Rumor: Trade rumours/Proposals 2018-2019 (Part 12)

[Korpse]

How did he save on flights by trading Duchene to CLB today? The team who gets the player would pay for it...

Just let them do their thing. After the waiver claim fee scandal of 2018 I've learnt there is no reasoning.

 

[SPF6ty9]

Can someone explain to me this whole "conditional 1st if signs" condition in trades. Why even bother with this? To me this seems totally pointless, since who really cares if say Stone signs with who we trade him to or another team in the offseason. Why not scrap the condition and just get an additional guaranteed return in the trade instead?

I mean maybe getting like 25% odds (just throwing a random number out there) of a conditional 1st rounder beats having a guaranteed 2nd or 3rd thrown in if that's the alternative, that could make sense...I just don't really get why it's almost assumed to have this condition for something that we really don't (or shouldn't at least) care about and don't have any effect over.

 

[Boud]

Can someone explain to me this whole "conditional 1st if signs" condition in trades. Why even bother with this? To me this seems totally pointless, since who really cares if say Stone signs with who we trade him to or another team in the offseason. Why not scrap the condition and just get an additional guaranteed return in the trade instead?

I mean maybe getting like 25% odds (just throwing a random number out there) of a conditional 1st rounder beats having a guaranteed 2nd or 3rd thrown in if that's the alternative, that could make sense...I just don't really get why it's almost assumed to have this condition for something that we really don't (or shouldn't at least) care about and don't have any effect over.

Point is that team paying for the player is willing to pay more if they keep the player long term than for a rental

 

[SPF6ty9]

Point is that team paying for the player is willing to pay more if they keep the player long term than for a rental

Ya I suppose, but it just seems like it's just trying to purposely spite the team (by means we can't control) by trying to sign him rather than potentially increase the return. I mean I have no idea what a GM would accept as an equivalent concession to a conditional first.

Let's say Columbus' plan all along is just to use Duchene as a rental for a run and rather than sending us another prospect or maybe upgrading a prospect in the deal they let us have this condition they have no intention of fulfilling. Maybe I'm just being contrarian but trying to unwrap the logic in this beyond it being there just to hold the team over a barrel if they try to extend a player.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Calgary has a bunch of good pieces.

Valimaki
Kylington
Andersson
Dube
Bennett

I for one do not really consider any of those to be desirable pieces in a trade for Mark Stone. I recognize that Valimaki and Andersson are decent but they're realistically gonna be depth guys and nothing more. We don't need a bunch more mediocre pieces we need one good one.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I for one do not really consider any of those to be desirable pieces in a trade for Mark Stone. I recognize that Valimaki and Andersson are decent but they're realistically gonna be depth guys and nothing more. We don't need a bunch more mediocre pieces we need one good one.

We just gave up a top line C near the end of his prime (who has put up a lot of points on a historically bad team) and essentially got nothing back expect a two long shot prospects (in terms of becoming impact players).

We need to stop hoping for anything more for pur star players. Other GMs get to tell Dorion who to go scout and Dorion bends over because he can't convince Melnyk to spend on the roster.

 

[HaNotsri]

Can someone explain to me this whole "conditional 1st if signs" condition in trades. Why even bother with this? To me this seems totally pointless, since who really cares if say Stone signs with who we trade him to or another team in the offseason. Why not scrap the condition and just get an additional guaranteed return in the trade instead?

I mean maybe getting like 25% odds (just throwing a random number out there) of a conditional 1st rounder beats having a guaranteed 2nd or 3rd thrown in if that's the alternative, that could make sense...I just don't really get why it's almost assumed to have this condition for something that we really don't (or shouldn't at least) care about and don't have any effect over.

25% of a 1st rounder might be worth more than a 3rd round pick. I don’t know the stats but it’s a common cognitive trap that humans fall into, looking for the safe assett or ”win” even though it means a net loss based on probability.

Columbus have a lot of cap space and can use a good C long term.

 

[BloodRedArmy]

Ya I suppose, but it just seems like it's just trying to purposely spite the team (by means we can't control) by trying to sign him rather than potentially increase the return. I mean I have no idea what a GM would accept as an equivalent concession to a conditional first.

Let's say Columbus' plan all along is just to use Duchene as a rental for a run and rather than sending us another prospect or maybe upgrading a prospect in the deal they let us have this condition they have no intention of fulfilling. Maybe I'm just being contrarian but trying to unwrap the logic in this beyond it being there just to hold the team over a barrel if they try to extend a player.

Player is worth X unsigned (Not X+3rd, X+5th, just X)... BUT, with an extension they are worth X+Y. Rather than do a sign and trade, which obviously the player isn't interested in doing, it's an insurance policy. It bypasses the player's decision to sign right now.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

I for one do not really consider any of those to be desirable pieces in a trade for Mark Stone. I recognize that Valimaki and Andersson are decent but they're realistically gonna be depth guys and nothing more. We don't need a bunch more mediocre pieces we need one good one.

Yeah but then we can trade a big chunk of these "ok" assets for some real, top-level talent.

I'm sure that's how it works!

