Speculation: Trade Ideas and Free Agency XXVII

[nickschultzfan]

If an RFA signs an offer-sheet, can a team then trade that player to a 3rd team, who then matches the offer sheet?

If possible, that's how I would handle a Dumba offer-sheet signing. Send him to Ottawa, Toronto, or Edmonton, who would definitely match.

 

[Bazeek]

The offer sheet talk that usually happens this time of year always makes me think of people discussing the best way to fight a unicorn.

 

[TaLoN]

If an RFA signs an offer-sheet, can a team then trade that player to a 3rd team, who then matches the offer sheet?

If possible, that's how I would handle a Dumba offer-sheet signing. Send him to Ottawa, Toronto, or Edmonton, who would definitely match.

I doubt a trade of that size could be done in the short time a team has to match.

Doubt the NHL would even allow it.

 

[Wabit]

If an RFA signs an offer-sheet, can a team then trade that player to a 3rd team, who then matches the offer sheet?

If possible, that's how I would handle a Dumba offer-sheet signing. Send him to Ottawa, Toronto, or Edmonton, who would definitely match.

I remember last year reading somewhere that trading a player that got OSed isn't an option. But not sure where I read it so it might not be true.

From CapFriendly:
What are the details for the club receiving the offer sheet?

1. The player must be an RFA and therefore the receiving club must have made a qualifying offer (QO) to the player by the later of:
   1. 5:00pm EST on June 25th
   2. 5:00pm EST on Monday following the NHL Entry Draft
   If the player has not received a QO they will instead become a UFA, for further details please see the Qualifying Offer Calculator
2. The club that receives an Offer Sheet has 7 days to match the offer or accept the draft pick compensation:
   • If the receiving club accepts the Offer Sheet, they receive the compensation package which coincides with the annual average value of the offer made from the submitting club
   • If the receiving club matches the Offer Sheet, they are bound to the contract details outlined in the offer, and must respect all aspects of the contract
   • If the receiving club matches the Offer Sheet, they cannot trade that player for 1 year from the date of first refusal

 

[2Pair]

The offer sheet talk that usually happens this time of year always makes me think of people discussing the best way to fight a unicorn.

Offer sheets don't happen because, by design, they're not intended to ever be signed. They're nothing more than a failsafe to ensure that players are able to be paid what they're worth.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Offer sheets don't happen because, by design, they're not intended to ever be signed. They're nothing more than a failsafe to ensure that players are able to be paid what they're worth.

Yes. They were demanded by players, but not so much to move teams but drive up wages. As that has happened without offer sheets actually ocurring, just means that the threat of them is doing its job.

 

[absolute garbage]

Here's a crazy but still semi-realistic (as in fair for the teams involved) idea.

Trade 1: Zucker and Spurgeon to Edmonton for Larsson, Puljujarvi and 2019 1st rounder.

Trade 2: Edmonton's 2019 1st rounder, Coyle and one of Kunin/Kaprizov to NYI for Anders Lee. Sign Lee to a JVR-ish deal.

Lineup (example):

Lee-Staal-Granlund
Greenway-Koivu-Nino
Parise-JEE-Puljujarvi
cheap plug-Fehr-cheap plug

Sutter-Larsson
Brodin-Dumba
Seeler-Pateryn

Some major tweaking but hey, maybe that team could win a round or two.

 

[Wabit]

Way too much for a Lee rental. Send them Zucker of Nino 1-for-1 and that's still an overpay imo.

Save the assets and sign Lee as a UFA next offseason, like Vanak.

 

[absolute garbage]

Way too much for a Lee rental. Send them Zucker of Nino 1-for-1 and that's still an overpay imo.

Save the assets and sign Lee as a UFA next offseason, like Vanak.

It's not rental. Comes with the assumption he signs a JVR-ish deal (like I said there, you missed that part?)

 

[Wabit]

It's not rental.

