|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 12:17:20 GMT -5
Alright, after looking at the last thread, and listening to everyone there, putting all your points together, this would probably be the most optimal version of this idea. Now let's look at THIS version and see if we like it?
RENTAL TRADE SUGGESTION - ENHANCED VERSION 2.0
1. Price-line guide for a rental:
90+ overall = minimum 1st round pick or two 2nd round picks
89 and lower overall = minimum 2nd round pick
2. When Can You Trade for a Rental?
Trade can only occur at trade deadline, which limits team to final 15ish games left of the season, plus playoffs. This prevents teams from intentionally tanking by trading best players away at start of year.
3. Maximum Rented (Acquired and Traded) Per Season
Maximum Rented Players per team (Acquired): 2 (1 Per Position)
Maximum Rented Player per team (Traded): 3 (Maximum 2 Per Position)
Note: An acquired player cannot be re-rented to another team who would "pay more" after the fact. Teams are strongly recommended to their benefit of advertising the player on deadline trade blocks to get the highest value from the start.
Reminder: If a player you rented out wins an award, the award goes to the team that held the player's rights at the end of the regular season.
Why This Can Be Fun
- Gives everyone more trade avenues
- Opens the door to more deadline deals for final push, pick movement, increased functionality of second round picks
- Allows poorly built teams more opportunity to be long-term competitive beyond high draft picks
- Allows more flexibility on trades for players that teams would otherwise never be able to acquire
- Lower rated teams can get a chance to get some decent assets back for a rental and accelerate their rebuild
- Higher rated teams can get a chance to win a cup at the offset of losing some additional assets
- It lets members have more control over the style of how you want to rebuild or contend on the site
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 12:24:31 GMT -5
Still doesn’t fix this problem:
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 Edmonton Oilers on Jan 21, 2022 12:37:22 GMT -5
Still doesn’t fix this problem: 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? Mike wanted to add a "you can only rent out a specific player a set number of times", and I mean...technically we can, but I think this is over-legistating shit -just making rules for the sake of it. So let's play out your scenario to the extreme. Year 1 -Im missing the playoffs, so I rent Jagr, and get a 1st OVERALL pick. Year 2 - I now have Jagr and a 93 overall. So...let's pretend I'm missing the playoffs again. So I rent Jagr, get 1st OVERALL pick. Year 3 - Now I have 3 91+ overall players. For fun, I miss the playoffs AGAIN, and rent him AGAIN. 1st Overall. Year 4 - a whopping 4 90+ overall players by the literal-impossible luck that my rental picks became 1st OVERALL picks, so now I am pretty loaded....but still miss playoffs, rent Jagr, get 1st overall pick. Year 5 - I have 5 90+ players. Im not missing the playoffs. Am I still renting Jagr? There is a natural end-game to renting. You are getting better. You start making playoffs, and competing. Maybe teams even think, "Shit, I'm not giving him another 1st for Jagr, he has FIVE 90+ overall players just from renting Jagr. On that same vein, eventually you won't be renting 88s for seconds, because you will have too much depth to even need the seconds. The supply and demand will just take care of these things so that all of this just becomes unnecessary. And why you would trade Jagr? Maybe you don't want the 15th overall pick a PLAYOFF team can offer you, and instead want a shot at a top 2 pick. Or a trio of top 5 picks or something that only a legit trade can offer you. Again, the buyers are offering you PLAYOFF picks. NOT top-overall picks. So it feels like no matter how you break down this "rent forever" thing, it doesn't hold up in practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 12:48:15 GMT -5
Yes but see how they never moved Jagr? Those players will never move.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 12:50:46 GMT -5
Yes but see how they never moved Jagr? Those players will never move. In other situations, players that will never move could move more, which kinda offsets this. Like if I started with Gretzky and loved him and didn't want to ever lose him, now I could rent him to a team that wants to try out Gretzky and know I'm not permanently losing him. |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jan 21, 2022 12:51:58 GMT -5
Yes but see how they never moved Jagr? Those players will never move. Yeah, so look at the league right now. I have Chara, Heatley, and Hossa. They will never move off my team. BUT. With this suggestion, if you really wanted to have one of those guys, you could, since I WOULD be open to renting them, knowing I would get them back. So teams could get locked up players, even if just for a short time. That door swings both ways. Or, as I said in my other reply, if they wanted something legit for Jagr instead of depth-picks, they could/would trade him in a real trade. You missed that part, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 12:54:00 GMT -5
Yes but see how they never moved Jagr? Those players will never move. In other situations, players that will never move could move more, which kinda offsets this. Like if I started with Gretzky and loved him and didn't want to ever lose him, now I could rent him to a team that wants to try out Gretzky and know I'm not permanently losing him. Yes but nobody else can never actually have him then. It ruins the value of picks and the whole concept of rebuilding. A rental almost never goes back to their former team and here they always will. Realistically, the rental player should go to FA where everybody can then bid on the player. |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jan 21, 2022 12:58:07 GMT -5
Colorado Avalanche - so does that mean you would only be in favour of this suggestion then if we added Mike's clause of "you can only rent a player out a set number of times" or are you against it regardless?
