Speculation: Trade conditions to protect players from expansion draft - is this even something tangible to trade?

[bobholly39]

So a year from now we'll have the expansion draft for Seattle. We all know Vegas did a bunch of trades back then, some to guarantee a team an unprotected player would be safe.

Since Pittsburgh kept Murray/lost Fleury 2 years ago - let's use them a guinea pig in this thread to illustrate my question. Pittsburgh once again has 2 goalies - Murray/Jarry. Let's pretend they want to keep both. They could go to Seattle and say "Seattle - here's a 3rd round draft pick - promise you won't take Murray who we're leaving unprotected". Seattle agrees, and they get the 3rd round draft pick.

My question is - did Seattle actually trade something tangible to Pittsburgh? Does 'a promise' to not do something count? What happens if come expansion draft time - Seattle says screw it, and drafts Murray anyways. Is there anything legally preventing this from happening?

I always wondered this.

Click to read more...

 

[Baksfamous112]

So a year from now we'll have the expansion draft for Seattle. We all know Vegas did a bunch of trades back then, some to guarantee a team an unprotected player would be safe.

Since Pittsburgh kept Murray/lost Fleury 2 years ago - let's use them a guinea pig in this thread to illustrate my question. Pittsburgh once again has 2 goalies - Murray/Jarry. Let's pretend they want to keep both. They could go to Seattle and say "Seattle - here's a 3rd round draft pick - promise you won't take Murray who we're leaving unprotected". Seattle agrees, and they get the 3rd round draft pick.

My question is - did Seattle actually trade something tangible to Pittsburgh? Does 'a promise' to not do something count? What happens if come expansion draft time - Seattle says screw it, and drafts Murray anyways. Is there anything legally preventing this from happening?

I always wondered this.

Yeah, your reputation as a GM.

 

[Richard88]

Somehow I can't see GM Ron Francis screwing over the team with which he won 2 cups with and spent 7.5 years with...

 

[Taytro]

Well considering the trades have to be official and go through the league, I'm assuming the league would intervene and either say "no you can't pick him.. " or give the Pens their pick back.

Again, it's not just a verbal agreement, it has to be approved by the league before the expansion draft. Last time with Vegas they announced the trades including which player was protected due to it, I doubt it will be different this time.

And yeah, if thats how you start your tenure as a GM for an expansion team, you won't be around too much or be getting along too well with other GMs, relationships are huge there. Don't burn bridges.

 

[bobholly39]

Well considering the trades have to be official and go through the league, I'm assuming the league would intervene and either say "no you can't pick him.. " or give the Pens their pick back.

Again, it's not just a verbal agreement, it has to be approved by the league before the expansion draft. Last time with Vegas they announced the trades including which player was protected due to it, I doubt it will be different this time.

And yeah, if thats how you start your tenure as a GM for an expansion team, you won't be around too much or be getting along too well with other GMs, relationships are huge there. Don't burn bridges.

I know it goes through the league - but that's what I mean, is it something tangible? Or is it just listed under "future considerations". Can such a condition be put in an actual trade, since it seems intangible to me "we promise not to take this player".

Officially the rules are - if a player is unprotected, they can be drafted.

I obviously agree that your reputation as a GM would be shot to shit from day 1 if someone pulled a stunt like this - which is a huge deal. So it's very unlikely this would happen. But i'm just trying to figure out if there's anything preventing it from happening, in regards to rules.

 

[HolyGhost]

So a year from now we'll have the expansion draft for Seattle. We all know Vegas did a bunch of trades back then, some to guarantee a team an unprotected player would be safe.

Since Pittsburgh kept Murray/lost Fleury 2 years ago - let's use them a guinea pig in this thread to illustrate my question. Pittsburgh once again has 2 goalies - Murray/Jarry. Let's pretend they want to keep both. They could go to Seattle and say "Seattle - here's a 3rd round draft pick - promise you won't take Murray who we're leaving unprotected". Seattle agrees, and they get the 3rd round draft pick.

My question is - did Seattle actually trade something tangible to Pittsburgh? Does 'a promise' to not do something count? What happens if come expansion draft time - Seattle says screw it, and drafts Murray anyways. Is there anything legally preventing this from happening?

I always wondered this.

