ATD2011 Trade Thread & Trade Talk

[thatguy17]

the vancouver velocity are happy to announce that we have agreed to swap draft positions for all rounds with the halifax mooseheads. stoneberg to confirm shortly

 

[BenchBrawl]

Mr Bugg has three of the top-17 picks yet has held onto picks in rounds 4,5,6 too.

I predict he will win his division. He certainly already is a contender without making a single pick!

from all the ''hate'' I got from my attempt to draft Lemieux & Gretzky and the vetos , this looks pretty fishy to be honest.I wonder why nobody vetoed against some of these trade , it seems clear he destroyed some gms there.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Anybody want to trade their 1st rounder pm me I'm interested to talk

I think I've started a new trend.

In response to your question before you edited, I traded my 2nd and 3rd rounder to acquire 10th overall and a fifth rounder- essentially, two average first liners for a superstar first liner and an average second liner.

Secondly, as was said, I traded my 5th, 7th and 11th rounders for 16th overall and two late picks- which works out to two second liners and a third liner for a bona fide first line player and two fourth liners.

Both deals are near-perfectly balanced, and you'll see teams make trades like that because depth kills more than anything in the ATD. Or does it? In the 30-team ATD, even if you never made a trade, you could be sure that you'd end up with three top-100 players. This time around, that's not the case. For example, ten defencemen will be elevated to #1 status- and it's debatable there were 30 of them as it was.

By positioning myself as I have, there will be no questions about whether my #1 defenceman could compete against the best forwards or vice versa or that my #1 goalie could stop either- I'll have the near-best of each position available to me. As jarek said, "I want too many things early on". My tastes happen to be richer than his, and we'll see which approach proves more successful.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Basically, this is what Bugg has:

3 1st rounders (Top 20)

4th rounder
5th rounder (close enough to his original)
6th rounder

8th rounder
9th rounder

2 12th rounders

13th rounder on, plus extra picks in the 18th and 20th rounds.

Effectively, he lost his 7th and 10th rounders and got his 11th rounder pushed back to the 12th, in order to move his 2nd and 3rd round picks into the Top 20.

I'd definitely like my position if I were Bugg, but is it draft breaking? Definitely less so than the deal that was vetoed.

 

[Stoneberg]

the vancouver velocity are happy to announce that we have agreed to swap draft positions for all rounds with the halifax mooseheads. stoneberg to confirm shortly

Confirmed, thanks.

 

[jarek]

from all the ''hate'' I got from my attempt to draft Lemieux & Gretzky and the vetos , this looks pretty fishy to be honest.I wonder why nobody vetoed against some of these trade , it seems clear he destroyed some gms there.

He didn't really destroy anybody, but he did a pretty impressive job of holding on to some early picks despite trading up so many positions.

Still, his 2nd line is going to hurt pretty badly, missing his 7th, 10th and 11th rounders. Those are picks that would go towards 2nd line/2nd pairing/goalie.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He didn't really destroy anybody, but he did a pretty impressive job of holding on to some early picks despite trading up so many positions.

Still, his 2nd line is going to hurt pretty badly, missing his 7th, 10th and 11th rounders. Those are picks that would go towards 2nd line/2nd pairing/goalie.

Maybe not individually but 3 picks top 17 is a first class fleecing for him at the end of the day.

 

[jarek]

Maybe not individually but 3 picks top 17 is a first class fleecing for him at the end of the day.

Maybe it looks good on paper but at the end of the day it's what he does with those picks. We'll see how it goes.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Maybe it looks good on paper but at the end of the day it's what he does with those picks. We'll see how it goes.

I'll echo this: on paper it look good, but I'll wait until the end of the draft to draw a conclusion on this. Depth is very important in this draft.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Confirmed.

And I veto. What a twist!



Seriously though, confirmed, although I imagine that wasn't needed. And I think I'm too late to the party for all the other trades, so right on.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Maybe not individually but 3 picks top 17 is a first class fleecing for him at the end of the day.

We'll see what happens. Historically, teams that give up depth for high-end talent end up average-at-best and usually first round losers in this thing.

On the other hand, I am starting to have slight second thoughts about everyone's quick acceptance of the jarek/Bugg trade (I think it would have still gone through, but it probably deserved a bit of scrutiny). It's possible the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, though....

Going into future drafts, I would 100% support a strict limit of no more than 4 picks involved, no more than a 4 round difference between any of the picks exchanged.

 

[jarek]

We'll see what happens. Historically, teams that give up depth for high-end talent end up average-at-best and usually first round losers in this thing.

On the other hand, I am starting to have slight second thoughts about everyone's quick acceptance of the jarek/Bugg trade (I think it would have still gone through, but it probably deserved a bit of scrutiny). It's possible the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, though....

Going into future drafts, I would 100% support a strict limit of no more than 4 picks involved, no more than a 4 round difference between any of the picks exchanged.

What's the problem with it? I give up roughly 161 spots now, for nearly 816 later.

 

[EagleBelfour]

What's the problem with it? I give up roughly 161 spots now, for nearly 816 later.

