The OHL Should Crack Down on Two-Part Trades

[RayzorIsDull]

Would you feel better if the trade was made and it said a player to be named later was included? Or future considerations?

 

[BoxerMax]

This trade was an obvious 2 part trade. SFC did a great job pointing it out. But why do people have a problem with these types of trades? Yes, it makes it easier for teams to load up for a run, but that is sports today. Plus, the teams on the backend of the deal, Kitchener in this case, sets their team up in a better position for the following season then just having picks.

 

[ScoresFromCentre]

Or maybe, Windsor felt bad that the Kitchener got squeezed by Bracco, so they eased their conscience by shipping Stanley for less than he was worth

I'm not sure if you're joking here, but any GM who made a sub-optimal trade to ease his conscience would be an awful GM. Rychel is neither awful nor conscientious.

SFC we really have no idea of how these deals being discussed went down. It's obvious that both teams took into consideration the Kadri rule and avoided it at all cost especially after Windsor was sanctioned so heavily the first time. It is apparent that these teams made two separate deals over a period of time and avoided any repercussions and the league deemed these trades as legitimate or they would not have been allowed. I am sure it was discussed with the league officials.We all know there are ways to circumvent rules and teams take advantage of all the loop holes. When highly skilled players coming in fail to report and will only go to certain teams other teams know this but draft them regardless and benefit greatly. It just the way it is.

Good points, bobber. I just disagree with the league on this one.

Would you feel better if the trade was made and it said a player to be named later was included? Or future considerations?

I think that would be pretty bush league. The NHL bans this kind of transaction for a reason (all "future considerations" have to be draft picks), and the Kadri Rule at least suggests that the OHL doesn't like the optics of these transactions. EON's point about superteams is a good one, too, that I ran out of time for in the article.

Ultimately what this all comes down to in my mind is that the league wanted Windsor to ice the best team possible and so let the Spits and Rangers circumvent their own rules. That's all well and good, but I think the league would be more competitive and more interesting if these kinds of trades didn't go down, and I bet that if they start happening more often the league really will crack down.

 

[member 71782]

As long as the value is appropriate for each separate part of a two part deal it is difficult to prevent them, especially if the first part was accepted.

A player that will only accept a trade to a specific team(s) will have lower value.

An offseason or early season trade will always have a lower value than at the deadline.

Had Stanley been moved for a 3rd rnd pick instead of multiple 2nds than it would have been a clear violation.

A top 3 D, that is not a high end PMD moved to his hometown team in the offseason for multiple 2nds is fair value.

Could he have brought a bigger return at the TDL?

Probably but how many players did Windsor add last season before the TDL that would have cost more at the TDL?

If the value is appropriate for the circumstances of each trade then it is difficult to veto any of them after the first has transpired.

The optics may not look good to some but if there are ways to justify each part of the deal on its own merits then the deal has to be viewed by the league as separate deals.

To veto the "2nd" part of a deal would create even more issues.

 

[OMG67]

Stanley was rumoured to be going to the Rangers for months. The Rangers sent picks in 2024 and 2025 to the Spitfires, even though the Spitfires desperately need picks immediately (historically desperately--I don't believe any team's cupboard has ever been this barren before). Those picks fall in the same drafts as the picks the Spitfires gave up. Virtually everyone in the OHL community agreed that the price for Bracco was light--just look what Stephens and Cirelli went for. And, for what it's worth, virtually everyone in the community seems to agree it was a two-part trade. With all due respect, I just don't think it's reasonable to conclude that this wasn't a two-part deal. You seem to be presupposing a fair value exchange because the teams made the deals, but the whole idea behind a two-part trade is that the individual deals aren't fair, but the two together are.

In the article, I suggested the league could retain veto rights if teams engage in mirror-image lopsided deals over a short timeframe, or there are elements of the deal that don't track with typical trade behaviour. (Trading picks eight years out when you have plenty of earlier ones to deal is a big red flag.) Enough trading goes on in the OHL that player values are generally established. No sanctions necessary--just a polite invitation for the teams to rework the deal. I admit it's not a perfect solution, but there are lots of smart people at the league office. If they wanted to rein this kind of stuff in, they could.