,

Once a deal is done and the nhl knows the conditions Francis can not change his mind. If he tried to the nhl would stepnin

 

[bobholly39]

,

Once a deal is done and the nhl knows the conditions Francis can not change his mind. If he tried to the nhl would stepnin

That's the question though. What's the deal? What is Francis trading tangibly speaking - 'a promise'? A promise not to pick a certain player? That's what i'm asking - can that be traded?

There's often all kinds of creative trade conditions with draft picks. "if team A makes playoffs but finishes top 10 but the player in question hits 10goals but all on powerplay etc etc....you get a 1st round pick in 2021 vs 2nd round pick in 2022 etc". We've seen all these types, some way more complex than others. But they're always tied to something tangible - a draft pick.

All we're talking about here is a promise. Can a promise be traded for?

 

[HolyGhost]

I know it goes through the league - but that's what I mean, is it something tangible? Or is it just listed under "future considerations". Can such a condition be put in an actual trade, since it seems intangible to me "we promise not to take this player".

Officially the rules are - if a player is unprotected, they can be drafted.

I obviously agree that your reputation as a GM would be shot to shit from day 1 if someone pulled a stunt like this - which is a huge deal. So it's very unlikely this would happen. But i'm just trying to figure out if there's anything preventing it from happening, in regards to rules.

All FCS are explained at the time of the trade. I think you are not understand the basic concept of the rules of trades.

They have received an asset with the agreement not to do something. If the they than tried to draft the nhl would say no and say you traded that right away

 

[Empoleon8771]

Francis has the power to take Murray in this scenario. This would also result in him getting blacklisted by almost every single GM and would be a downright horrible beginning for him as GM of Seattle. I also imagine that they'd lose the pick that the Penguins traded them in that scenario.

 

[archangel2]

That's the question though. What's the deal? What is Francis trading tangibly speaking - 'a promise'? A promise not to pick a certain player? That's what i'm asking - can that be traded?

There's often all kinds of creative trade conditions with draft picks. "if team A makes playoffs but finishes top 10 but the player in question hits 10goals but all on powerplay etc etc....you get a 1st round pick in 2021 vs 2nd round pick in 2022 etc". We've seen all these types, some way more complex than others. But they're always tied to something tangible - a draft pick.

All we're talking about here is a promise. Can a promise be traded for?

If you have lost me as well. Pens have traded a 3rd in exchange for not taking said player so the can not draft said player. Do not know where you are getting this promise thing from. This is not elementary school..

It is business trading 101. Pens trade a 3rd to the Seattle Kracken in return for Kracken not drafting one of their goalies. It is an agreement and not a promise.

 

[Jared Dunn]

I think Vegas pulled off similar deals and it was basically them trading like a 7th for a 3rd or whatever with the understanding that a certain player was off the table, but technically they could just sewer them it's just probably not the best idea for the long term health of their career. I still don't understand why Pittsburgh had to pay for Vegas to take Flower lol

 

[bobholly39]

Francis has the power to take Murray in this scenario. This would also result in him getting blacklisted by almost every single GM and would be a downright horrible beginning for him as GM of Seattle. I also imagine that they'd lose the pick that the Penguins traded them in that scenario.

Deos Francis have the power to pick Murray in that scenario?

And - why would he lose the pick? Wouldn't it be either/or? Either what's being traded is something tangible (ie - the promise not to pick Murray), and if so, Francis could not select Murray. But if it's not something tangible - and if instead if falls under 'future considerations' category - why would they have to send the pick back?

 

[archangel2]

Deos Francis have the power to pick Murray in that scenario?

And - why would he lose the pick? Wouldn't it be either/or? Either what's being traded is something tangible (ie - the promise not to pick Murray), and if so, Francis could not select Murray. But if it's not something tangible - and if instead if falls under 'future considerations' category - why would they have to send the pick back?

Tag me out of this idiotic thread.

The OP just is not getting the FC is described and defined at the time the deal. in exchange for that 3rd they agree NOT to take named players. That is the agreement, no idea why you keep saying promise. Promise has nothing to do with it.

After the Lindros trade the league made sure all elements of a trade are given to the nhl both in writing and in a phone call.

In the OP it is made clear that Seattle received a draft pick in the entry draft for not taking a player in the expansion draft. There is nothing difficult to understand why Seattle can not turn around take said player that they agreed not to take. It was part of the condition of the trade. Not sure why the OP is not getting this.

