2020-21 CPHL Trade Block

[CaptainCrunch]

Sorry to cause controversy guys.


I cleared cap room so I could sign Ovie, I was more or less gauging interested in gauging interest on Ovie since I could sign him and keep him perfectly happily, or move him. I wasn't planning on submitting a trade early even if I got one in place.


Trust me when I say, I was doing this in good faith as I did have people reaching out to talk about Ovie.


Again sorry if I caused trouble.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

...but they are following the rules. They are required to have enough cap to sign their UFA. After that, they are totally free to do whatever they want with that player.

Not at all what I am saying,

Just trying to bring an end to *descriptive*deals. I have zero problem with OV being signed and traded, and I hope he is. This is not in regards to Ov

Trying to prevent a loop hole from getting exploited. The OV deal wouldn't be the deal that would be such a thing. We have very creative GM's and why wait before the damage is done. A good reason to speak up now though isn't? Or is it best to say nothing

As I got the hint, I should say nothing

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sorry to cause controversy guys.


I cleared cap room so I could sign Ovie, I was more or less gauging interested in gauging interest on Ovie since I could sign him and keep him perfectly happily, or move him. I wasn't planning on submitting a trade early even if I got one in place.


Trust me when I say, I was doing this in good faith as I did have people reaching out to talk about Ovie.


Again sorry if I caused trouble.

Not at all, nothing at all to apologize for, I was trying to look at the bigger picture and unfortunately it my mistake, I shouldn't have said anything.

[Swayze11]

I’m trying to understand what you mean. Can you give an alternative example?

[JonDuke]

Question:
Is trading rights of a UFA still not allowed?

I don't know if anyone is arguing that an official trade of a UFA isn't possible. I'm not. I think most know it'll be rejected. I'm not questioning integrity either. For me, it's more of how there's a loophole to trade away player rights without actually trading their rights.

Let's go back to my Holtby example:

If I had not released him, I could have posted that he was available (after I signed him) to guage interest. He's highly rated, so I probably get a great offer. I then do whatever I can to get enough free cap space to sign him and then flip him for those assets instead of letting him walk into free agency. I'm getting something in return nstead of nothing just like you would when signing away their rights.

If I post him as available and no one give me an offer, I let him walk. Even though I've said I would sign (and trade) him.

I think that needs to change. If I posted him as available, it means I had full intentions of signing him. Otherwise, it's basically the same as trading the player rights away, which isn't allowed right? ***If I'm wrong on this rule, lemme know as it's the whole basis of this post***

Can we get full clarification of that? I'd NEVER have released Holtby if I thought I could guage public interest and assess a return value before deciding to let him go or not. That's doesn't seem right.

Is this a solution? :
Is there any negative consequences to saying that a team who offers a UFA as a sign and trade has to sign that player (even if there's no interest) because it's essentially the same as trying to get around trading their rights?

Does that make sense or am I missing part of the big picture?

[Jiri Hrdina]

You still need the cap to sign him and to do so you would need to make other moves to rid your self of cap and players
What you are proposing is not enforceable. Just because someone doesn’t put someone on the block doesn’t mean they aren’t gauging interest via pms and other things we have no visibility into.

Moreover under your scenario someone puts a pending ufa on the block so now they have to re-sign him. What if they don’t have enough cap? It doesn’t work.

You cannot trade a players ufa rights
Once a ufa is resigned you can trade him

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You still need the cap to sign him and to do so you would need to make other moves to rid your self of cap and players
What you are proposing is not enforceable. Just because someone doesn’t put someone on the block doesn’t mean they aren’t gauging interest via pms and other things we have no visibility into.

Moreover under your scenario someone puts a pending ufa on the block so now they have to re-sign him. What if they don’t have enough cap? It doesn’t work.

You cannot trade a players ufa rights
Once a ufa is resigned you can trade him

Well I think that one should play part of the strategy of the game. I just don't think UFAs should be allowed on the block. But if that's the rule, it's the rule and I'll happily bookmark this so there's no misunderstanding next time.
Thanks for the clarification.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think I grasp the possible concern that Doug is raising
As an extreme example the blues trade a fifth round pick to the wild for 10m
The blues use that cap to resign AO
They then trade AO and the 10m back to the Wild for whatever return.

I don’t know how you create a rule that solves that except to say that it would be against the spirit of the rules and league and I would hope as a group we can all agree not to engage in those types of shenanegins. To my knowledge it has never happened but if there are examples they should be brought forward.

[TheScorpion]

Well that's 3D chess a level above anything I've ever even dreamed of. You can trust that I'm not that smart to pull something like that off LOL

[Goffie]

Thankfully this does not happen often. But when a GM makes a move that is against the spirit of the game and in an obvious attempt to circumvent the rules the commissioners have stepped in and taken appropriate action.

In this game cap ( cheese) space is a great asset. Therefore if a GM makes trades to create this space than they can take advantage and use this space to benefit their team. As long as it stays within the rules and spirit of the game.

The example Duke gave is a great example of trying to find a loop hole not in the spirit of fair play and would be dealt with accordingly.

[TheScorpion]

My defense has outgrown Anton Stralman -- he's too good to be my #4 and he makes too much for me to keep him.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Wild would trade 19+15 to move up.

[agulati]

Lightning are willing to move down from #11, but only a few spots and for two firsts

[flambers]

Coyotes have to many AHL dman, send a PM if you require one

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by agulati

Lightning are willing to move down from #11, but only a few spots and for two firsts

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Wild would trade 19+15 to move up.

Next

[devo22]

Marco Scandella (69 ov, 6.5m/1yr) is free. Obviously overpaid, but still a solid defenseman ... if nobody wants him, I'll buy him out.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Next

Was thinking the same thing.

But as unbiased #TSNGManalyst I think 15+19 is probably a little too much for 11. The CPHL draft is always a little crazy and 4 spots at that area probably isn't worth 19 overall.

However Minnesota also has 25.

15+25 for 11 feels like perfectly fair value IMO.

[SportsJunky]

I don’t know. I think that swings a little to far the other way now.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I don’t know. I think that swings a little to far the other way now.

Previously 18+34 was enough to move up to 12.
And 14+24 was enough to move up to 9.

15+25 for 11 falls right in line with those values IMO.

[TheScorpion]

I would take 2 3rds for Jeff Carter and a 2nd for Nick Leddy.