Don't Trade for Expensive Rentals!

[SlickShot]

Most of the time rentals don't work out too well but every now and then it works out great for the team.

 

[saluki]

Yeah, I think finding a guy who

1) looks like he's at the end but might be rejuvenated by a move to a contender

2) fills a very specific hole in your lineup

3) relies on skill rather than speed or physicality

should be at the top of every GM's list, rather than making a splash with an expensive rental.

Handzus is probably the best recent example of those three attributes, and he was a big contributor to the Hawks 2013 cup after being pretty much written off as an NHL player.

 

[Styles]

If your teams cup window is open the GM should do anything in his power to improve the roster going into the playoffs. When Chicago was competing for cups the last thing I was worried about was picks and prospects.

 

[howkie]

Bishop to Kings was horrible aswell, Cernak would look good in Kings now...

 

[boredmale]

Hartman+5th for Ejdsell+1st+4th

One of the worst deals in terms of how much was paid and for what. A young bottom sixer, Hartman's track record didn't suggest that this kind of price should have been paid for him. What's more, his production rate didn't change in Nashville either, and his playoff run was cut short by the Jets. Nashville gets bonus points for keeping him (granted that he was a RFA), but given the high cost and minimal on-ice impact he has had for his entire career, you'd have a hard time spinning this one into a win.

Verdict: fail. If you want a bottom sixer that bad, use your draft picks on big guys and have an endless supply of Hartmans.

I would say a very late first for Hartman is not really that much of a stretch

 

[Maukkis]

If your teams cup window is open the GM should do anything in his power to improve the roster going into the playoffs. When Chicago was competing for cups the last thing I was worried about was picks and prospects.

You cannot add enough in one season to make a significant change in your odds of winning the Cup.

And when you do add, you're gradually shortening your window.

I would say a very late first for Hartman is not really that much of a stretch

Hartman is a fourth line guy.

 

[Nickmo82]

This is the unvarnished truth. They rarely work out. However, as a fan of a rebuilding team that is hopefully selling lots of assets at the TDL, I hope that no GMs from teams going for it come to this realisation.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Tatar for 1st+2nd+3rd

Isn't it wonderful to start with a trade which already contradicts the parameters you just put into place? This makes the list for the sole reason of Tatar being traded right after the playoff run, which technically makes him a rental..? And boy, was the trade a downright joke for the Knights. Tatar barely played for the team that eventually made the finals. Scoring just eight points in 28 combined games for Vegas, he was already pawned off to Montreal after a couple of months. Giving up three high-to-mid picks for a guy who did not contribute and who had no long-term impact on your roster is horrific, and even the trip to the SCF does not outweigh the bad.

Verdict: fail. Nothing to discuss here, aside from the comparisons of Pacioretty and Tatar with their new teams.

Context can also be important. Vegas had 3 picks in the top 15 in the 2017 draft. They traded a 1st in 2018, a 2nd in 2019, and a 3rd in 2021 for Tatar, with those 3 top 15 picks in their back pocket, and riding an expansion season wave that nobody has ever seen in any sport. That 3rd rd pick is almost meaningless, since it was for 3 years in the future. It's technically an asset, but trades involving picks in future years are on the lower end of value. The further in the future you go, the less you worry about getting rid of it. Rinaldo was traded in 2015 for a 3rd in 2017.

Vegas lucked out that the 1st ended up even lower in the draft than where they finished in the regular season, and they finished 5th overall in the league in the regular season. The 2nd rd pick was from the Islanders, so Vegas still has their own 2nd this year. If all the picks had been in 2018, that's a risky deal. Because of the way the picks were staggered though, especially with one so far in the future, that's really not a bad trade.

You never want to throw picks away, but if there was a team that could trade 3 picks in one trade, Vegas was that team last year. They have 9 picks in the 2019 draft right now, and all of them come before the 6th round.