A few people suggested that the league doesn't need more rules, and I'm sympathetic to that sentiment, but to me, the damage caused by having yet another new rule is pretty negligible. If you think think the league is hurt by two-part trades, making a new rule is an easy decision, I think. I think the Sean Avery screening the goalie caper is a decent analogy. No one had thought of doing it before he did, so there wasn't a rule about it. But it was ridiculous, and while every team could reasonably adopt Avery's strategy, making it a fair one, the NHL didn't want a sport where agitators waved their arms in front of the goaltender for half the game. So they made a rule, the behaviour stopped, and that was that. There's no reason the OHL couldn't do the same thing here.

Personally, I think you are off base. I disagree with your opinion whole-heartedly. You are railing on about a topic that is a non-issue even if you are correct and I might add you are correct. These two deals were pre-arranged. There is no doubt in my mind. I just don't care. I think the deal is fine as is. I think the compensation is reasonable specially considering the handcuffs on Kitchener only having Windsor as an option.

Where I would have issue is if five players were transferred to another team without adequate compensation and then the following year the two teams made a similar deal to prop the other team up. That would be similar to what Laval did with Granby when Granby rolled over everyone at the MEmorial Cup with the two owners being brothers.

But when we are talking about one player that was traded for thre 2nds and two serviceable players and then Stanley was traded for two 2nds, a 3rd, and a 4th, I think that is reasonable. I don't care what year those picks are either. Those picks will be used to buy players when the "win cycle" comes back around for Windsor. What good are 2018 picks when they have no intention of using those picks for drafting players?

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this topic. In the grand scheme of things, this issue would be so far down the priority scale of issues the OHL needs to address.

I am sorry if I am coming across a bit harsh but that is just the way I feel about this issue.

 

[ScoresFromCentre]

Personally, I think you are off base. I disagree with your opinion whole-heartedly. You are railing on about a topic that is a non-issue even if you are correct and I might add you are correct. These two deals were pre-arranged. There is no doubt in my mind. I just don't care. I think the deal is fine as is. I think the compensation is reasonable specially considering the handcuffs on Kitchener only having Windsor as an option.

Where I would have issue is if five players were transferred to another team without adequate compensation and then the following year the two teams made a similar deal to prop the other team up. That would be similar to what Laval did with Granby when Granby rolled over everyone at the MEmorial Cup with the two owners being brothers.

But when we are talking about one player that was traded for thre 2nds and two serviceable players and then Stanley was traded for two 2nds, a 3rd, and a 4th, I think that is reasonable. I don't care what year those picks are either. Those picks will be used to buy players when the "win cycle" comes back around for Windsor. What good are 2018 picks when they have no intention of using those picks for drafting players?

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this topic. In the grand scheme of things, this issue would be so far down the priority scale of issues the OHL needs to address.

I am sorry if I am coming across a bit harsh but that is just the way I feel about this issue.

Not harsh at all, though I hope my advocacy doesn't sound like "railing on"! It sounds like our disagreement is mostly on scale, anyway.

Your point about second-rounders all essentially being the same value regardless of their year is one I've heard before. It doesn't make sense to me, but it's entirely possible. Might be something worth looking into further.

Appreciate the discussion from everyone. cfaub makes some great points as well, as always.

 

[bobber]

Not harsh at all, though I hope my advocacy doesn't sound like "railing on"! It sounds like our disagreement is mostly on scale, anyway.

Your point about second-rounders all essentially being the same value regardless of their year is one I've heard before. It doesn't make sense to me, but it's entirely possible. Might be something worth looking into further.

Appreciate the discussion from everyone. cfaub makes some great points as well, as always.

SFC you might like Mike Zsolt's blog originalsixanalytics.com.... He is the Rangers new analytic guy. Did a lot of NHL work.

