Ongoing Minor Trades Thread

[Cambam8]

Good old hockey trade.....

To Nashville: Jake Debrusk

To St. Louis: Scott Laughton

[Cambam8]

To NSH : pick 133

To FLA: Noel Acciari

Didn't mind parting with Acciari for Pick 133, opens up more cap space to bring back Malkin.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Minny would look at dealing 36 for a later 2nd and a 3rd.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Minny would look at dealing 36 for a later 2nd and a 3rd.

Wrong thread Noob.

[Jiri Hrdina]

well ####.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

To Calgary

Ben bishop
Top 15 1st in 2022
2.5 mill this year and next

To Nashville

James Reimer

Team is still not ready to contend but with some cap relief and a top pick we felt it was worth it to take on Ben and his over $14 million buy out. We will hope for a half decent rerate of individual attributes or a bounce back nhl season. Regardless this makes 9 firsts in 2022 again so hopefully will be able to contend shortly after that. This year looks more like a rebuilding season for the squad.

[Jiri Hrdina]

That condition worries me. Not easy to acquire top 15 picks

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

That condition worries me. Not easy to acquire top 15 picks

This is a condition that I've only seen in this league. It's fairly uncontrollable. Since Calgary holds a third of the 1sts for that season, it really reduces the available trade partners to acquire that pick. I suppose worst case scenario, a player would have to go the other way that would have that value, but that puts the ball directly in the court of Calgary.

I'm not necessarily against the existence of this condition, but it seems potentially problematic to the one owing it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Generally we've avoided restrictions that could reduce trading but I'm increasingly wondering if we should bar conditional 1sts being traded. For the 2nd round and beyond it seems like problematic but those 1sts - yeesh.

[agulati]

Maybe have a limit on how many can be traded for or by a team? It isn’t a problem till it becomes one. The league probably (and rightfully so) wants to have a balance between not limiting creativity in moves and impacting the resolution of said moves.

If a new GM were to come in control of a team with many such conditions, it can be quite problematic. There is already a learning curve as it is, and then having to resolve these moves as a newbie would suck.

[TheScorpion]

I've traded conditional 1sts at a greater rate than anyone in this league, at times when my team was far less asset-rich than it is now. Never had any difficulty fulfilling a single condition, but I do think it could be smart to limit things officially, perhaps to one owed pick per round per year.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Generally we've avoided restrictions that could reduce trading but I'm increasingly wondering if we should bar conditional 1sts being traded. For the 2nd round and beyond it seems like problematic but those 1sts - yeesh.

I get the rationale to get rid of trading 1sts you don't own but have we ever in CPHL history have anyone that did not meet a condition? Lot's of way to meet that IMO. Find one, have it waived as part of a future deal, send a package of picks that are equivalent, send a player equivalent...

Like agulati said, I don't think it's an issue until it becomes one.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

I get the rationale to get rid of trading 1sts you don't own but have we ever in CPHL history have anyone that did not meet a condition? Lot's of way to meet that IMO. Find one, have it waived as part of a future deal, send a package of picks that are equivalent, send a player equivalent...

Like agulati said, I don't think it's an issue until it becomes one.

A few years ago we had a situation where the league had to intervene because a condition wasn't being met. But it has been pretty limited.
My concerns are largely that if a GM with tough to meet conditions leaves - basically creates a terrible situation for an incoming GM.
In this case I'm specifically concern because of the fact it's a top 15 in a draft where one GM already owns 9 of the picks.

[MJK]

I get it...he leaves...or gets fired (again)!

[TurdFerguson]

While I think this particular condition may be pretty hard to fill, but I'm confident that the Preds will be able to satisfy this somehow. the price might be silly but that's the risk he's taking, I guess.

Potentially damaging to a franchise overall asset base (which is bad for the league) but no more then any other single-trade could be for a GM that is not being reviewed anymore.

[Knut]

I think a bigger issue is trading of 2023 picks. I think you should only be able to deal for the next years picks or IOUs in the next season. Limiting it to only the round is a good thing as well.

There are so many asset poor teams here whose only desired assets (to acquire good players) are picks two years from now. It just drives them deeper into the hole.

When i joined Columbus my team was last place, i had very few prospects and I had zero 2021/2022 picks. The team was so over-leveraged with not much to show for it.

It will be at least 3 seasons before I would be able to make enough trades and signings to even have a sniff of the playoffs (short of magic sim chemistry).

Honestly, it is a real issue with the league when 5 teams hold the majority of the picks and top prospects.

[agulati]

Agreed. It is not good for the viability of the league if few teams control the first round. It’s absolutely bonkers that 1/3 of the first round next year is controlled by one team. Great moves by Calgary, for sure, to get them.

Not sure if it is viable for competitiveness though.

[TurdFerguson]

I don't see the issue with a GM concentrating his assets in a part of his system. How is having a bunch of 1st rounder's different then a stacked ECHL or a stacked RFA roster?

Is one more harmful to the league then the other? I'd argue there is more risk in collecting picks over more-proven commodities.

Dont want someone to collect all these 1sts? Don't trade them to him.

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by Knut

I think a bigger issue is trading of 2023 picks. I think you should only be able to deal for the next years picks or IOUs in the next season. Limiting it to only the round is a good thing as well.

There are so many asset poor teams here whose only desired assets (to acquire good players) are picks two years from now. It just drives them deeper into the hole.

When i joined Columbus my team was last place, i had very few prospects and I had zero 2021/2022 picks. The team was so over-leveraged with not much to show for it.

It will be at least 3 seasons before I would be able to make enough trades and signings to even have a sniff of the playoffs (short of magic sim chemistry).

Honestly, it is a real issue with the league when 5 teams hold the majority of the picks and top prospects.

The problem is not many GMs want to play the long-game. Look at the loaded franchises and you'll see GMs that have been in place for years building or GMs that just took over from a long-time GM.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of limiting the trading of picks in future years. To me they feel like pay day loans. Sure, you get a bump immediately but you're worse off in the long-term. It can certainly contribute to a growing divergence in asset values amongst teams.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

I don't see the issue with a GM concentrating his assets in a part of his system. How is having a bunch of 1st rounder's different then a stacked ECHL or a stacked RFA roster?

Is one more harmful to the league then the other? I'd argue there is more risk in collecting picks over more-proven commodities.

Dont want someone to collect all these 1sts? Don't trade them to him.

To be fair to Ravi. He took over a low asset team in Calgary and gathering picks is a way to increase franchise value.