 

[Styles]

You cannot add enough in one season to make a significant change in your odds of winning the Cup.

And when you do add, you're gradually shortening your window.

Yes you can. Adding a piece and pushing players down your depth chart is the best way to increase your chances. Trading for a defenseman that ultimately pushes a worse defensemen off your roster helps the team. Same with forward depth. If your team can get an edge, do it. I don’t regret a single pick or prospect we have up in a trade for rentals. It’s a direct message to the fans that there is one goal in mind.

 

[Soundgarden]

I would say a very late first for Hartman is not really that much of a stretch

We essentially traded an undrafted late 1st for a developed 1st capable of playing in the playoffs immediately. I'm fine with it. Is Hartman a bottom 6er most of the time, yes, but he's got a 19G season under his belt playing limited minutes and he's proven he can step up when injuries hit, which will be a huge need come playoff time.

People vastly overrate draft picks, yes there are some fine players but the name of the game is winning the cup and certain depth players are often times the missing piece for teams. You can't be expected to be favorites if you're missing a no.1G, C or D which is why the face-off specialists, the PKers or grinders are often acquired at the deadline.

 

[Maukkis]

Yes you can. Adding a piece and pushing players down your depth chart is the best way to increase your chances. Trading for a defenseman that ultimately pushes a worse defensemen off your roster helps the team. Same with forward depth. If your team can get an edge, do it. I don’t regret a single pick or prospect we have up in a trade for rentals. It’s a direct message to the fans that there is one goal in mind.

There is a horrible disconnection between what is actually significant and what you perceive it to be.

For example, there is a model that had Toronto's Cup odds for this year as 10% pre-Muzzin trade. The trade raised them to 12%. One additional Cup every fifty years, that is. That cost them a first and a pair of their top 5 prospects.

Context can also be important. Vegas had 3 picks in the top 15 in the 2017 draft. They traded a 1st in 2018, a 2nd in 2019, and a 3rd in 2021 for Tatar, with those 3 top 15 picks in their back pocket, and riding an expansion season wave that nobody has ever seen in any sport. That 3rd rd pick is almost meaningless, since it was for 3 years in the future. It's technically an asset, but trades involving picks in future years are on the lower end of value. The further in the future you go, the less you worry about getting rid of it. Rinaldo was traded in 2015 for a 3rd in 2017.

Vegas lucked out that the 1st ended up even lower in the draft than where they finished in the regular season, and they finished 5th overall in the league in the regular season. The 2nd rd pick was from the Islanders, so Vegas still has their own 2nd this year. If all the picks had been in 2018, that's a risky deal. Because of the way the picks were staggered though, especially with one so far in the future, that's really not a bad trade.

You never want to throw picks away, but if there was a team that could trade 3 picks in one trade, Vegas was that team last year. They have 9 picks in the 2019 draft right now, and all of them come before the 6th round.

Don't disagree with context being important, but it doesn't turn that deal into a good one.

 

[GodEmperor]

But what's one cup worth though?

While I agree there are obvious blunders that should be avoided, I can't say that all of these even when the team fails to win the cup are in that category.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

If you seriously think you can win the Cup don't let that stop you. For instance the Caps should be loading up on the best players they can now, nothing should stop them.

 

[Styles]

For example, there is a model that had Toronto's Cup odds for this year as 10% pre-Muzzin trade. The trade raised them to 12%. One additional Cup every fifty years, that is. That cost them a first and a pair of their top 5 prospects

That’s interesting. Do you have a link to this model? I’d like to see what is used to get these odds.

 

[TheDoldrums]

For example, there is a model that had Toronto's Cup odds for this year as 10% pre-Muzzin trade. The trade raised them to 12%. One additional Cup every fifty years, that is. That cost them a first and a pair of their top 5 prospects.

This is a rentals thread.

 

[tntkid]

Ottawa trying to get a kings ransom for Stone or Duchene is crazy.

