|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 11:05:40 GMT -5
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? If I was in a strong rebuild, then maybe it would. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 11:06:06 GMT -5
Would you be able to make this like I'll take this guy with 9 YR remaining and will take him for 3 years and then give him back?
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 11:06:43 GMT -5
Would you be able to make this like I'll take this guy with 9 YR remaining and will take him for 3 years and then give him back? That wouldn't be a rental, that'd be a small contract lol |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 11:09:49 GMT -5
Here's what I like about it:
A lot of teams have traded many, many picks away and are kind of screwed if it doesn't pan out. This is a nice way of kind of righting the ship without completely decimating your team, and draft picks will be traded around a lot more, allowing people more chances to both win a cup, and also try and get their team sort of "back to normal". It kind of re-levels the playing field when there's more opportunity to "cash in" and also to "cash out" without completely losing the asset entirely.
Example:
Pens and Devils both go all-in, trade all their picks from now to eternity, maybe win a cup, their players are nearing retirement, they are falling off, they need to build it back up. So, instead of just doing:
Player 92 4YR for a pair of firsts, they now have the option of going, ok, this year, I'll trade him for a first, next year, maybe a pair of seconds, next year, a first and second and he's gone.
Instead of getting two 1sts for the 4YR, they could re-maximize the value of the player, and actually, across multiple trades to the end of their YR, actually turn that player into two firsts and two or three second round picks.
It's just creating another avenue of flexibility for teams to start treating their players as rentals.
We could also look at "a player is not considered a rental until he has X years remaining" as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 11:10:45 GMT -5
Would you be able to make this like I'll take this guy with 9 YR remaining and will take him for 3 years and then give him back? That wouldn't be a rental, that'd be a small contract lol Rentals aren't always just a one year guy. Some teams trade for a guys with a few years on his contract with the knowledge that they won't resign him when the contract is over. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 11:13:00 GMT -5
Here's what I like about it: A lot of teams have traded many, many picks away and are kind of screwed if it doesn't pan out. This is a nice way of kind of righting the ship without completely decimating your team, and draft picks will be traded around a lot more, allowing people more chances to both win a cup, and also try and get their team sort of "back to normal". It kind of re-levels the playing field when there's more opportunity to "cash in" and also to "cash out" without completely losing the asset entirely. Example: Pens and Devils both go all-in, trade all their picks from now to eternity, maybe win a cup, their players are nearing retirement, they are falling off, they need to build it back up. So, instead of just doing: Player 92 4YR for a pair of firsts, they now have the option of going, ok, this year, I'll trade him for a first, next year, maybe a pair of seconds, next year, a first and second and he's gone. Instead of getting two 1sts for the 4YR, they could re-maximize the value of the player, and actually, across multiple trades to the end of their YR, actually turn that player into two firsts and two or three second round picks. It's just creating another avenue of flexibility for teams to start treating their players as rentals. We could also look at "a player is not considered a rental until he has X years remaining" as well. I like the idea that they have imaginary contracts. Draft a player, he's on a five year contract, on the 5th year he can be rented, then he signs another five year, and on the 5th year he can be rented out type deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jan 21, 2022 11:13:23 GMT -5
It seems cool at first imo, but then thinking of how rattled youd be if you built a proper team for another to just 'rent' half the available players, would be off putting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 11:14:00 GMT -5
That wouldn't be a rental, that'd be a small contract lol Rentals aren't always just a one year guy. Some teams trade for a guys with a few years on his contract with the knowledge that they won't resign him when the contract is over. Yes, and no one is stopping trades where you take that guy entirely. What this does is open the door to someone that wants to keep a guy for retirement, but also get some value to allow that player a playoff run, without having to re-acquire him back. Example: I trade Gilmour 93 F 3 YR to Colorado for a 1st. I get Gilmour back at end of playoffs, and he retires after 2 more years. VERSUS I trade Gilmour 93 F 3 YR to Colorado for two 1st round picks. Playoffs end. I trade a first pick to Colorado for Gilmour 93 F 2 YR. It's eliminating the need for the second trade, by creating a rental framework on the site to open the doors to these kinds of trades. I still get to have Gilmour and retire him here, and Gilmour and the other team, get their playoff run to try and win a Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 11:15:16 GMT -5
It seems cool at first imo, but then thinking of how rattled youd be if you built a proper team for another to just 'rent' half the available players, would be off putting. I agree with that. I think teams should have a maximum amount of players that can be rented on a season to season basis. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 11:15:31 GMT -5