 

[OMG67]

Not harsh at all, though I hope my advocacy doesn't sound like "railing on"! It sounds like our disagreement is mostly on scale, anyway.

Your point about second-rounders all essentially being the same value regardless of their year is one I've heard before. It doesn't make sense to me, but it's entirely possible. Might be something worth looking into further.

Appreciate the discussion from everyone. cfaub makes some great points as well, as always.

The reason why I say 2nd rounders all have the same value is because teams use them for two purposes...

1> Draft players
2> Trade them at the time they are ready to make a push for a championship

If the teams are trading for them for the purpose of drafting players, the value can be variable. If the OHL feels the next draft is really deep, similar to the 2016 draft, then the picks will have higher value than the following draft like 2017 when it was considered weaker. In Windsors case, they have taken back picks in the 2022-2025 range of years. Hypothetically speaking, they are in year one of their "rebuild." It usually takes 2 years to rebuild provided all your drafts are solid etc. Most normal teams take 4 years because they toil in obscurity for a couple seasons before they find the right foundation then it takes then two additional years to be poised for a Championship push. IF that is the case, that is 2021 for the Spits. So those picks from Kitchener will come in handy for trade chips at that time.

There is logic to support this.

As I said before, I do agree with you that this was a deal that was worked out at the last deadline but the reality is it is two separate deals on paper that do make sense from a compensation standpoint. We can argue that maybe one 2nd rounder one way or the other would have made it more fair but that is really just semantics.

Your opinion is the two part deal under all different guises should not be allowed. My opinion is if the deals are supported solely on the value of each return then they are valid.

If the league wants to crack down on this, I have no real issue. But to do so they would need to do one of two things:

1> Only allow player transactions between two teams once every two seasons. But, teams will then try to involve a third team to circumvent.
2> Only allow draft picks to be dealt 3 years in advance. That way if a team only has its own picks, those three years worth of picks are dealt for the first player but based on the current rule those picks cannot be returned in a subsequent trade

 

[bobber]

The reason why I say 2nd rounders all have the same value is because teams use them for two purposes...

1> Draft players
2> Trade them at the time they are ready to make a push for a championship

If the teams are trading for them for the purpose of drafting players, the value can be variable. If the OHL feels the next draft is really deep, similar to the 2016 draft, then the picks will have higher value than the following draft like 2017 when it was considered weaker. In Windsors case, they have taken back picks in the 2022-2025 range of years. Hypothetically speaking, they are in year one of their "rebuild." It usually takes 2 years to rebuild provided all your drafts are solid etc. Most normal teams take 4 years because they toil in obscurity for a couple seasons before they find the right foundation then it takes then two additional years to be poised for a Championship push. IF that is the case, that is 2021 for the Spits. So those picks from Kitchener will come in handy for trade chips at that time.

There is logic to support this.

As I said before, I do agree with you that this was a deal that was worked out at the last deadline but the reality is it is two separate deals on paper that do make sense from a compensation standpoint. We can argue that maybe one 2nd rounder one way or the other would have made it more fair but that is really just semantics.

Your opinion is the two part deal under all different guises should not be allowed. My opinion is if the deals are supported solely on the value of each return then they are valid.

If the league wants to crack down on this, I have no real issue. But to do so they would need to do one of two things:

1> Only allow player transactions between two teams once every two seasons. But, teams will then try to involve a third team to circumvent.
2> Only allow draft picks to be dealt 3 years in advance. That way if a team only has its own picks, those three years worth of picks are dealt for the first player but based on the current rule those picks cannot be returned in a subsequent trade

I think when the league looks at changing rules it would also have to be ok'd by the owners of the franchises would it not? Their teams are directly effected by and changes. If it might cost them money anywhere down the road it will never happen.

 

[ohloutsider]

SFC -While you are looking at " 2 part deals" you might want to ask the question why Barrie can pick players off of other leagues waveirs and then trade them for draft picks? reported that they have done that again this week - easy way to accumulate picks - BTW I don't really care if they do think it is smart on their part but all teams do what they can to better their position in the league so why does it matter if there are 1,2 or 3 parts trades if all involved are good with it?