After the trade deadline they lose them for nothing.

 

[AndreRoy]

If your teams cup window is open the GM should do anything in his power to improve the roster going into the playoffs. When Chicago was competing for cups the last thing I was worried about was picks and prospects.

No, the time to do that is not if your team’s Cup window is open but rather if it is about to close. If your window is open your goal should be to keep it open for as long as possible to give yourself as many chances as possible to go all the way, not to shorten it for what may or may not be slightly increased chances in a single year.

Just look at teams like the Blackhawks and the Pens who won multiple championships over a several year period, and even the Caps who took a long time to finally win one but who wouldn’t have been able to do so had they prematurely closed their window. For an older example look at the Yzerman Red Wings who also took a long time to get over the hump before finally winning three championships; for possibly the next example look at the Lightning team he put together as a GM. Your best chance of success in the NHL comes from having a team that can be among the league’s best for a several year stretch.

Finally I’ll leave you with a bit of mathematics that explains why going “all-in” in a single season is a fool’s move: you could have a team that is so dominant as to be a 5-1 favorite to win the series against every team it faces in the playoffs, and it would still be more likely NOT to win the Cup than to win it. In hockey you always take the field against any individual team. So shortening your window to add a player who at best might give you another percentage or two in your favor for a single playoff run is sheer idiocy.

 

[Maukkis]

That’s interesting. Do you have a link to this model? I’d like to see what is used to get these odds.

I'm afraid that model is not publicly available. It is Dom Luszczyszyn's, and I got that bite of data from his Twitter. Earlier this year, he had Nylander's estimated impact at roughly 3% too, and I've seen other estimations which suggest similar impacts too.

 

[Maukkis]

Finally I’ll leave you with a bit of mathematics that explains why going “all-in” in a single season is a fool’s move: you could have a team that is so dominant as to be a 5-1 favorite to win the series against every team it faces in the playoffs, and it would still be more likely NOT to win the Cup than to win it. In hockey you always take the field against any individual team. So shortening your window to add a player who at best might give you another percentage or two in your favor for a single playoff run is sheer idiocy.

Of the fifteen players I listed, three made the final four. Tatar, Stastny, and Vermette. Even that takes a lot of things to go right, and LUCK.

The playoffs are driven by luck more than the average fan thinks. Moneypuck, which has a public model for Cup probabilities, had Winnipeg sd last year's favourite to win coming into the playoffs. They were given a ~14% chance to win. That is just short of once every seven years, mind you.

 

[Styles]

No, the time to do that is not if your team’s Cup window is open but rather if it is about to close. If your window is open your goal should be to keep it open for as long as possible to give yourself as many chances as possible to go all the way, not to shorten it for what may or may not be slightly increased chances in a single year.

Just look at teams like the Blackhawks and the Pens who won multiple championships over a several year period, and even the Caps who took a long time to finally win one but who wouldn’t have been able to do so had they prematurely closed their window. For an older example look at the Yzerman Red Wings who also took a long time to get over the hump before finally winning three championships; for possibly the next example look at the Lightning team he put together as a GM. Your best chance of success in the NHL comes from having a team that can be among the league’s best for a several year stretch.

Finally I’ll leave you with a bit of mathematics that explains why going “all-in” in a single season is a fool’s move: you could have a team that is so dominant as to be a 5-1 favorite to win the series against every team it faces in the playoffs, and it would still be more likely NOT to win the Cup than to win it. In hockey you always take the field against any individual team. So shortening your window to add a player who at best might give you another percentage or two in your favor for a single playoff run is sheer idiocy.

Picks and prospects can be overrated. He uses the Ladd trade as an example. Dano isn’t even in the NHL. With reguards to the 1st round pick we gave up in 2016. None of the prospects picked at 22OA or after (where we would have picked) are making an impact. Did that trade set Chicago back? Probably not.