Your trade definitely was not veto worthy. It's a thoughtful and balance trade by two experience GM. However, if I had to pick a side, I would prefer getting the higher pick

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What's the problem with it? I give up roughly 161 spots now, for nearly 816 later.

Nothing veto-worthy, just think that as a member of the trade committee, I really should have noticed Bugg ending up with 3 top 20 picks before waiving it through.

As far as I'm concerned, this is more about the competitive balance of the draft than about "winning" trades.

 

[jarek]

Nothing veto-worthy, just think that as a member of the trade committee, I really should have noticed Bugg ending up with 3 top 20 picks before waiving it through.

As far as I'm concerned, this is more about the competitive balance of the draft than about "winning" trades.

As LF13 (I think?) stated - don't look at trades based on what the other person already has, look at the individual trades themselves. There's nothing really imbalanced about what Bugg has done - his 2nd line and 2nd D pairing will suffer quite a bit, and those are no small parts of teams. Actually, they will likely suffer a lot, because the picks that would normally be used on the 2nd line/2nd D pair for him will have to be used on the 1st line because he lacks those depth picks.

 

[seventieslord]

He didn't really destroy anybody, but he did a pretty impressive job of holding on to some early picks despite trading up so many positions.

Agree. Bugg managed to put himself in a nice position here without completing a single unfair trade.

You could say he "got good value" which is all I ever look for, whether trading up or down.

 

[seventieslord]

As for specific rules for trades - I'm kinda on the fence. part of me says:

We have a committee for that purpose - just like there can be unfair trades where picks more than 4 rounds apart are traded, there can be unfair trades where picks a round apart are traded. Just as there can be unfair trades where 6 picks are traded, there can be unfair trades where just two are traded.

The other side of me says:

There is no doubt that the most divisive deals that even the committee has a difficult time coming to a consensus on, are the complicated ones with lots of picks changing hands and large ranges of picks being swapped early and late in the draft, challenging our perceptions of selection values at different spots. The whole thing would just be a lot easier if there was a gap limit and/or a "max picks to be traded" limit.

On that note, when I say "gap limit" I assume that it would be based on lining up the picks, highest to lowest and comparing the deal component by component.

So this would not be allowed: "1, 5, 6, 7 for 2, 3, 4, 15" - because the 7-for-15 is invalid.

But this would: "1, 9, 10, 12 for 4, 5, 14, 16" - because 1-4, 5-9. 10-14, and 12-16 are all within 4 picks.

Also, I think this is all preliminary chat for ATD2012. This draft is on.

 

[Sturminator]

Bugg's manuevering does not concern me. I think both of his trading partners let him off pretty lightly (especially Nalyd, who should demand more for a top-10 selection), but I don't see Bugg as an early favorite for anything.

His 2nd unit will be a mess, and he has no ammunition left to move back up. I would not want the task of building the remaining 3/5ths of my second unit with the material that will be available to him by the time he comes back on the clock in round 12. We shall see how deep his knowledge goes.

 

[jarek]

Everyone seems to think Bugg got off the hook with me for some reason, but I really don't see it that way. He's going to have an awfully hard time making competitive 2nd line and 2nd defense pair with the picks that he does have. Sure, I miss out on a franchise player, but this will allow me to stack my defense and top two lines with some pretty awesome talent. My second line especially should be among the best in the draft.

 

[papershoes]

trade announcement:

Kenora (19th) and Inglewood (6th) swap ALL draft picks:

To Inglewood: 19,62,99,142,179,222,259,302,339,382,419,462,499,5 42,579,622,659,702,739,782,819,862,899,942,979

To Kenora: 6,75,86,155,166,235,246,315,326,395,406,475,486,55 5,566,635,646,715,726,795,806,875,886,955,966

arrbez to confirm

 

[EagleBelfour]

We never saw two teams swapping all their picks together in 12 drafts, and now it happened three time in this draft!

 

[papershoes]

We never saw two teams swapping all their picks together in 12 drafts, and now it happened three time in this draft!

i feel as though it never really emerged as an option prior to this draft...

 

[seventieslord]

Wow, trading is tearing us apart.

LOL. It's all in good fun. It's humourous to see the behind-the-scenes negotiations come out in the public a bit.

My favourite trade conversation? chat.mapleleafs.com ATD1, we had finished drafting and I wanted to make a trade to tweak my lineup a bit. I was talking with Spitfire (not the spitfire at these boards) and he offered me one of his picks but the guy was a major reach at 110th or wherever he was picked, and he wanted me to value him in the trade as I would a 110th pick. I told him, "you took him too early and that's not my problem, I'm not overpaying you to compensate you for your overpayment" - he told me where to go pretty fast. But I was right.

 

[markrander87]

Looking to trade the 23rd overall pick for a pick in the later 1st round 22-40. Please PM with offers.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Philadelphia will entertain offers for the #9 overall pick depending upon if the player we are targeting is available. If he is not, we would like to move down to a pick in the 15-20 region.