Value of: Stashing players in Vegas during the expansion draft.
- Thread starter 895
- Start date
GermanSpitfire
EU Video Scout for McKeen’s
Believe you have to wait a year before trading back for a player you previously traded.
Novel concept but NHL has rules against it.
Novel concept but NHL has rules against it.
895
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2007
- 8,406
- 7,084
mouser
Business of Hockey
NHL would probably view B as circumventing the draft.
For scenario A, why not just trade the player to a team with free protection slots? Vegas is already pretty slammed on their cap commitments for 2021-22.
For scenario A, why not just trade the player to a team with free protection slots? Vegas is already pretty slammed on their cap commitments for 2021-22.
The league 100% is not going to allow Vegas to circumvent the expansion draft.
So it ain't gonna work.
So it ain't gonna work.
CupInSIX
My cap runneth over
The benefits would have to outweigh spending their cap space on re-signing pending UFAs like Martinez, so the players would have to have low cap hits.
I could see a deal where Vegas gets to shed some cap at the end of the expansion draft.
Something like Vanicek for a 5th, Vegas gets to flip him for a 4th plus dump Holden to another team.
I could see a deal where Vegas gets to shed some cap at the end of the expansion draft.
Something like Vanicek for a 5th, Vegas gets to flip him for a 4th plus dump Holden to another team.
Djp
Registered User
any trade back of a player, even going thru other teams is illegal and the league severely fines the team and likely suspends the GM.
using vegas to station players is illegal.
Djp
Registered User
CupInSIX
My cap runneth over
Scenario A is probably okay, but Scenario B is the type of thing Bill Daly said 2 years ago that the NHL wouldn’t allow.
NHL won't let teams use Golden Knights to circumvent Seattle draft process
NHL won't let teams use Golden Knights to circumvent Seattle draft process
Snippit
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2012
- 16,630
- 9,961
CupInSIX
My cap runneth over
Goalies and Dmen will be harder to find takers for. Vegas will take a Logan Stanley for a 4th, or Aiden Hill for a 5th.
Edit: C. Jones, Bastian too.
Last edited:
A cap-compliant trade needs to be completed on the spot. It can not include a time-delayed component.
Team A can certainly send a player to Vegas before the expansion draft, and Team B can send another player to Vegas before the expansion draft, in return for some agreed upon compensation going from Vegas to those two teams. Those trades are absolutely fine. Those players are now Vegas Golden Knights.
Following the expansion draft, Vegas could elect to trade those players to any other teams, including to those two teams in question. That would ordinarily be just fine... although in this specific case, Bill Daly has already come out and stated that the league plans to watch Vegas transactions like a hawk because they are exempt from the expansion draft. The league could always decline to approve trades involving recent Vegas acquisitions, and probably would prevent Vegas from any such shenanigans this year.
But in a general sense, the point here is that trades with components moving at different times are not permissible. Those are two separate transactions. They are not linked, not formally and not in the form of a contract/transaction kept in a desk until the appropriate moment. Any contract/transaction in a desk is the very definition of cap circumvention.
When the expansion draft is over, if Teams A and B come calling to complete such unofficial trade terms, Vegas is under zero obligation. There are no incomplete aspects to these two trades that Vegas still has to follow through on. These are not future considerations. Vegas is fully within its right to say "I do not know what you're talking about; such informal trades are illegal and you can hardly expect us to help you circumvent the cap." Vegas can claim ignorance, and Vegas would be absolutely right. Neither Team A nor Team B can complain that Vegas is reneging on a type of trade that is inherently cap circumvention.
That's the deal with this idea. The intermediary is under no obligation because trades can not have this time delay. You are trading a player to Vegas. You are then going to Vegas after the expansion draft and seeking to acquire another player. The key is that Vegas is understood to be in a position to double dip, to treat these moves as the completely separate transactions that they are, in point of fact.
TL;DR: You can't park players. It's cap circumvention.
Team A can certainly send a player to Vegas before the expansion draft, and Team B can send another player to Vegas before the expansion draft, in return for some agreed upon compensation going from Vegas to those two teams. Those trades are absolutely fine. Those players are now Vegas Golden Knights.
Following the expansion draft, Vegas could elect to trade those players to any other teams, including to those two teams in question. That would ordinarily be just fine... although in this specific case, Bill Daly has already come out and stated that the league plans to watch Vegas transactions like a hawk because they are exempt from the expansion draft. The league could always decline to approve trades involving recent Vegas acquisitions, and probably would prevent Vegas from any such shenanigans this year.
