Speculation: Armchair GM / Speculation / Rumours Thread XXIV - Beware of Doug

[Lunatik]

Is it just speculation that Iggy will retire after this year or has anything been reported?

it's blind speculation, I don't even recall any media people speculating it

 

[Boomstick]

Is it just speculation that Iggy will retire after this year or has anything been reported?

Haven't heard any retirement plans but there's no way any team is paying him $5M again. Not sure Iggy wants to play on a bottom feeder or be a 3rd or 4th line player.

So who knows what's going to happen.

 

[Fig]

In the current CBA "future considerations" trades are not allowed. That is a massive difference from what was allowed the last time there was expansion. There is a decent chance that Vegas will not be allowed to make these backroom deals, the NHL has never confirmed they are allowed the only statements I've seen about it (forever ago) was that the league was undecided.

Isn't a conditional pick pretty much similar?

We got rid of Max Reinhart that way and acquired Freddy Hamilton that way.

But I'm also confused that you say future considerations trades aren't allowed, Nakbokov was traded to SJS for future considerations in 2015, wasn't he?

 

[Anglesmith]

Isn't a conditional pick pretty much similar?

We got rid of Max Reinhart that way and acquired Freddy Hamilton that way.

But I'm also confused that you say future considerations trades aren't allowed, Nakbokov was traded to SJS for future considerations in 2015, wasn't he?

I think the difference is that future considerations are intentionally vague, which is really hard to keep under control. Conditions are generally disclosed even to the public.

 

[Dertell]

Fox, Poulin, Potter were all traded last year for future considerations, as far as we know.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

I think the difference is that future considerations are intentionally vague, which is really hard to keep under control. Conditions are generally disclosed even to the public.

Yeah, my understanding of "future considerations" is it's an official way of saying "you owe us one later" which doesn't really mean anything and there's nothing to keep the one party from calling in pulling a favour down the line.

Basically a unidirectional trade.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

There was a trade a couple of years ago where a guy was traded for "future considerations" and then was the "future considerations" sent back to the other team.

 

[GAMO1992]

I don't even know why we are bothering discussing this.

Like Ferk said a couple pages ago, there is literally 0 point to asking Vegas to not take someone, when we'd have to pay more than that player is worth to not take them.

Johnny
Monahan
Bennett
Backlund
Frolik
Gio
Brodie
Hamilton
Johnson/Elliott

is who I see us protecting. everyone else on the roster isn't worth the cost of asking Vegas to not take them

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Is the discussion about paying Vegas to not take someone from a team or us? For some deep teams, it absolutely makes sense to pay Vegas off. We are not a deep team, so no it wouldn't make sense.

They'd probably be begging us to pay them off cause they could use draft picks more than some of our scrubs haha

 

[Ynnek]

I don't even know why we are bothering discussing this.

Like Ferk said a couple pages ago, there is literally 0 point to asking Vegas to not take someone, when we'd have to pay more than that player is worth to not take them.

Johnny
Monahan
Bennett
Backlund
Frolik
Gio
Brodie
Hamilton
Johnson/Elliott

is who I see us protecting. everyone else on the roster isn't worth the cost of asking Vegas to not take them

I agree. If losing 1 player is going to ruin this team then we are already doomed.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

I could see the Oilers paying Vegas off with draft picks. They probably dread the burden of picking anything after the first round year after year

"What? Again? Didn't we pick in the second last year? Ugh. Drafting is the worst."

 

[DCDM]

I could see the Oilers paying Vegas off with draft picks. They probably dread the burden of picking anything after the first round year after year

"What? Again? Didn't we pick in the second last year? Ugh. Drafting is the worst."

 

[SmellOfVictory]

I don't even know why we are bothering discussing this.

Like Ferk said a couple pages ago, there is literally 0 point to asking Vegas to not take someone, when we'd have to pay more than that player is worth to not take them.

Johnny
Monahan
Bennett
Backlund
Frolik
Gio
Brodie
Hamilton
Johnson/Elliott

is who I see us protecting. everyone else on the roster isn't worth the cost of asking Vegas to not take them

You're missing Ferland, who is absolutely worth protecting.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

You're missing Ferland, who is absolutely worth protecting.