 

[Neiler]

We need to be dealing with Vegas for Stone. They have the pieces we need.

Stone for 1st, Glass, 1st
Stone, Ceci for 1st, Glass, Hague, Miller

 

[richmh77]

Ya I suppose, but it just seems like it's just trying to purposely spite the team (by means we can't control) by trying to sign him rather than potentially increase the return. I mean I have no idea what a GM would accept as an equivalent concession to a conditional first.

Let's say Columbus' plan all along is just to use Duchene as a rental for a run and rather than sending us another prospect or maybe upgrading a prospect in the deal they let us have this condition they have no intention of fulfilling. Maybe I'm just being contrarian but trying to unwrap the logic in this beyond it being there just to hold the team over a barrel if they try to extend a player.

Because the deal for the rental is the guaranteed 1st and 2 prospects.

The conditional pick (think of it as a separate trade) is what Columbus has paid Ottawa to have negotiation rights. They now have the advantage of giving Duchene the 8 year contract... if there is no way to do a sign and trade, then I don’t mind Ottawa asking for a big conditional pick and on Columbus’ end, they basically paid for a rental and if they are successful in re signing him, the price is fair at 2-1st and 2-prospects.

 

[Blacephalon]

Now watch Stone be traded just before the game tomorrow to Calgary.

 

[Daffy]

We should be focusing on the Preds, Knights and Isles.

Bruins, Flames, Jets just don't have very desirable prospects.

 

[Neiler]

We should be focusing on the Preds, Knights and Isles.

Bruins, Flames, Jets just don't have very desirable prospects.

I would cut the Preds out of that too. There's gotta be a high potential piece in the deal and VGK and NYI have several of those.

 

[Daffy]

I would cut the Preds out of that too. There's gotta be a high potential piece in the deal and VGK and NYI have several of those.

Fabbro and Tolvanen to me are high end.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

We need to be dealing with Vegas for Stone. They have the pieces we need.

Stone for 1st, Glass, 1st
Stone, Ceci for 1st, Glass, Hague, Miller

We’re not getting Glass, let alone Glass +

 

[Spartachat]

We’re not getting Glass, let alone Glass +

For a sign and trade maybe, but every single NHL players wants to go to Tampa, Toronto or a large US city like New York, LA or Chicago.

 

[The don godfather]

Can someone explain to me this whole "conditional 1st if signs" condition in trades. Why even bother with this? To me this seems totally pointless, since who really cares if say Stone signs with who we trade him to or another team in the offseason. Why not scrap the condition and just get an additional guaranteed return in the trade instead?

I mean maybe getting like 25% odds (just throwing a random number out there) of a conditional 1st rounder beats having a guaranteed 2nd or 3rd thrown in if that's the alternative, that could make sense...I just don't really get why it's almost assumed to have this condition for something that we really don't (or shouldn't at least) care about and don't have any effect over.

Yes I agree with you 100 % . I would have scrapped those maybe prospects and conditional 1st round pick. It should have been simple and about quality . Trade should have been liam foudy and 1st round pick for Matt duchene. Foudy being the solid blue chip prospect compared to those 2. I'm sure dorion tried but rentals are the worst to trade . Need term to do a great deal I feel.

 

[LeProspector]

With the way Nilsson has played for us up to this point. Is there any possibility we could flip him to a contender for a higher puck than what we paid? Would show some great asset management by Pierre.

 

[LeProspector]

We’re not getting Glass, let alone Glass +

Brannstrom is the guy I’ve wanted for years now. BADLY.
If we get him for Stone, for me at least would lessen the blow of losing my favourite player ever.

 

[DJB]

With the way Nilsson has played for us up to this point. Is there any possibility we could flip him to a contender for a higher puck than what we paid? Would show some great asset management by Pierre.

I'd rather just keep him for what he returns in a trade unlikely we can find or draft a better replacement . Plus we will need a veteran guy once Anderson is gone after next season.

After that one of Gus or Hog can split time with Nilsson. Swedish connection ! !!!

 

[edguy]

With the way Nilsson has played for us up to this point. Is there any possibility we could flip him to a contender for a higher puck than what we paid? Would show some great asset management by Pierre.

With so many goalies out there I doubt it.. Kinkaid, maybe Bob, Quick's names been out there.

Nilsson probably isnt going anywhere. I just hope they don't Mike Condon him and sign him to a multi year deal for too much money

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Guys Ben lovejoy just went for Connor carrick and a third. Jensen for bowey and a second.

Ceci has got to be traded

 

[operasen]

We need to be dealing with Vegas for Stone. They have the pieces we need.

Stone for 1st, Glass, 1st
Stone, Ceci for 1st, Glass, Hague, Miller

If we could get Glass and a 1st and a prospect I’d include Dzingel with Stone. Quality not quantity.
Islanders have coveted pieces as well. Dobson from them to replace Glass in the above scenario.

 

[harrisb]

With the way Nilsson has played for us up to this point. Is there any possibility we could flip him to a contender for a higher puck than what we paid? Would show some great asset management by Pierre.

Asset management and Pierre are oxymorons, heavy on the moron part. We need to sign Nilsson, retain on Andy and trade him