But in a general sense, the point here is that trades with components moving at different times are not permissible. Those are two separate transactions. They are not linked, not formally and not in the form of a contract/transaction kept in a desk until the appropriate moment. Any contract/transaction in a desk is the very definition of cap circumvention.
When the expansion draft is over, if Teams A and B come calling to complete such unofficial trade terms, Vegas is under zero obligation. There are no incomplete aspects to these two trades that Vegas still has to follow through on. These are not future considerations. Vegas is fully within its right to say "I do not know what you're talking about; such informal trades are illegal and you can hardly expect us to help you circumvent the cap." Vegas can claim ignorance, and Vegas would be absolutely right. Neither Team A nor Team B can complain that Vegas is reneging on a type of trade that is inherently cap circumvention.
That's the deal with this idea. The intermediary is under no obligation because trades can not have this time delay. You are trading a player to Vegas. You are then going to Vegas after the expansion draft and seeking to acquire another player. The key is that Vegas is understood to be in a position to double dip, to treat these moves as the completely separate transactions that they are, in point of fact.
TL;DR: You can't park players. It's cap circumvention.
Mats26
Vet Movement - What's the Maatta?
- Sep 16, 2005
- 3,843
- 3,767
Djp
Registered User
Djp
Registered User
they don’t get any part of Seattle expansion fee the other teams get.
Djp
Registered User
vegas trading those players they acquired after the ED is illegal and the league will block ot.
any player vegas acquires between now and ED must be on the team for one calendar year before they could be traded.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,719
This has been said elsewhere. It was wrong then, it's still wrong here.
If the player was part of a retained salary transaction and is still under contract pursuant to that trade, then you're correct. If the player was acquired in a trade and then the acquiring team wishes to trade them back to the original team and retain salary as part of the deal, you're also correct. As a general rule, though? Nope.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,719
This. Any trade to Vegas still requires the Golden Knights to be cap-compliant. They're not taking on guys from all around the league as a dumping spot and scooping up assets along the way.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,719
SI90
Registered User
or three way trades.
example.
Islanders trade player X + 2nd round pick to Vegas for expansion protection.
After expansion draft
Vegas trades player X to Detroit.
Detroit trades player X back to the islanders for 5th
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,719
Seriously, some of you act like Vegas is going to be willing to put itself into a position where the league digs into its business to see if it was engaged in monkey business to keep Seattle from having access to certain players. Not only won't it do that, as @mouser pointed out Vegas has scant little cap space itself; it doesn't have some bottomless vault where it can take on lots of guys. It's sure as hell not going to be dealing guys it really wants after this season (where now they're available to be plucked by Seattle) to take guys other teams want to keep.
Vegas is not going to be everyone else's secret stash. Think of different ideas to protect your guys that don't involve Vegas. Maybe the old-fashioned way: pay Seattle to take / not take certain guys.
Vegas is not going to be everyone else's secret stash. Think of different ideas to protect your guys that don't involve Vegas. Maybe the old-fashioned way: pay Seattle to take / not take certain guys.
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 36,207
- 16,693
There's going to be enough teams with protection slots available for teams to be able to trade the player there rather than lose them.
But for most teams, the best player exposed is probably a good depth player that the team would be mostly okay with losing. A lot of teams will also make deals with Seattle, just like with the Vegas draft. But maybe this time teams will be a bit more careful, as the side pieces that were traded to protect other players were Theodore, Marchessault, and Karlsson. In retrospect, those teams should have just exposed their good, but not great players
But for most teams, the best player exposed is probably a good depth player that the team would be mostly okay with losing. A lot of teams will also make deals with Seattle, just like with the Vegas draft. But maybe this time teams will be a bit more careful, as the side pieces that were traded to protect other players were Theodore, Marchessault, and Karlsson. In retrospect, those teams should have just exposed their good, but not great players
A bit offtopic, but I have a specific expansion draft question and you seem to have decent knowledge around the rules.
Would it be considered cap circumvention if Seattle takes EJ, and then trades him back to Colorado at 50% retained for their actual expansion pick + 1st (just an example).
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 15,944
- 10,490
Trades with Vegas to expose the expansion draft will absolutely not happen, as the league will veto it. Teams also won't even try it, because it is a clear attempt to get around the rules.