|
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 12:58:43 GMT -5
Colorado Avalanche - so does that mean you would only be in favour of this suggestion then if we added Mike's clause of "you can only rent a player out a set number of times" or are you against it regardless? I’m against it, I think there’s too many ways for people to exploit this and it’ll destroy trading. |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jan 21, 2022 13:01:26 GMT -5
Colorado Avalanche - so does that mean you would only be in favour of this suggestion then if we added Mike's clause of "you can only rent a player out a set number of times" or are you against it regardless? I’m against it, I think there’s too many ways for people to exploit this and it’ll destroy trading. okay. But I'm still not seeing how it will "destroy" trading when it all but guarentees there will be several deadline rental deals each season. When we made the site, I assumed whoever had Jagr would hold him until the site ended, since he had no FA, no cost to re-sign/keep, and was the highest rated player for the longest time. He has been traded many times. Same with Brodeur. Just like any players, I don't see why this would be different - you have some names people will lock up, and some names people will trade freely to get maximum value. You do NOT get maximum value out of renting Jagr for 5 years. You get it from trading him. Rentals are a consolation prize. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 13:22:15 GMT -5
I’m against it, I think there’s too many ways for people to exploit this and it’ll destroy trading. okay. But I'm still not seeing how it will "destroy" trading when it all but guarentees there will be several deadline rental deals each season. When we made the site, I assumed whoever had Jagr would hold him until the site ended, since he had no FA, no cost to re-sign/keep, and was the highest rated player for the longest time. He has been traded many times. Same with Brodeur. Just like any players, I don't see why this would be different - you have some names people will lock up, and some names people will trade freely to get maximum value. You do NOT get maximum value out of renting Jagr for 5 years. You get it from trading him. Rentals are a consolation prize. You do get maximum value for him when you have gained assets for the last 5 seasons and on top of that still get to keep Jagr. Again, a rental is just that. The team trading him gives up his services for a price, knowing that he will most likely not come back to them and the team trading for him pays a price knowing that they will only have him for one season and then he is an FA. If a player is rented they should be going to FA after the season for everybody else to bid on them, that's how a rental works. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 13:24:10 GMT -5
I explained that to Blockbuster when I would rent movies from them. They disagreed with me, and said I had to return their rental.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 13:27:40 GMT -5
As much as people might love or hate this idea, I do want to at least thank everyone for exploring it with us in a really friendly way. It's fun debating new ideas. It all adds to hopefully maximizing the most enjoyability factor this site can offer, given how odd and niche we are lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 13:32:41 GMT -5
Fuck this idea and you for presenting it. If this goes through, I'm blowing my team up and quitting!
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 13:34:27 GMT -5
Can there be two way rentals? Like could I give Colorado a 92 for an 85 and a 1st round pick, but after the year we swap back and I keep the pick?
|
|