 

[EON]

SFC -While you are looking at " 2 part deals" you might want to ask the question why Barrie can pick players off of other leagues waveirs and then trade them for draft picks? reported that they have done that again this week - easy way to accumulate picks - BTW I don't really care if they do think it is smart on their part but all teams do what they can to better their position in the league so why does it matter if there are 1,2 or 3 parts trades if all involved are good with it?

I don't see a problem with that, it can happen in the NHL as well.

The issue I have is how they can do it twice? Shouldn't there be some sort of waiver order reset? After the first claim and trade.

 

[ScoresFromCentre]

SFC you might like Mike Zsolt's blog originalsixanalytics.com.... He is the Rangers new analytic guy. Did a lot of NHL work.

Thanks, bobber. I'm a fan of Mike's work, but I haven't poked around his site much. I'll have to do so when time permits.

SFC -While you are looking at " 2 part deals" you might want to ask the question why Barrie can pick players off of other leagues waveirs and then trade them for draft picks?

I believe Barrie has first dibs on Q and W waiver claims because they finished last in the OHL last year. I can reach out to some of my colleagues and confirm.

The reason why I say 2nd rounders all have the same value is because teams use them for two purposes...

1> Draft players
2> Trade them at the time they are ready to make a push for a championship

If the teams are trading for them for the purpose of drafting players, the value can be variable. If the OHL feels the next draft is really deep, similar to the 2016 draft, then the picks will have higher value than the following draft like 2017 when it was considered weaker. In Windsors case, they have taken back picks in the 2022-2025 range of years. Hypothetically speaking, they are in year one of their "rebuild." It usually takes 2 years to rebuild provided all your drafts are solid etc. Most normal teams take 4 years because they toil in obscurity for a couple seasons before they find the right foundation then it takes then two additional years to be poised for a Championship push. IF that is the case, that is 2021 for the Spits. So those picks from Kitchener will come in handy for trade chips at that time.

I think this is mostly reasonable, but every pre-draft pick-only trading period we see teams taking a one-round discount to move up a year in the draft:

04/07/2017 Sudbury OS 5th 2018 Hamilton HAM 6th 2017
04/07/2017 Sarnia ER 2nd 2017 Windsor WSR 2nd 2017, SAR 8th 2018
04/07/2017 Flint FLT 2nd 2017 Mississauga GUE 2nd 2017, NIA 4th 2017
04/07/2017 Sarnia HAM 5th 2017 Oshawa FLT 4th 2019, OSH 10th 2019
04/07/2017 Ottawa OTT 14th 2018 Windsor GUE 15th 2017
04/07/2017 Barrie BAR 10th 2018 Guelph GUE 11th 2017
04/07/2017 Barrie BAR 11th 2019 Saginaw SAG 13th 2017
04/05/2017 Saginaw PBO 8th 2017 Mississauga WSR 5th 2019, SAG 9th 2017
04/04/2017 Owen Sound OS 11th 2017 Erie ER 9th 2019, OS 12th 2017, ER 10th 2020
04/04/2017 North Bay NB 14th 2018 Guelph WSR 14th 2017
04/03/2017 Guelph GUE 10th 2017 Windsor WSR 9th 2018

Maybe the rules are different for second-round picks because they're so much more valuable, but it would be odd if the GMs behaved as the year of a draft pick mattered in April but not the rest of the year. Also, if you look at the way teams trade picks, they almost always move their nearest assets first, presumably because that's what other teams are asking for.

As for Windsor specifically, even Rychel is going to struggle to rebuild his team with that cupboard. If Windsor doesn't restock its selection of second and third rounders for the next few drafts, they're not going to have a core to add to by trading the 2023-2025 picks.

 

[Bjorn Le]

The reason this doesn't happen in other reasons is something you talked about. The CHL has such quick turnover that the best team can start rebuilding the very next year. I don't really think the PTNL rules in the NHL and MLB are the main hurdle to this happening, the main hurdle is they just don't make sense.