Here's what I like about it: A lot of teams have traded many, many picks away and are kind of screwed if it doesn't pan out. This is a nice way of kind of righting the ship without completely decimating your team, and draft picks will be traded around a lot more, allowing people more chances to both win a cup, and also try and get their team sort of "back to normal". It kind of re-levels the playing field when there's more opportunity to "cash in" and also to "cash out" without completely losing the asset entirely. Example: Pens and Devils both go all-in, trade all their picks from now to eternity, maybe win a cup, their players are nearing retirement, they are falling off, they need to build it back up. So, instead of just doing: Player 92 4YR for a pair of firsts, they now have the option of going, ok, this year, I'll trade him for a first, next year, maybe a pair of seconds, next year, a first and second and he's gone. Instead of getting two 1sts for the 4YR, they could re-maximize the value of the player, and actually, across multiple trades to the end of their YR, actually turn that player into two firsts and two or three second round picks. It's just creating another avenue of flexibility for teams to start treating their players as rentals. We could also look at "a player is not considered a rental until he has X years remaining" as well. Yes but at the same time nobody will ever move any of the top players that have a good amount of years left. Like why would Kings ever trade Jagr now? Rather than moving him for 4 1sts (which is a lot) he could just hold onto him and sell him every season for a first or two and keep doing that over and over and over again. I think this lowers the value of a pick and ruins actual trading because I would never trade any of my guys now if I could just keep renting them out over and over again. The thing about a rental is that 9 times out of 10 that player doesn't go back to their former team, they go on to a new team. So with the player going back to their former team, why would anybody ever actually trade them rather than just continuously renting them every season? |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 11:17:05 GMT -5
Here's what I like about it: A lot of teams have traded many, many picks away and are kind of screwed if it doesn't pan out. This is a nice way of kind of righting the ship without completely decimating your team, and draft picks will be traded around a lot more, allowing people more chances to both win a cup, and also try and get their team sort of "back to normal". It kind of re-levels the playing field when there's more opportunity to "cash in" and also to "cash out" without completely losing the asset entirely. Example: Pens and Devils both go all-in, trade all their picks from now to eternity, maybe win a cup, their players are nearing retirement, they are falling off, they need to build it back up. So, instead of just doing: Player 92 4YR for a pair of firsts, they now have the option of going, ok, this year, I'll trade him for a first, next year, maybe a pair of seconds, next year, a first and second and he's gone. Instead of getting two 1sts for the 4YR, they could re-maximize the value of the player, and actually, across multiple trades to the end of their YR, actually turn that player into two firsts and two or three second round picks. It's just creating another avenue of flexibility for teams to start treating their players as rentals. We could also look at "a player is not considered a rental until he has X years remaining" as well. Yes but at the same time nobody will ever move any of the top players that have a good amount of years left. Like why would Kings ever trade Jagr now? Rather than moving him for 4 1sts (which is a lot) he could just hold onto him and sell him every season for a first or two and keep doing that over and over and over again. I think this lowers the value of a pick and ruins actual trading because I would never trade any of my guys now if I could just keep renting them out over and over again. The thing about a rental is that 9 times out of 10 that player doesn't go back to their former team, they go on to a new team. So with the player going back to their former team, why would anybody ever actually trade them rather than just continuously renting them every season? Yeah he's right, I just changed my stance. |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jan 21, 2022 11:17:20 GMT -5
It seems cool at first imo, but then thinking of how rattled youd be if you built a proper team for another to just 'rent' half the available players, would be off putting. I don't disagree. Would a limit on number of rentals you can have/acquire ease your concern? |
|
|
|
Post by New York Rangers on Jan 21, 2022 11:20:12 GMT -5
Here's what I like about it: A lot of teams have traded many, many picks away and are kind of screwed if it doesn't pan out. This is a nice way of kind of righting the ship without completely decimating your team, and draft picks will be traded around a lot more, allowing people more chances to both win a cup, and also try and get their team sort of "back to normal". It kind of re-levels the playing field when there's more opportunity to "cash in" and also to "cash out" without completely losing the asset entirely. Example: Pens and Devils both go all-in, trade all their picks from now to eternity, maybe win a cup, their players are nearing retirement, they are falling off, they need to build it back up. So, instead of just doing: Player 92 4YR for a pair of firsts, they now have the option of going, ok, this year, I'll trade him for a first, next year, maybe a pair of seconds, next year, a first and second and he's gone. Instead of getting two 1sts for the 4YR, they could re-maximize the value of the player, and actually, across multiple trades to the end of their YR, actually turn that player into two firsts and two or three second round picks. It's just creating another avenue of flexibility for teams to start treating their players as rentals. We could also look at "a player is not considered a rental until he has X years remaining" as well. Yes but at the same time nobody will ever move any of the top players that have a good amount of years left. Like why would Kings ever trade Jagr now? Rather than moving him for 4 1sts (which is a lot) he could just hold onto him and sell him every season for a first or two and keep doing that over and over and over again. I think this lowers the value of a pick and ruins actual trading because I would never trade any of my guys now if I could just keep renting them out over and over again. The thing about a rental is that 9 times out of 10 that player doesn't go back to their former team, they go on to a new team. So with the player going back to their former team, why would anybody ever actually trade them rather than just continuously renting them every season? I actually agree with this - unless we set a rule like "only in a player's final 3 years" or whatever like that, or some limit of how many times a player can get rented out, I think it kinda nerfs the trade market in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jan 21, 2022 11:21:36 GMT -5
yeah maybe, idk, if the price is right then idk. It's a new concept that takes a bit of time to digest
|
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators on Jan 21, 2022 11:21:52 GMT -5
I'm not a fan. If you're selling, you should be selling. How many trade deadline rentals go back and sign with the team that traded them?
|
|
Apr 12, 2023 22:46:55 GMT -5