Buy tag I am out

 

[Drake1588]

The way that the Vegas Golden Knights expansion worked is that much was reported days and even a week or more in advance, but those were not actually trades yet. Those rumors were of trade agreements that had been reached between Vegas and another team, but they had not been filed with the league yet. Those picks and players to Vegas were not yet Knights.

The way it worked, just like a normal draft day trade (where a draft pick is technically only traded seconds before the pick gets made), is that the assets to Vegas were contingent on the team picking said player in expansion. Fleury didn't actually become a Knight until the day of the expansion draft itself, even if we knew some time in advance that he was going to be their starter.

So there was never any scenario where McPhee faced this dilemma: "I know that I was traded a third rounder last week, and it's already in my stable, but now I'm going to renege on that 'promise' and take a different player instead."

No. That is not how the trades worked. Those picks and players were never traded to Vegas in advance. The only thing we heard was the leak that the trade was going to happen at the expansion draft, but it was technically a premature report. Technically, the trade is filed by the two teams in question with the league at the moment that the draft pick is made. The league has forewarning, of course, but the timing is predetermined.

Now McPhee could certainly change his mind right up until the last moment and take a different player; but that would invalidate the agreed trade, which had not yet actually taken place (even if we knew the terms days in advance). So he never faced this hypothetical scenario.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

This is a weird thread. No GM would sacrifice integrity like that. They would never get hired again after they are inevitably fired down the road. Agents wouldn't trust them either. Its stupid.

 

[Taytro]

I know it goes through the league - but that's what I mean, is it something tangible? Or is it just listed under "future considerations". Can such a condition be put in an actual trade, since it seems intangible to me "we promise not to take this player".

Officially the rules are - if a player is unprotected, they can be drafted.

I obviously agree that your reputation as a GM would be shot to shit from day 1 if someone pulled a stunt like this - which is a huge deal. So it's very unlikely this would happen. But i'm just trying to figure out if there's anything preventing it from happening, in regards to rules.

Its not future considerations because the 'consideration' is outlined in detail prior to league approval. And 'officially' the league is aware of the trade and is aware of your picks before the draft. If a trade was approved and then that individual is on their draft list the league either won't approve the pick or won't approve the trade. Pretty straight forward, you can't circumvent it when the league has to approve both pieces individually.

They will undeniably reject that if it is ever presented to them.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Trades have to be filed and approved by the league. The Seattle Whateverthef***theirnameis can't reneg on the deal.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

The way that the Vegas Golden Knights expansion worked is that much was reported days and even a week or more in advance, but those were not actually trades yet. Those rumors were of trade agreements that had been reached between Vegas and another team, but they had not been filed with the league yet. Those picks and players to Vegas were not yet Knights.

The way it worked, just like a normal draft day trade (where a draft pick is technically only traded seconds before the pick gets made), is that the assets to Vegas were contingent on the team picking said player in expansion. Fleury didn't actually become a Knight until the day of the expansion draft itself, even if we knew some time in advance that he was going to be their starter.

So there was never any scenario where McPhee faced this dilemma: "I know that I was traded a third rounder last week, and it's already in my stable, but now I'm going to renege on that 'promise' and take a different player instead."

No. That is not how the trades worked. Those picks and players were never traded to Vegas in advance. The only thing we heard was the leak that the trade was going to happen at the expansion draft, but it was technically a premature report. Technically, the trade is filed by the two teams in question with the league at the moment that the draft pick is made. The league has forewarning, of course, but the timing is predetermined.

Now McPhee could certainly change his mind right up until the last moment and take a different player; but that would invalidate the agreed trade, which had not yet actually taken place (even if we knew the terms days in advance). So he never faced this hypothetical scenario.

Yeah. We were getting leaks of moves for like a whole week. They saved everything to be announced in one TV special. The whole thing was very heavily coordinated with the league, the Knights and the 30 other teams. The scenario proposed in the OP is just not plausible if they follow the same setup

 

[TML1967]

So a year from now we'll have the expansion draft for Seattle. We all know Vegas did a bunch of trades back then, some to guarantee a team an unprotected player would be safe.

Since Pittsburgh kept Murray/lost Fleury 2 years ago - let's use them a guinea pig in this thread to illustrate my question. Pittsburgh once again has 2 goalies - Murray/Jarry. Let's pretend they want to keep both. They could go to Seattle and say "Seattle - here's a 3rd round draft pick - promise you won't take Murray who we're leaving unprotected". Seattle agrees, and they get the 3rd round draft pick.

