Speculation: Trade & Proposal Thread, Deadline Approaches - COMMON TRADES

[BertCorbeau]

Starting to wonder if we could sell back Corrado to Benning for a hefty price

Previous:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2034141

Click to read more...

 

[Leafsman]

Trade + Proposal 2016: TDD Approaches... And Everyone Trades Now

Just wondering if it is possible to conduct a trade with Pittsburgh and include removing the condition from previous trade.

ie: Trade PAP for 3rd or 2nd next year and the removal on condition ensuring we get Pittsburgh's first this year.

 

[ACC1224]

Don't see why not.

 

[Pi]

Why would they do it? Pittsburgh is not a good team.

 

[Leafsman]

Why would they do it? Pittsburgh is not a good team.

Which is why they might consider doing it. They are teetering amongst a playoff position and missing. They have to give up a pick anyway, so they may as well go all in.

 

[gamer1035]

Yes, just put in a trade with the exact opposite conditions while ensuring the first is given up

 

[hotpaws]

Which is why they might consider doing it. They are teetering amongst a playoff position and missing. They have to give up a pick anyway, so they may as well go all in.

They're not going to make a bad situation potentially much worse by taking off the conditions of the pick and potentially giving up a top 3 pick for PAP , never mind also throwing in a 2nd or 3rd on top of it .

LL got a great return for Polak and now it seems some fans think the entire league will grossly overpay for our slugs .

 

[Leafsman]

They're not going to make a bad situation potentially much worse by taking off the conditions of the pick and potentially giving up a top 3 pick for PAP , never mind also throwing in a 2nd or 3rd on top of it .

LL got a great return for Polak and now it seems some fans think the entire league will grossly overpay for our slugs .

The key word is "potential" - If we trade them a piece that puts them into the playoffs we would be receiving the 1st anyway.

All we're doing is helping them fulfill the main condition on the first trade which there is a 50/50 shot they may do anyway. Even worse would be them squeeking into the playoffs giving us the first then getting booted making the 1st a mid-rounder and pretty decent.

That was just an example (hence the "ie") and I hardly consider it a "gross" overpayment. There is no "on top of" - we're just eliminating some conditions and suring up we get the pick this year. It's win-win, we're helping them advance so they get in the playoffs and we get the 1st. A 3rd this year or a 2nd next year is a great deal for them to get PAP.

There is lots of cap room on the Leafs so they could take some deadweight back if Pittsburgh has some allowing them more room to deal on TDD

 

[Mess]

Just wondering if it is possible to conduct a trade with Pittsburgh and include removing the condition from previous trade.

ie: Trade PAP for 3rd or 2nd next year and the removal on condition ensuring we get Pittsburgh's first this year.

The Pens are sitting in the last WC spot only 1 point from missing the playoffs.

The reason the condition exists is because Pens wanted to guarantee they not give up a #1-14 pick with a shot at a top 3. They wanted to make sure they didn't get burned like the Leafs did when they acquired Kessel and didn't protect themselves.

The condition removal would require a player off the Leafs worth essentially a 1st round pick (by himself) from a non playoff team and a rental player on an expiring contract like PAP wouldn't come close to that for Pens to take that kind of risk they protected themselves against initially.

Pens getting PAP and then missing the playoffs with Leafs potentially get 3 extra lottery chances at a Top 3 pick would be an outcome that would get Pens GM fired.

 

[Mess]

The Pens 1st round pick in 2016 should actually be viewed as 2 picks.

On the condition of the Pens making the playoffs the Leafs get their pick in range 15-30. (a condition of the Kessel trade)
&
However Pens could also trade that same pick again on the condition that they miss the playoffs to another team and that team would be guaranteed they get a pick 1-14. (because Leafs ownership would transfer to 2017 1st round conditional pick).

For the right player Pens could add assets to help them by trading the same pick 2 times.

ie Pens trade a 2016 conditional 1st (condition of missing the playoffs) to TB for Jonathan Drouin.

If the Leafs wanted to get in on that 2nd chance to pick 1-14, it would be costly as Pens know they are giving up a pick with 1-3 potential by the deal but most likely a pick in the range 10-14 overall. So the value of the player/assets received by the Pens would have to be equal to that.

 

[RoyalGremlin]

I'd rather get rid of the Kessel retention.

 

[Faltorvo]

Just wondering if it is possible to conduct a trade with Pittsburgh and include removing the condition from previous trade.

ie: Trade PAP for 3rd or 2nd next year and the removal on condition ensuring we get Pittsburgh's first this year.

To be totally honest , I have no clue if they legally can

understand that all trades made in the nhl have to pass through head office and be approved.


something just does not sound right that then down the road


the two teams can double back and change an approved trade. Putting at risk the "league approved part".

 

[Leafsman]

The Pens 1st round pick in 2016 should actually be viewed as 2 picks.

On the condition of the Pens making the playoffs the Leafs get their pick in range 15-30. (a condition of the Kessel trade)
&
However Pens could also trade that same pick again on the condition that they miss the playoffs to another team and that team would be guaranteed they get a pick 1-14. (because Leafs ownership would transfer to 2017 1st round conditional pick).

For the right player Pens could add assets to help them by trading the same pick 2 times.

ie Pens trade a 2016 conditional 1st (condition of missing the playoffs) to TB for Jonathan Drouin.

If the Leafs wanted to get in on that 2nd chance to pick 1-14, it would be costly as Pens know they are giving up a pick with 1-3 potential by the deal but most likely a pick in the range 10-14 overall. So the value of the player/assets received by the Pens would have to be equal to that.

