OHLInsiders(.com) @OHLinsiders 13s13 seconds ago
London #Knights Trade Jack Hidi to Hamilton #Bulldogs #OHL #OHLTradeDeadline
London #Knights Trade Jack Hidi to Hamilton #Bulldogs #OHL #OHLTradeDeadline
OHL Trades 2015-16 Season Thread
- Thread starter sfan
- Start date
Great, corroborating evidence! BTW - I'm just trying to notify people and make it easy for users to learn and get information about league-wide trade news and history. It would be nice if the broader HFB OHL community comes to automatically think about notifying this thread with new trade info when they hear it.
GBFP
Registered User
- Sep 24, 2009
- 4,737
- 438
League should crack down on how far in the future picks can be traded. I say four years max would be a good number. The idea behind that number being a current rookie could play with said future drafted player as an OA - so it has effect on the current team/players.
Naz
Registered User
rumour had it on twitter prior to the Nichols Guelph trade that the Gens are looking to trade broduer now I bet with this move it will or did happen.you don't keep 2 vets for a rebuilding team
Teri from the Hamilton Spec is reporting its for Kutkevicius from missy for Marchment
http://mississaugasteelheads.com/article/steelheads-acquire-mason-marchment
http://mississaugasteelheads.com/article/steelheads-acquire-mason-marchment
The Peterborough Petes have traded Cameron Lizotte and 4th round draft pick to Barrie for Brandon Prophet and Tyler Rollo This is posted on the Petes website.
Last edited:
Here's links to the Marchment/Kutkevicius Trade and the Nichols to Oshawa deal,
Marchment Deal - https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/mississauga-adds-marchment-in-deal-with-hamilton/
Nichols - https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/generals-acquire-justin-nichols-from-guelph/
Marchment Deal - https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/mississauga-adds-marchment-in-deal-with-hamilton/
Nichols - https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/generals-acquire-justin-nichols-from-guelph/
Here's the Write up on the Lizotte/Prophet Deal between Barrie and Peterborough,
https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/colts-acquire-lizotte-in-deal-with-peterborough/
https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/colts-acquire-lizotte-in-deal-with-peterborough/
I know it's a bit late, but here's our write up on the Bulldogs acquisition of Jack Hidi,
https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/bulldogs-acquire-overage-forward-jack-hidi/
https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/bulldogs-acquire-overage-forward-jack-hidi/
Also here is our article on the Keenan Reynolds to Flint Deal,
https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/firebirds-acquire-keenan-reynolds-from-attack/
https://prospectshockey.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/firebirds-acquire-keenan-reynolds-from-attack/
Distant Pick Nickers
I don't really get the rants about GMs trading picks well out in the future. Its one thing for random guys like me to harp about it but last night TSN1200 suggested that Branch should crack down on it and that GMs are exploiting loopholes.
The most common justification is something like 'they are trading 9 year olds!' or some such variation. This meme seems to have built a life of its own but it is literally wrong and ridiculously disingenuous.
Picks are simply a form of currency, they are a scarce right that is exercised or traded. They are a right to pick a draft eligible player in a given year. That represents a value and a market naturally emerges for scarce valuables that can be exchanged.
- Picks for a current draft have a market value based on the round and the final standings of the teams.
- Picks in future years have less present value and a further discount based on the uncertainty of the final standings.
- Conditional picks have additional risks that the conditions are not satisfied.
GM pick management/strategy is a complex and interesting part of their job. It is normally quite opaque because the OHL simply doesn't publish an open record of each team's current pick inventory. Peter Kneulman is doing a great but painstaking job filling this void http://theohlwriter.blogspot.ca/2015/12/ohl-draftpick-database-2015-christmas.html?m=1.
The more fans can understand and keep track of GM performance the more they can come to appreciate this important dimension to long term team success. I for one find this much more interesting than the facile complaints about 'trading 9 year olds.'
If anyone disagrees, I'm more than happy to hear if I am missing something about this topic.
I don't really get the rants about GMs trading picks well out in the future. Its one thing for random guys like me to harp about it but last night TSN1200 suggested that Branch should crack down on it and that GMs are exploiting loopholes.