My question is - did Seattle actually trade something tangible to Pittsburgh? Does 'a promise' to not do something count? What happens if come expansion draft time - Seattle says screw it, and drafts Murray anyways. Is there anything legally preventing this from happening?

I always wondered this.

My assumption is a deal is worded something like
Team A commits to not picking player X, and Team B in recognition and confirmation that player X is not going to be picked, is trading asset Y.

What I hope more teams realize is that the cost of keeping a player is not just the value of what you traded, its the value of what you traded, AND the other thing from your team being gone.
I.E. If the Leafs say 'we will give you a 2nd to not pick Kapanen' and instead loose Kerfoot (names are irrelevant) the value isnt Kapanen = 2nd, its Kapanen < Kerfoot+2nd because you still loose another player.

Its the same problem when people say 'well instead of loosing this great guy in expansion trade him to us for a pick!' its not looking at the full value for both teams. People made so many darn proposals last time not using their heads.
Using fake names..
Toronto trades Kappy for a 2nd to Pittsburgh.
Toronto looses Kappy + whoever Seattle takes, and only gets a 2nd.
Pitsburgh gets Kappy, but looses the 2nd AND whoever Kappy bumps from the protection list, presumably someone more valuable than the guy who would have been taken before the trade.

 

[Rpenny]

Trades have to be filed and approved by the league. The Seattle Whateverthef***theirnameis can't reneg on the deal.

That is why I do not understand this thread. Francis traded away the right to draft said player in the expansion draft

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Yes, teams can make deals with expansion considerations in mind. I don't know what the exact wording is when the trade is filed with the league. This is one way that Vegas made out like bandits the last time around. For example, the Lightning traded Vegas Gusev/2nd/4th on the condition that Vegas select Jason Garrison.

You probably won't see any of these trades until right before the draft. I'm sure teams who know they will have issues will talk with Seattle much earlier to feel them out. But it's not like we're going to see a trade to Seattle a year early.

In Pittsburgh's case, their best play would be to trade a goalie this off season for the following reasons:
1 - Murray only has 1 year of team control left. If they don't want to pay him 5+ million on a multi-year deal, or if he doesn't want to sign a multi-year deal because he perceives he isn't getting his due as starter, he will be a UFA next year and leave for nothing.

2 - The cap is going to be very tight. It doesn't make sense for them to allocate an additional 5M+ to a starting goalie when they already have one in Jarry, who will be cheaper and get the job done.

3 - They will get a better deal by trading a goalie (I assume Murray) this off season, than they will if they deal from an even worse position of weakness next off season.

I get why you chose the example you did, but because of the salary cap, I don't think Pittsburgh is going to be a team in that spot. Having two good goalies who aren't ELC/on cheap RFA bridge deals is a luxury they cannot afford.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

The wording you're looking for is "Expansion Draft Considerations"; the Penguins traded a 2nd along with Fleury in exchange for expansion draft considerations. At least, that's how capfriendly has it worded. (Scroll down to pick #56.)

 

[Djp]

So a year from now we'll have the expansion draft for Seattle. We all know Vegas did a bunch of trades back then, some to guarantee a team an unprotected player would be safe.

Since Pittsburgh kept Murray/lost Fleury 2 years ago - let's use them a guinea pig in this thread to illustrate my question. Pittsburgh once again has 2 goalies - Murray/Jarry. Let's pretend they want to keep both. They could go to Seattle and say "Seattle - here's a 3rd round draft pick - promise you won't take Murray who we're leaving unprotected". Seattle agrees, and they get the 3rd round draft pick.

My question is - did Seattle actually trade something tangible to Pittsburgh? Does 'a promise' to not do something count? What happens if come expansion draft time - Seattle says screw it, and drafts Murray anyways. Is there anything legally preventing this from happening?

I always wondered this.

This was done for years in expansion drafts

Buffalo traded vegas a 6th to not draft Ulllmark

Depends on the player how much you need to give up. Similarly teams say we give you a 1st if you pick one of thry three cap dumps.

Also remrmber other teams are talking to Seattle offering them stuff to pick exposed player x and trade him to them.

Vegas can’t be drafted from.

Seattle picks a player from each team giving them 30 p,Ayers but ideally they want to stock their prospect pool too. They may plan on setting up a 20 man roster then possibly pick others they can trade for picks and prospects and draft a few ELC is over player eho likrly would clear waivers for AHL