I don't really agree that it's an embarrassment either. Sure, the overt trading your picks back is a little bush league, but a handshake agreement to trade one of your marque players after you don't need them is perfectly sound strategy, and it gives you full use for your short championship cycle. Erie has no one but themselves to blame for losing. Whining about the other team having a good player is amateur hour, Windsor didn't cheat.

What I fail to see is how this is bad for anyone. The league got a fantastic final with the host team being fully competitive. Kitchener got fair value for their top player, Windsor got fair value for a player they didn't have much use for, and it lets Stanley go home to play his final year (Waterloo isn't just a "nearby" city, Kitchener and Waterloo are joine at the hip). Erie's complaints about Bracco amount to whining, and any other team who wanted Stanley has no argument as Windsor has the choice of where their players will be traded.

 

[buzzworthy]

Nullus, I didn't read anywhere in the article where the Otter's were whining. That just isn't true. Windsor won. The Otters have moved on.

 

[OHLTG]

I don't see a problem with that, it can happen in the NHL as well.

The issue I have is how they can do it twice? Shouldn't there be some sort of waiver order reset? After the first claim and trade.

Agreed on both. I saw the deal the other day and went "wow, well played!" Snag a guy then dealt him for assets. It's creative and within the rules. The one downfall I see is teams being cautious about Barrie down the road.

 

[ScoresFromCentre]

The reason this doesn't happen in other reasons is something you talked about. The CHL has such quick turnover that the best team can start rebuilding the very next year. I don't really think the PTNL rules in the NHL and MLB are the main hurdle to this happening, the main hurdle is they just don't make sense.

I don't really agree that it's an embarrassment either. Sure, the overt trading your picks back is a little bush league, but a handshake agreement to trade one of your marque players after you don't need them is perfectly sound strategy, and it gives you full use for your short championship cycle. Erie has no one but themselves to blame for losing. Whining about the other team having a good player is amateur hour, Windsor didn't cheat.

What I fail to see is how this is bad for anyone. The league got a fantastic final with the host team being fully competitive. Kitchener got fair value for their top player, Windsor got fair value for a player they didn't have much use for, and it lets Stanley go home to play his final year (Waterloo isn't just a "nearby" city, Kitchener and Waterloo are joine at the hip). Erie's complaints about Bracco amount to whining, and any other team who wanted Stanley has no argument as Windsor has the choice of where their players will be traded.

I think the key question here is what the intention of the Kadri Rule is. If it's precisely to prevent teams swapping the exact same set of picks back and forth, then it's doing its job and it's hard to see the Bracco-Stanley trade as anything less than perfectly legal. If, on the other had, the purpose is to discourage two-part trades, because they have bad optics, or because of the risk of injury scuttling a deal, or what-have-you, then the trade looks more questionable.

I should be clear that I didn't interview any Erie players for the article, and to the best of my knowledge no one has been "whining" about the result. Certainly, I was happy to see an OHL team take home the Cup!

 

[dirty12]

The reason this doesn't happen in other reasons is something you talked about. The CHL has such quick turnover that the best team can start rebuilding the very next year. I don't really think the PTNL rules in the NHL and MLB are the main hurdle to this happening, the main hurdle is they just don't make sense.

I don't really agree that it's an embarrassment either. Sure, the overt trading your picks back is a little bush league, but a handshake agreement to trade one of your marque players after you don't need them is perfectly sound strategy, and it gives you full use for your short championship cycle. Erie has no one but themselves to blame for losing. Whining about the other team having a good player is amateur hour, Windsor didn't cheat.

What I fail to see is how this is bad for anyone. The league got a fantastic final with the host team being fully competitive. Kitchener got fair value for their top player, Windsor got fair value for a player they didn't have much use for, and it lets Stanley go home to play his final year (Waterloo isn't just a "nearby" city, Kitchener and Waterloo are joine at the hip). Erie's complaints about Bracco amount to whining, and any other team who wanted Stanley has no argument as Windsor has the choice of where their players will be traded.