Unless he's re-signed before the trade, he's a rental. His market value is that of a rental. Would you give up a 1st+Coyle+Kunin/Kaprizov for Patches?

 

[absolute garbage]

Unless he's re-signed before the trade, he's a rental. His market value is that of a rental. Would you give up a 1st+Coyle+Kunin/Kaprizov for Patches?

Are you aware what Ottawa is doing with Karlsson now? Or what Ottawa/Nashville did with Turris? The trade would be contingent on an agreed extension. Not a rental. Find a new angle.

You could just wait next summer I guess but that's very risky. You'd lose one year and it would be far from guaranteed he signs with Minnesota next year.

 

[Wabit]

Are you aware what Ottawa is doing with Karlsson now? Or what Ottawa/Nashville did with Turris? The trade would be contingent on an agreed extension. Not a rental. Find a new angle.

You could just wait next summer I guess but that's very risky. You'd lose one year and it would be far from guaranteed he signs with Minnesota next year.

Lee is not in the same league as EK; lots of similar players out there to Lee.

Turris for Girard + Kamevev + 2nd (a spare d-man, a decent prospect + 2nd). They really didn't give up much, it cost them 3 2nd rounders. Big difference than 2 1sts and a middle-6 FWD.

 

[absolute garbage]

Lee is not in the same league as EK; lots of similar players out there to Lee.

Turris for Girard + Kamevev + 2nd (a spare d-man, a decent prospect + 2nd). They really didn't give up much, it cost them 3 2nd rounders. Big difference than 2 1sts and a middle-6 FWD.

How is any of that relevant? Like, what are you even talking about? I'm not comparing the trades. Lee is obviously a more valuable player than Turris. The point is Lee is not a rental in this proposal. Just like Turris was not a rental. This was your original complaint, and it's a non-issue. Lee has 6-7 seasons left in his contract when that trade happens. Do you have actual issues with that trade?

 

[Wabit]

How is any of that relevant? Like, what are you even talking about? I'm not comparing the trades. Lee is obviously a more valuable player than Turris. The point is Lee is not a rental in this proposal. Just like Turris was not a rental. This was your original complaint, and it's a non-issue. Do you have actual issues with that trade?

Yes, you're overpaying for a rental. I don't care if he re-signs or retires after the season, his market value is that of a season rental.

You brought up the Turris trade.

 

[absolute garbage]

Yes, you're overpaying for a rental. I don't care if he re-signs or retires after the season, his market value is that of a season rental.

You brought up the Turris trade.

What's wrong with you?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I'd risk not getting him (Lee) in free agency and save the assets.

As to the 1st one, I'd say that Larsson + 2019 1st ~ Zucker and Puljujarvi < Spurgeon, so I'd need something else from Edmonton, if I'd do it at all.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Yes, you're overpaying for a rental. I don't care if he re-signs or retires after the season, his market value is that of a season rental.

You brought up the Turris trade.

But what if he re-signs 1 day after the trade, as per a previously agreed upon arrangement? He's not a rental then.

Either way, I'd risk it to keep a 1st round, Coyle and one of our 3 best prospects.

 

[Spurgeon]

Not interested in Lee at that price. He's a LW and we need to be targeting right-handed RWs in my opinion.

I'd do the Spurgeon trade personally if we could get that haul. I don't think we're giving enough. Edmonton's pick has a wide range of value.

Also, Kaprizov should be untradeable until we know what we've got in him. If we actually offered him to Vegas last year, Fletcher should've been fired on the spot. This guy has the potential to be a PPG RW. I don't want to trade him for anyone.

 

[absolute garbage]

I'd risk not getting him (Lee) in free agency and save the assets.

As to the 1st one, I'd say that Larsson + 2019 1st ~ Zucker and Puljujarvi < Spurgeon, so I'd need something else from Edmonton, if I'd do it at all.

Hey look, a response that is not waste of servers.

