|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 10:18:51 GMT -5
I received a very interesting pm from a member that received a trade offer that was shared to me by the member on if it would be acceptable, and after looking at it for a half hour, I am pretty intrigued by it and wanted to open the door for it here to discuss.
RENTAL TRADES
Here is the general premise. Some teams are out of the playoffs but don't want to all-the-way tear down their team, but they do want to assist their rebuild. Open Teams are in a similar predicament. We want to help make them better, but we don't want to just deal off all their assets to do so.
In the same respect, some players sort of feel "locked down" because teams are afraid they can't get them back, etc.
The YR is amazing because you have a guy for that length, but the YR is also difficult because we don't have expiring contracts, and that is not a door I want to open.
So here's the idea of the trade offer:
To TEAM A:
FORWARD 90 F 8 YR (returned at end of season)
FORWARD 90 91 F 17 YR (returned at end of season)
DEFENCEMAN 90 D 18 YR (returned at end of season)
FORWARD 89 F 1 YR
To TEAM B:
2011 1ST
2004 2ND
2005 2ND
2006 2ND
2007 2ND
2008 2ND
Team A is receiving compensation for player rentals. Team A is likely out of a playoff spot, those players get a playoff run and it's the equivalent of paying 1YR rental prices, and then the player "signs with their original team" in the off-season returning to the original team. You're paying for a literal playoff rental.
The MINIMUM "cost" breakdown is as follows:
Player rated 90+ overall is worth either one 1st round pick or two 2nd round picks.
Player rated 89 overall and under is worth one 2nd round pick.
What are people's thoughts on this? I feel like this could really make deadlines insane and fun, it opens more flexibility for trades and players getting playoff runs, and assists non-playoff teams to get better and earn more assets without sacrificing their entire team to do so.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 10:28:56 GMT -5
It's kind of cool, but won't there only be like five teams doing that a season then? Why would teams in the playoffs want to do that? Are the picks all far away? I feel like it will be cool until teams only do it with teams they have established relationships with or everyone wanting to stack up one team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 10:30:38 GMT -5
Also second round picks feel like they have no value at this point. It seems like one of those better than nothing deals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 10:32:57 GMT -5
This gives 2nd round picks value, because now instead of drafting a guy around 80-81 or less, you can move one or a few off for a short run.
I think MANY teams that don't think they will win on a given year, given that 16 teams make the playoffs and only 1 wins, would do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 10:38:40 GMT -5
Right, but then doesn't that decrease value of players with 1 YR? Mark Messier went for an 85 until the end of the site and a 1st round pick. Now those guys could get moved for a two 2nds? The rental makes sense, but the established price doesn't to me. Some people might value their 90s more than two second round picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 10:41:55 GMT -5
It's not automatic, you could still get an 85 and a pick for Messier, but yes they could be moved for two seconds, and it's better than nothing. There's still the potential of bidding wars. You don't have to do anything, I'm just saying, here's a baseline for what this could be.
All I'm doing is looking at an offer and going "ok, if we allowed this, I think this should be the MINIMUM."
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 10:43:51 GMT -5
I think they should be public then. That gives everyone a shot to bid at the rental. If they're public, then I think it's awesome and should do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 10:48:22 GMT -5
I think they should be public then. That gives everyone a shot to bid at the rental. If they're public, then I think it's awesome and should do it. It is ALWAYS to everyone's benefit to trade block players they are getting offers on, I have said this since the start of the site. So I agree, but I also won't force anyone to go public on trade offers. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 10:48:39 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of it for where we are currently in the site. If this was something that started with the league then I think it'd make more sense but now I think it's a little too late to include something like this with all of the trades that have been made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 10:51:11 GMT -5
I'm not necessarily hung up on that, because hypothetically it could have been allowed the entire time, but nobody tried it to find out. As for the rental thing, that doesn't feel like a normal trade offer, and people who aren't as active get on, see a trade and just take it without going public. Rentals should HAVE to be public for bidding. At least for a day or two or one offer blows them away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 10:55:22 GMT -5
I think it will diminish the value of players. Why will anybody ever trade a 1st for an 88 when they can just keep tossing a 2nd every season for one.
If this was from the start of the site then I'd probably be more in favour of it but I think adding it in mid site isn't fair for those who have had to pay full price or over price for players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 10:56:19 GMT -5
Poll posted, democracy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 10:58:11 GMT -5
I think it will diminish the value of players. Why will anybody ever trade a 1st for an 88 when they can just keep tossing a 2nd every season for one. If this was from the start of the site then I'd probably be more in favour of it but I think adding it in mid site isn't fair for those who have had to pay full price or over price for players. That's why it should be a public bidding. Because everyone will top a 2nd round pick going for an 88, and then we won't see those real low offers. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 11:01:09 GMT -5
I think it will diminish the value of players. Why will anybody ever trade a 1st for an 88 when they can just keep tossing a 2nd every season for one. If this was from the start of the site then I'd probably be more in favour of it but I think adding it in mid site isn't fair for those who have had to pay full price or over price for players. That's why it should be a public bidding. Because everyone will top a 2nd round pick going for an 88, and then we won't see those real low offers. You do realize that this will make your rebuild a lot more difficult right? |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jan 21, 2022 11:02:43 GMT -5
I might consider adding a limit to the number of rentals a team can have.
But as with anything, the market will be what it is. Why would someone ever trade a 1st for an 88? Because maybe that is the only thing a team will rent out their 88 for. As Mike said, this is a minimum, not a maximum. A few seasons ago, I would have loved to have Gilmour for a short run, but his team had no interest in losing him. They were not a playoff team, so they would have benefitted from this.
Competitive bidding, as with any assets or trades, would keep this market in check. I'm not sure why people think people offering seconds would have all the power, rather than teams who have the assets to lend. Like, just because you have a 94 doesn't mean you will give him to anyone for any 1st type thing. Plus there's some strategy at play too - you want to move your rental to the shittiest team, to get a better pick. So again, negotiating powers.
I'm not 100% overall how I feel about this but I don't think there's any denying that it definitely opens up a lot of very interesting trade routes, while also simulating the "rental frenzy" or even rental bidding wars you get in the real NHL.
|
|