I doubt head office would allow them to trade a pick already registered in another deal. I would imagine they would have to wait until the conditions of the initial deal transpire or get Maple Leafs approval as that pick is partial property of the Maple Leafs.

 

[Leafsman]

The Pens are sitting in the last WC spot only 1 point from missing the playoffs.

The reason the condition exists is because Pens wanted to guarantee they not give up a #1-14 pick with a shot at a top 3. They wanted to make sure they didn't get burned like the Leafs did when they acquired Kessel and didn't protect themselves.

The condition removal would require a player off the Leafs worth essentially a 1st round pick (by himself) from a non playoff team and a rental player on an expiring contract like PAP wouldn't come close to that for Pens to take that kind of risk they protected themselves against initially.

Pens getting PAP and then missing the playoffs with Leafs potentially get 3 extra lottery chances at a Top 3 pick would be an outcome that would get Pens GM fired.

That is true! Definitely don't wanna be pulling a "Burke".

You could have lottery protection (ie: if pick does win, then Toronto receives next years 1st).

That way Pittsburgh is protected and Toronto is guaranteed a first, instead of potentially only ending up with a 2nd.

 

[indigobuffalo]

Just wondering if it is possible to conduct a trade with Pittsburgh and include removing the condition from previous trade.

ie: Trade PAP for 3rd or 2nd next year and the removal on condition ensuring we get Pittsburgh's first this year.

Yes.

We can also trade the conditional pick to another team if we want.

We don't have to wait for it to be converted, we just have to transfer the conditions to another team if we trade the pick.

We can even add further conditions to the pick, like if it is a 1st in 2016, we get an extra 2nd rounder, or if it's a 2017 1st, we get a 2017 3rd rounder, and if it's a 2nd 2017 we don't get anything extra.

Conditions are just extra hoops that have to be met before a pick is finalized.

I don't think there are any restrictions in the CBA as to what can and cannot be a condition. So if owners wanted to have some fun they could make GMs trade futures with absurd conditions like "If Jamie Benn plays an entire game in the playoffs with the wrong-sided stick, the pick becomes a 1st (instead of 5th)."

Problem is you'd probably never get two GMs to agree to that.

 

[StuckOutHere]

I'm pretty cool with them squeaking in and getting destroyed by Washington. 14th OA gets you a pretty good prospect. We can just trade PAP somewhere else for a 2nd or prospect.

 

[hullsy47]

I'm pretty cool with them squeaking in and getting destroyed by Washington. 14th OA gets you a pretty good prospect. We can just trade PAP somewhere else for a 2nd or prospect.

if the pens miss the playoffs do we lose the pick entirely?

 

[jboknows]

I'm pretty cool with them squeaking in and getting destroyed by Washington. 14th OA gets you a pretty good prospect. We can just trade PAP somewhere else for a 2nd or prospect.

Man, if that happens, you've gotta be pretty pumped with how the Kessel deal all shook out. When we made the original trade I didn't mind the return and that was with me expecting we'd get a draft pick in 26-30 range. (Although I thought with the amount of retention we took we could have gotten a bit more). The retention part doesn't bother me any more, now that Phaneuf was moved without any (which I didn't see happening).

 

[jboknows]

if the pens miss the playoffs do we lose the pick entirely?

For this year, yes. But there are other conditions where we could then get their 2017 first next year, or another pick (I think 2nd) if they don't make it then as well. Can't remember the exact terms of the deal though.

 

[Leafsman]

if the pens miss the playoffs do we lose the pick entirely?

For this year, yes. But there are other conditions where we could then get their 2017 first next year, or another pick (I think 2nd) if they don't make it then as well. Can't remember the exact terms of the deal though.

You're right. If they make it to the playoffs, we get their 1st for this draft.

If they miss this year but make it to the playoffs next year, then we get their 1st in the 2017 draft.

If they don't make the playoffs either year, we get their 2nd in the 2017 draft.

I would really like to sure up getting a 1st myself which is why I thought of this hair-brained scheme. They are sitting on the cusp of the playoffs which is why they may not see as much down-side in changing the conditions if we were to offer them some more help.

 

[Hunter74]

Should trade Gardiner to the Pens for an asset and to get them into the playoffs so we can get that 1st. Gardiner is going to be 26 this June I wonder if they will trade him?

 

[Macallan18]

Bozak + for Carle + Drouin

If Lou could do this I would worship him like a god.

 

[JoeyBeans]

really why not? who do you compare him to?

This could have a lot to do with his age.. But when Mackinnon + Frk played he was great, confidence with the puck.


Following season

The confidence was out the door, Giving up on plays, and acting like a baby..

I almost feel like Mackinnon is so good he makes players on his line look good.

 

[tolwyn]

Should trade Gardiner to the Pens for an asset and to get them into the playoffs so we can get that 1st. Gardiner is going to be 26 this June I wonder if they will trade him?

Why does it matter if he's 26? Gardiner is playing as good as you could hope for any #10+ pick in a draft, and signed to a very reasonable contract. We are in absolutely no position to give up great assets or picks unless it is a landslide win for us.

 

[Bullseye]

The key building block that the Leafs need to acquire is a franchise goal-tender. Lou obviously knows this and it makes you wonder what it would honestly take to wrestle a guy like Vasilevski away from Tampa Bay.

They have Bishop and will need to move one of these assets.