That's certainly one way to go. He is from Minnesota so maybe it could work. Difficult to see it though, you'd have to have some sort of summer hockey league hidden handshake deal to be comfortable going that route rather than pursue him immediately.

And in that proposal the two trades are very much connected, in terms of salary and fit etc. So if you just opt to wait and see till next summer, the trade with Edmonton wouldn't make a lot of sense (idea was basically that Lee replaces Zucker, Larsson replaces Spurgeon, Puljujarvi replaces a Coyle+prospect - to me it's certainly arguable the Wild come ahead in that).

 

[Ban Hammered]

But what if he re-signs 1 day after the trade, as per a previously agreed upon arrangement? He's not a rental then.

Either way, I'd risk it to keep a 1st round, Coyle and one of our 3 best prospects.

I think his point (and i agree with it) is that unless it is a sign and trade...his value should be seen as a rental because him re-signing is not a guarantee so we shouldn't overpay the assets on an assumption.
Personally...i think it's too much even if it is a sign and trade deal. I wouldn't give up a 1st and one of those two prospects...it's one or the other...max.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I think his point (and i agree with it) is that unless it is a sign and trade...his value should be seen as a rental because him re-signing is not a guarantee so we shouldn't overpay the assets on an assumption.
Personally...i think it's too much even if it is a sign and trade deal. I wouldn't give up a 1st and one of those two prospects...it's one or the other...max.

I think it is a guarantee. If the trade is contingent on a signature the next day, that goes to the league as well. If Lee backs out, I'm pretty sure the league would nix the deal.

I'm wary of Lee anyway. I know we have good players as well, but we don't quite have a Tavares.

 

[Wabit]

What's wrong with you?

1 guy under contract for 1 season and can become a UFA is a rental. Lee has 1 more year on his contract and can become a UFA; therefore he is a rental.

The selling team (NYI) have no control over what happens after the player is traded. His value to them as sellers that of a rental.

Panarin, Patches, Simmonds, Lee, Eberle, etc are/might also be on the market; that helps brings prices down. Lee isn't the "no doubt best and it's not even close" wing out there.

You're overpaying what the "market" value is of a 1 yr rental, plain and simple. You're making the trade on "player" value.

 

[absolute garbage]

1 guy under contract for 1 season and can become a UFA is a rental. Lee has 1 more year on his contract and can become a UFA; therefore he is a rental.

The selling team (NYI) have no control over what happens after the player is traded. His value to them as sellers that of a rental.

Panarin, Patches, Simmonds, Lee, Eberle, etc are/might also be on the market; that helps brings prices down. Lee isn't the "no doubt best and it's not even close" wing out there.

You're overpaying what the "market" value is of a 1 yr rental, plain and simple. You're making the trade on "player" value.

For the umpteenth time, it's not a rental. Lou will give Fenton access to Lee's camp once they agree on the trade but before the trade call is made, and the trade literally never happens if Lee and the Wild cannot come to an agreement on an extension. Just like Poile would've never made the Turris deal if they hadn't reached an extension agreement pre-trade. How is this so f***ing difficult for you?

 

[Wabit]

I'd risk not getting him (Lee) in free agency and save the assets.

As to the 1st one, I'd say that Larsson + 2019 1st ~ Zucker and Puljujarvi < Spurgeon, so I'd need something else from Edmonton, if I'd do it at all.

I don't think EDM needs to add anything, it's pretty fair. The gamble is on Poolparty and/or the 1st amounting to anything.

I don't see how EDM makes the trade, they really can't add Zucker's cap hit and re-sign Nurse and Strome. Lucic is really a big anchor.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I don't think EDM needs to add anything, it's pretty fair. The gamble is on Poolparty and/or the 1st amounting to anything.

I don't see how EDM makes the trade, they really can't add Zucker's cap hit and re-sign Nurse and Strome. Lucic is really a big anchor.

The gamble on our part is why they add. I don't think re-signing Strome is too important.