The most common justification is something like 'they are trading 9 year olds!' or some such variation. This meme seems to have built a life of its own but it is literally wrong and ridiculously disingenuous.
Picks are simply a form of currency, they are a scarce right that is exercised or traded. They are a right to pick a draft eligible player in a given year. That represents a value and a market naturally emerges for scarce valuables that can be exchanged.
- Picks for a current draft have a market value based on the round and the final standings of the teams.
- Picks in future years have less present value and a further discount based on the uncertainty of the final standings.
- Conditional picks have additional risks that the conditions are not satisfied.
GM pick management/strategy is a complex and interesting part of their job. It is normally quite opaque because the OHL simply doesn't publish an open record of each team's current pick inventory. Peter Kneulman is doing a great but painstaking job filling this void http://theohlwriter.blogspot.ca/2015/12/ohl-draftpick-database-2015-christmas.html?m=1.
The more fans can understand and keep track of GM performance the more they can come to appreciate this important dimension to long term team success. I for one find this much more interesting than the facile complaints about 'trading 9 year olds.'
If anyone disagrees, I'm more than happy to hear if I am missing something about this topic.
Last edited:
bobber
Registered User
Look at how Sarnia got rooked by Brown. They lost last night to the Attack. There are no guarantees if you give all your future picks away you will win anything. The fact is this is the way teams conduct business in this day and age. Not many fans in the league agree with it but it is what it is. Depends on the team you cheer for. We all wish our teams can benefit by having another franchise give away a boat load of picks and players. I doubt the league will do anything unless something nefarious is found.
This is what I break it down to.
I'm still relatively new to junior hockey but I think we're accustomed to how the draft is run at the NHL level where all picks have a perceived relative value and future picks are rarely traded.
At the junior level, even at 15/16, these players are in their infancy in terms of development which is why you see so many guys from mid-to-later rounds turn into NHL draft-level talents within a year or two of joining their junior team. Scouting at this level is very limited, which means looking beyond the current draft year is essentially a shot in the dark.
The 2021/2022 picks sound silly, but they're picks traded to be traded.
EvenSteven
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2009
- 7,515
- 6,512
I have no issue with trading picks down the road. I think the only GM's who don't like it are the ones who refuse to do it. That cause is then picked up by the fans and media outlets of those teams. If my GM is refusing to deal distant picks, and thus gets outbid when attempting to deal for impact players, they have nobody to blame but themselves. And IMO, they aren't willing to do everything possible to make their team better. All in the name of stubborn principle.
GM's who will deal distant picks have lots of time to recoup those picks in down years. In Kitchener, Steve Spott whined and blamed everyone else but himself when he got outbid by other teams for players. He wasn't prepared to deal distant picks as quickly as other GM's. Why? Because he wasn't willing to sell in down years. He would rather keep graduating assets in years we weren't contending in an effort to get into the second round and make the bottom line and his record look good.
Prime example; In 2011 when the non-contending Knights were receiving multiple second round picks for their graduating OA's, Spott stood pat and held onto two of the top OA forwards in the league (Akeson and Tipoff) when he should have sold them off when it was evident the Rangers weren't going anywhere that post season.
And again in Kitchener, if the rules of today concerning the dealing for 1st rounders who won't report to the team that drafts them stand, and if there were restrictions on dealing distant picks, then how do we complete the Tortora deal? Especially since these types of deals can only be completed using draft picks and no players. Barrie has to deal him by a certain time to get the compensatory 1st rounder for next year. Nobody is going to acquire Tortora's rights unless there are guarantees he reports unless conditional picks are involved. Those picks have to be distant as we have to wait to see if Tortora reports between now and the end of his junior eligibility.
GM's who will deal distant picks have lots of time to recoup those picks in down years. In Kitchener, Steve Spott whined and blamed everyone else but himself when he got outbid by other teams for players. He wasn't prepared to deal distant picks as quickly as other GM's. Why? Because he wasn't willing to sell in down years. He would rather keep graduating assets in years we weren't contending in an effort to get into the second round and make the bottom line and his record look good.
Prime example; In 2011 when the non-contending Knights were receiving multiple second round picks for their graduating OA's, Spott stood pat and held onto two of the top OA forwards in the league (Akeson and Tipoff) when he should have sold them off when it was evident the Rangers weren't going anywhere that post season.
