020, 07:33 PM
|
#3750
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
I would be very surprised if player stats aren't prorated for the purposes of calculating performance bonuses. After the 2012 lockout, all performance bonuses were based on prorated stats. I don't see any reason why the same wouldn't happen for this season.
|
That’s because it was agreed upon before the shortened season started.
Huge difference.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 07:39 PM
|
#3751
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
|
There's no precedent for changing a trade's conditions mid-season.
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 07:44 PM
|
#3752
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
^ by that same token, there's also no modern precedent for an NHL season ending part-way through the schedule.
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 08:20 PM
|
#3753
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
No, if a player is sick and doesn't finish the season, the season still played out. The contract said 21 goals during the season. If he is injured and never played, he didn't get 21 goals during the season. Contract term expires, end of story.
However, if there isn't a full season, that is a completely different thing. I am not saying that it will be pro-rated (we'll have to wait and see), but the challenge is that the contract term is not complete. Very different than a condition not being met.
|
Another option is to give both teams the 3rd round pick. Teams that traded picks for pending UFAs players near the trade deadline also get to keep their picks, but the teams that received the picks also keep them. It would be mean a lot more draft picks at the draft but maybe the most fair. It would be straight forward and would require a lot of negotation so probably wouldn't happen.
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 08:23 PM
|
#3754
|
Franchise Player
|
If Neal got suspended for 20 games would we get the pick? Nope. If he got injured would we get the pick? Nope
This is somewhere between a Suspension and an Injury. I think you read the conditions in the pick as written.
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 08:30 PM
|
#3755
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeway
There's no precedent for changing a trade's conditions mid-season.
|
There's no precedent for cancelling a season with 3 weeks left either.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-07-2020, 08:34 PM
|
#3756
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
If Neal got suspended for 20 games would we get the pick? Nope. If he got injured would we get the pick? Nope
This is somewhere between a Suspension and an Injury. I think you read the conditions in the pick as written.
|
I see absolutely no connection between the current situation and a suspension or injury. Those things are part of hockey, they're completely individualized circumstances, and they have no bearing on the season playing out to its full expected duration.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-07-2020, 08:55 PM
|
#3757
|
Franchise Player
|
If a player gets suspended they don't get to pro-rate numbers for bonuses or arbitration.
A season ending suddenly like this is unprecedented. This trade and many others will be looked at. Teams haven't even played the same number of games they can't just say season over sorry you missed your 1M bonus by one point but hey you might have got injured or suspended anyway.
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 09:14 PM
|
#3758
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burner
going to be a lots of pissed off players that are say at 19 goals and get a bonus if they get 20 if thats the way the NHL is ruling.
|
If the NHL does pro-rate, it'll be opening a big can of worms since it's all hypothetical. A criteria that wasn't close to be fulfilled, could be argued then because they could have very well actually fulfill it with the remaining games that were on tap. Just like it wasn't a guarantee that those close to the mark, would actually reach it.
I think that since the mark wasn't reached, it shouldn't be awarded. It's impossible to know for certain that it was going to be done. I wonder how the legal wording for these conditions is written. Does it specify it's under the definition of a 82 game season be completed?
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 10:04 PM
|
#3759
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Oct 2018
Exp:
|
Why dont they try something like reverse pro rating? Rather then saying with an extra 10ish games they were on pace to score xx amount of goals/points. Why don't they say, you currently have a pace of xx, and the reverse prorated rate over that same 70 games would be equivalent to.
I guess as an example. Player A gets bonus at 20 goals over 82 games. Currently played 70 games and has 18 goals on the season. 20 goals over the course of a season is a .244 goals per game pace. They then take a look at what they have already done, so they arent predicting future performances. So when they look at 18 goals over 70 games, they get a goals per game pace of .257. Therefore Player A outperformed his bonuses and is due. The same thing can be applied to trades. Ultimately it makes no difference however it seems some of you guys are going crazy saying you can't predict the future. Blah blah blah. So, way I see it, terms were made under the impression of a full season, so pro-rate the terms.
Anyway, my two cents.
|
|
|
04-07-2020, 10:16 PM
|
#3760
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
If the NHL does pro-rate, it'll be opening a big can of worms since it's all hypothetical. A criteria that wasn't close to be fulfilled, could be argued then because they could have very well actually fulfill it with the remaining games that were on tap. Just like it wasn't a guarantee that those close to the mark, would actually reach it.
I think that since the mark wasn't reached, it shouldn't be awarded. It's impossible to know for certain that it was going to be done. I wonder how the legal wording for these conditions is written. Does it specify it's under the definition of a 82 game season be completed?
|
That is why you pro-rate...a criteria that wasn't close to fulfilled has no argument.
They would be willing to pro-rate the standings if they could sqeeze in playoffs. Do your really think the Yotes are just gonna lose all they gave up for Hall and he becomes a UFA as soon as the NHL deems the season over? I don't.
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:40 PM.
|
|