Do GMs ever discuss trading superstar players?

[bobholly39]

I'm curious not just to hear opinions on this, but if there is actual feedback from past/existing gms as to how often this happens.

Let me explain myself.

I'm a habs fan. Looking at the current roster, Price & Subban are superstars and "untouchables" as far as trades. Pacioretty isn't far behind, and Galchenyuk and Gallagher are close too. Anyone else for trades would probably be considered fair game.

So if Chicago's GM calls up Bergevin to discuss a trade....does he always by default skip above the aforementioned 5 players, and talk about the rest? Would the Chicago GM ever call Bergevin up and be like "Hey - Patrick Kane for Subban, what do you thikn? Or Toews for Price?"


I realize that actually making and agreeing to such a trade involving superstar players is very, very rare - but i'm curious if discussions actually happen fairly regularly, or if the perception between GMs is that some stars are completely untouchable and not even worth discussing, and so they always skip over them.

As a habs fan - Subban and Carey Price are 100% untouchable in my mind. But that's really all relative when you think about it. If we're talking about a trade that returns a Crosby or Tavares or such - well, maybe you actually stop and consider it. And i'm curious as to whether or not that happens a lot in trade talks.

Would love to hear some thoughts

Click to read more...

 

[QuennevillesDoghouse]

The Columbus Blue Jackets are willing to trade anyone, anytime.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Superstar trades don't happen for the following reasons:
1) Superstars generally have NMCs and NTCs.
2) The entire team is built around them. Trading Kane for Subban completely changes the makeup of both teams.
3) Superstars carry high cap hits, trading one for another doesn't guarantee that they will fit under the cap for their new teams.
4) Many superstars are captain of their clubs, so it also changes the leadership group

Trading superstars is not worth doing IMO. Too much risk, and very little benefit. Remember the Seguin trade?

 

[SenzZen]

I look forward to the responses from the GMs that are HF users.

 

[LeSandvich]

Trading superstars is not worth doing IMO. Too much risk, and very little benefit. Remember the Seguin trade?

Seguin was a talented player who turned out to be better than a lot of people expected. If you would label one of them as a superstar back then it was Eriksson so that example supports the idea of trading a superstar for a young talent.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Seguin was a talented player who turned out to be better than a lot of people expected. If you would label one of them as a superstar back then it was Eriksson so that example supports the idea of trading a superstar for a young talent.

Eriksson wasn't a superstar, but we all knew what Seguin could become. Chiarelli said it himself, he said he knew how good Seguin would become. I mean, the guy was drafted 2nd overall and had 29 goals 67 pts in his best season with the Bruins.

Still, I don't think it's a good idea to trade superstars. The only exception I would make is Stamkos. Pending UFA, asks for a ridiculous amount of money which TB can't afford.

 

[bobholly39]

Superstar trades don't happen for the following reasons:
1) Superstars generally have NMCs and NTCs.
2) The entire team is built around them. Trading Kane for Subban completely changes the makeup of both teams.
3) Superstars carry high cap hits, trading one for another doesn't guarantee that they will fit under the cap for their new teams.
4) Many superstars are captain of their clubs, so it also changes the leadership group

Trading superstars is not worth doing IMO. Too much risk, and very little benefit. Remember the Seguin trade?

1. NMC/NTC are common, but aren't there 100% of the time. And mostly - players might simply lift them. Would Karlsson in Ottawa not consider going to Chicago, a cup contender, if given the chance? It's never 100%, but it's always possible?

2. True - and for Chicago, doing so might be stupid as their team is a multiple time champion. But a lot of teams might want a huge "spark" to change their team's dynamic. Karlsson in Ottawa for example. Most people have him as #1 defenseman in the league (or close) - yet Ottawa as a franchise is struggling. In some cases, doing a major change could be beneficial?

3. Cap hits have to be taken into account of course, but that's true of every trade.

4. Teams trade captains all the time. And not all stars are captains. So - sure, it is a consideration, but not really an absolute?

p.s. - I am not saying Ottawa should trade Karlsson. I was just using him as an example of a superstar play on a "struggling" franchise.

I look forward to the responses from the GMs that are HF users.

I'm sure some ex-GMS (or current ones) probably talk about that type of stuff in interviews. I just don't remember ever hearing specifics, so I was curious if anyone else had

 

[g00n]

Doubt we'll hear from a GM in this thread.........

But why would teams trade superstars that are producing and similarly compensated in a capped league? That's like the CEO of McDonalds calling up his counterpart at Burger King every year and asking about swapping menus. Pointless disruption of a business model.

I would guess every GM in the league knows the "untouchable" lists and doesn't even bother asking, as it would be bad form akin to begging or wasting time. This is why we sometimes hear stories of GMs being surprised that another GM adds a name to a conversation.

Prospects and players with expiring contracts (or other issues) are likely the only ones that get talked about....unlike in fantasy leagues or speculation forums.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

1. NMC/NTC are common, but aren't there 100% of the time. And mostly - players might simply lift them. Would Karlsson in Ottawa not consider going to Chicago, a cup contender, if given the chance? It's never 100%, but it's always possible?

2. True - and for Chicago, doing so might be stupid as their team is a multiple time champion. But a lot of teams might want a huge "spark" to change their team's dynamic. Karlsson in Ottawa for example. Most people have him as #1 defenseman in the league (or close) - yet Ottawa as a franchise is struggling. In some cases, doing a major change could be beneficial?

3. Cap hits have to be taken into account of course, but that's true of every trade.

4. Teams trade captains all the time. And not all stars are captains. So - sure, it is a consideration, but not really an absolute?

p.s. - I am not saying Ottawa should trade Karlsson. I was just using him as an example of a superstar play on a "struggling" franchise.




I'm sure some ex-GMS (or current ones) probably talk about that type of stuff in interviews. I just don't remember ever hearing specifics, so I was curious if anyone else had

1. Of course Karlsson would lift his NTC/NMC if he has one to go to Chicago. However, I doubt Kane lifts his to go to Ottawa. That's just an example, but I don't think a superstar player would accept a trade to a worse team.

2. There's an easier way to spark a team by making a major change: you fire the coach. If the Sens were to trade EK, they'd become by far the worst team in the league. I've rarely seen a team being so reliant on a single player.

3. Cap issues are magnified when attempting to trade star players. It can force a team to trade other players just to shed salary.

4. Trading a captain might not be an issue in a place like Toronto that isn't trying to contend or at least make the playoffs, but it makes a difference if there is no one ready to step in as a leader.

 

[Butch 19]

didn't Gretzky get traded a few times?

 

[Eisen]

Remember Joe Thornton? It happens, albeit rarely.

 

[ClydeLee]

Sure Do.

 

[g00n]

didn't Gretzky get traded a few times?

Remember Joe Thornton? It happens, albeit rarely.

And in both cases it wasn't a simple swap of superstars out of the blue. Big names at their peak get traded rarely, and traded for equal players even less frequently.

 

[Hockey Monkey]

They talk about it all the time, it is in the "trade proposals" subforum on HF. They go there for the expertise and insightful commentary.

 

[Tripod]

Paul Holmgrem says "Nope".

 

[BlueDream]

I'm sure several have been discussed before. GMs talk about so many names that we have no idea about. A lot of them go nowhere but they still count.

 

[Slush]

Yea GM's always talk about trading superstars even though they say they are untouchable. They are still interested in seeing what they can get for superstar players as the superstar players will get you the best return.

 

[Voight]

Ask my man K-Cost