And again in Kitchener, if the rules of today concerning the dealing for 1st rounders who won't report to the team that drafts them stand, and if there were restrictions on dealing distant picks, then how do we complete the Tortora deal? Especially since these types of deals can only be completed using draft picks and no players. Barrie has to deal him by a certain time to get the compensatory 1st rounder for next year. Nobody is going to acquire Tortora's rights unless there are guarantees he reports unless conditional picks are involved. Those picks have to be distant as we have to wait to see if Tortora reports between now and the end of his junior eligibility.
EvenSteven
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2009
- 7,515
- 6,512
Not a disagreement...just thoughts.
Looking at the link provided, the only two teams who really seemed to have put themselves at risk are SSM (no 2nds) and Niagara (only one 2nd) based on how far out that website projects. Those two teams will more than likely have to go into sell mode next season I'd think. I don't have issue with how GMs are doing business, but I do think there will come a time when many of the "have" teams will be into the down cycle and some of the "have-not" teams will hold high picks and those "have" teams might not have assets to sell worthy of the high picks. I may not be articulating this well, but GMs of "have" teams face greater pressure, IMO, to turn later round picks in the short term into assets they can win with or they can use to recoup picks. Guelph has a good (not great supply) of picks and is seeing the price to be paid if assets aren't moved at the right time this season. The art of being a good GM will be to know when to sell...and I think more fans will have to deal with situations where a team in the 4-6 position and might be poised for a first round upset or Cinderella run will sell off assets in order to cash in.
Also, before anyone picks on my use of "have" and "have-not", I'll clarify. These terms will change year to year but are based on the last couple of seasons where teams in contention are a "have" and teams in rebuild are "have not". Eg. Based on this I'd classify Niagara as a "have" team right now, and Guelph say as a "have not". No reflection on the big picture, just current situation. Probably could have saved myself time if I'd used different terms, but I hope that clarifies.
Well said, I think. Every team being guaranteed a 1st round pick with 'defected player' option is protection enough. Let the market decide the values.
This is coming from an unionist!
aresknights
Registered User
Well said and agreed.
Agree with ES reponse as well.
It's the market that dictates price.
Well in the WHL that most definitley is not common practice and that's why outside the OHL it looks silly, and a bit dirty if you ask me.
rangersblues
Registered User
- Mar 21, 2010
- 2,704
- 2,712
I couldn't disagree more about that team. If I recall it was a fairly weak league that year. Mississauga was hosting the Memorial Cup and all we basically had to do was win the west to get in. I think Mississauga was the top or near top ranked team in the country. In about a 2 week span in February we blew a late 2 goal lead at home to Mississauga (a game we dominated) then went to Mississauga and dominated them on Family Day winning 5 - 2. We were as good as anybody.
Bottom line we lost in 7 games to Plymouth first round of the playoffs because Spott hitched the Ranger fortunes to a goalie that couldn't stop a beach ball the first 4 games. They couldn't dig themselves out of the hole.
Sudbury Trades to Flint Sunday Morning
OHLInsiders(.com)
@OHLinsiders
TRADE: Flint #Firebirds Acquire G Matt Menna from the Sudbury #Wolves in exchange for a 7th Round Pick (2017) #OHLTradeDeadline #OHL
OHLInsiders(.com)
@OHLinsiders
TRADE: Flint #Firebirds Acquire G Matt Menna from the Sudbury #Wolves in exchange for a 7th Round Pick (2017) #OHLTradeDeadline #OHL
EvenSteven
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2009
- 7,515
- 6,512
I agree that we should have won over Plymouth and Spott was the reason we didn't, but we were never getting past the second round. That was the year we didn't get Skinner and Morin back. Once that happened, based on what we were going to look like the following two years, Spott should have sold the OA's. By not selling the OAs, we didn't have the assets to load up the following year. A year where we got outbid by London for OHL playoff MVP Austin Watson. And the Knights got Watson pretty cheap! He was the reason we lost to London and had we beat London, it's us at the Memorial Cup that year. We were that good.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: WCQF: Game 6 - Vancouver Canucks @ Nashville Predators , 7pm ET- Latest: Three On Zero
-