 

[TheDoldrums]

The playoffs are driven by luck more than the average fan thinks. Moneypuck, which has a public model for Cup probabilities, had Winnipeg sd last year's favourite to win coming into the playoffs. They were given a ~14% chance to win. That is just short of once every seven years, mind you.

You can agree with this and still believe aggressively improving the team during a Cup window is the right play. Adding a 2% chance of achieving the ultimate goal seems pretty significant to me, if the cost is only marginal futures.

 

[Osprey]

I think that some important pieces of context are missing here. Most teams that trade for expensive rentals are desperate to make the playoffs, like LA in acquiring Sekera, or are desperate for their average playoff teams to become contenders, like Minnesota in acquiring Hanzal. If you're willing to trade for a player that's going to really impact your play and the feeling in the locker room, that's probably an indication that things aren't going so smoothly already.

Also, such teams usually acquire players that aren't really that good. Either because the rental market isn't that good or the top rentals go to other teams, these desperate teams overpay for players that they shouldn't because they're all that's available.

The OP is a Preds fan, so this thread is really an appeal for not trading Tolvanen for Panarin (or anyone else), which is fine. The thing is, though, that the Preds are a contender and Panarin is much better than your average rental. That's not necessarily to say that overpaying for Panarin would be a wise decision for the Preds to make, just that I'm not sure that there's much precedent to suggest that it wouldn't be. The OP's argument is a great case for desperate or average teams not overpaying, especially for second-rate rentals, though.
Edit: I'm an idiot. I confused the OP with someone else.

 

[AndreRoy]

Picks and prospects can be overrated. He uses the Ladd trade as an example. Dano isn’t even in the NHL. With reguards to the 1st round pick we gave up in 2016. None of the prospects picked at 22OA or after (where we would have picked) are making an impact. Did that trade set Chicago back? Probably not.

That’s why you have to be smart about what you’re willing to give up and what you’re willing to give it up for. Your goal should be to identify your core players and to lock them up for the long haul, then to refresh the supporting cast around them as cap hits and team needs dictate. Your picks and prospects are best used to help relieve your team of expensive veterans who have fallen off, to replace those cap dumps as well as those quality complementary players who have simply become too expensive to keep around, and to use as trade bait with which to acquire high-end pieces with term to patch up weaknesses. The recurring trend here is that all these moves improve your team over the long haul, not just for a single year.

This being the case contributing young players on cheap contracts and prospects who you know will become useful NHL pieces should be hoarded and not traded for rentals, as they are simply far too valuable either as depth on your roster or as bait with which to land a big fish with term. As your supporting cast ages and becomes more expensive you can trade them for additional futures while replacing them more cheaply from within, and the cycle continues. But this requires that you have the quality depth to begin with, and you can’t amass that depth by trading it away for rentals.

Just look at what the Lightning have done with their supporting cast over the last several years. They were able to rid themselves of expensive veterans who had fallen off (Garrison) or were simply occupying too much cap space for their contributions (Filppula) while giving up very little in the process. They were able to move on from an expensive core piece in Bishop (who unfortunately was always getting injured at the worst possible moment), replacing him with a young star in Vasilevskiy while acquiring a defensive prospect in Cernak who is now playing very well in their top four as a rookie. They were able to bring up guys like Cernak, Point, Gourde, Cirelli, and Joseph who have made immediate impacts as rookies. And because they had all this depth they could afford to trade two of their top prospects in Howden and Hajek along with a first and either a first or a second for McDonagh to shore up their defense. They wouldn’t have been able to accomplish all this if they had been trading their top prospects and picks for rentals every year.

 

[qwerty]

This year is a different crop of rentals. The quality rentals this season is something I’ve never seen before. Players who are in their prime who can drive their own lines. If there was ever a year to give up your 1st + +. It’s this year.

 

[Channelcat]

Rentals are stupid just like signing UFAs. NHL GMs are still behind the times and just cant stop doing dumb stuff.