The trade was clearly made the (previous) season. Windsor basically gave Kitchener picks in trust, so that Windsor use Stanley for a playoff/memorial cup run. That is a 2 part deal. Those should never be allowed. This year, it should be ok for Windsor to give OS Villardi for picks; then, OS returns the favour by giving Windsor whatever player they covet to start next season for similar picks in slightly different years? That's crap!
That should be ruled as trading the same player back in less than one calendar year.

 

[OMG67]

The trade was clearly made the (previous) season. Windsor basically gave Kitchener picks in trust, so that Windsor use Stanley for a playoff/memorial cup run. That is a 2 part deal. Those should never be allowed. This year, it should be ok for Windsor to give OS Villardi for picks; then, OS returns the favour by giving Windsor whatever player they covet to start next season for similar picks in slightly different years? That's crap!
That should be ruled as trading the same player back in less than one calendar year.

First, the same picks did not change hands; therefore, it is a separate deal. As well, the picks used to acquire Stanley are all conditional as he may play in the NHL this year (although very unlikely).

Second, this topic is just a matter of opinion, not fact. The OHL clearly views this as two separate trades, as they should.

The oncept of a two part trade is where Player "A" is traded to Team "B" for a value that is way under the market value, essentially making it a "loan." Then the following year Team "A" trades player "B" to satisfy the undervalued return for the previous season. Thus, it makes it a situation where a player is loaned to another team for future considerations.

That is not what happened here. Bracco was traded for a package of picks that matched the relative market value. Stanley was traded for a package of picks that matches relative market value. It should not matter when the deal was consummated. Teams talk about deals all the time. Teams pick players they know will not report and have pre-arranged deals in place with other teams for that player. That is all within the rules and so was this.

 

[dirty12]

Matter of opinion as you say. I see it as picks in trust (or loan); so that Windsor could keep Stanley for the duration of the year.
Value for Bracco was relative to market value? Apparently, he was not nearly as good as Paquette or Stephens was.

 

[EON]

You could maybe make an argument for the Stanley trade, but the Bracco trade was far under market value. Just ask Ranger fans how they felt at the time of that deal.

 

[youngblood10]

You could maybe make an argument for the Stanley trade, but the Bracco trade was far under market value. Just ask Ranger fans how they felt at the time of that deal.

Kitchener also receive two roster players who have eligibility remaining. Understanding that Burns now isn't going to be an OA for the Rangers this season.

 

[Raisy]

You could maybe make an argument for the Stanley trade, but the Bracco trade was far under market value. Just ask Ranger fans how they felt at the time of that deal.

Possibly,but was Erie going to pony up the picks for him? Or London? Or if he wasn't going to waive his NTC, Kitchener should have just held on to him and lost him this year for nothing?

I'm not going to pretend to be ignorant to the fact that the Stanley trade was probably discussed at the time of the Bracco deal, but no paperwork was submitted and since different picks were sent back, it is an entirely separate transaction, despite the appearance. Until the Stanley deal closed, it could be argued that it was just a hypothetical deal, and how would you enforce that?

 

[bobber]

Kitchener also receive two roster players who have eligibility remaining. Understanding that Burns now isn't going to be an OA for the Rangers this season.

Burns was released. Carter is the remaining player. Neither one was valued in Windsor and Bracco had three times the talent. Not sure why these trades are relevant anyway. Bracco hog tied the Rangers with his NTC. Stanley grew up here and watched the Rangers as a kid wanted to play his last year at home.

 

[EON]

Possibly,but was Erie going to pony up the picks for him? Or London? Or if he wasn't going to waive his NTC, Kitchener should have just held on to him and lost him this year for nothing?

I'm not going to pretend to be ignorant to the fact that the Stanley trade was probably discussed at the time of the Bracco deal, but no paperwork was submitted and since different picks were sent back, it is an entirely separate transaction, despite the appearance. Until the Stanley deal closed, it could be argued that it was just a hypothetical deal, and how would you enforce that?

This exact argument is addressed in the article SFC posted at the start of this thread.