Which is still fine as he only listed 5 out of 7 forwards we can protect.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

Ferland is not protect worthy.

 

[Lunatik]

Isn't a conditional pick pretty much similar?

We got rid of Max Reinhart that way and acquired Freddy Hamilton that way.

But I'm also confused that you say future considerations trades aren't allowed, Nakbokov was traded to SJS for future considerations in 2015, wasn't he?

No because the conditions are disclosed to the league and there are just multiple possibilities. Nabokov was announced as future considerations but was officially a conditional draft pick. Future considerations was often handshake deals for later, nothing, cash, a player to be named at a later date... etc.

 

[Lunatik]

Fox, Poulin, Potter were all traded last year for future considerations, as far as we know.

No they were not. They were announced to the public as such, but they are always conditional draft picks; often in these situations nothing ends up transferring because the condition is usually the player re-signing or playing in the NHL. IIRC the Poulin deal was a conditional draft pick (I want to say 6th) that would transfer if Poulin played an NHL game.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

So while thinking about it, even if we protect Backlund, Frolik, Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett and then some combination of Ferland or Brouwer, we could theoretically still have a forward protection slot available.

What teams might be feeling the pinch forward wise and would rather move a player than lose him? Minnesota is likely losing one of Brodin/Dumba/Zucker, so I'm not sure they trade Zucker if they think they are going to lose a defensemen regardless.

 

[FlamerForLife]

So while thinking about it, even if we protect Backlund, Frolik, Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett and then some combination of Ferland or Brouwer, we could theoretically still have a forward protection slot available.

What teams might be feeling the pinch forward wise and would rather move a player than lose him? Minnesota is likely losing one of Brodin/Dumba/Zucker, so I'm not sure they trade Zucker if they think they are going to lose a defensemen regardless.

Unless Tampa can get Callahan or Filppula to waive their NMC, they will lose 1 of their key forwards. Currently their list looks like this IMO: Stamkos(NMC), Callahan(NMC), Filppula(NMC),Kucherov,Johnson(RFA),Palat(RFA),Drouin(RFA), Killorn, Namestnikov.

 

[DCDM]

Ferland is not protect worthy.

You may not think so, but management has made numerous remarks pertaining to his unavailability via trade and his importance to the team. Ferland may indeed be protected after it's all said and done.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Unless Tampa can get Callahan or Filppula to waive their NMC, they will lose 1 of their key forwards. Currently their list looks like this IMO: Stamkos(NMC), Callahan(NMC), Filppula(NMC),Kucherov,Johnson(RFA),Palat(RFA),Drouin(RFA), Killorn, Namestnikov.

Killorn/Palat would be an amazing add. Probably not cheap to get though.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

You may not think so, but management has made numerous remarks pertaining to his unavailability via trade and his importance to the team. Ferland may indeed be protected after it's all said and done.

Who do you replace with Ferland?

 

[Fig]

So while thinking about it, even if we protect Backlund, Frolik, Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett and then some combination of Ferland or Brouwer, we could theoretically still have a forward protection slot available.

What teams might be feeling the pinch forward wise and would rather move a player than lose him? Minnesota is likely losing one of Brodin/Dumba/Zucker, so I'm not sure they trade Zucker if they think they are going to lose a defensemen regardless.

I'm thinking also about the possibility of a team going for the cup running into an injury on near expiring contracts, and trading soon to be UFA/RFA that may not need a slot. Maybe we get trade for the rights of such players and do a under the table agreement that doesn't require the use of a slot at the expansion draft? We are well positioned to acquire a guy like that and offer expiring deal roster players usable for a cup run.

ie players to be traded if injured:

Oshie Washington
Bishop Tampa

Obviously we can't send pure rentals for said players, but the options might be available to send UFA+ for said players and get an advantage on certain UFA targets?

 

[MonyontheMoney]

If we could get Palat or Killorn that would be amazing.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

If we could get Palat or Killorn that would be amazing.

Palat would be awesome! I would move our 1st for him without blinking.