|
|
Post by New York Rangers on Jan 21, 2022 13:34:40 GMT -5
I think the part that kinda changed my mind towards the idea was thinking of it less as a "rental" (because that does have a different meaning in a North American sports vocabulary), and more as a "loan" (which does happen quite a bit in pro sports). I'd be loaning a player to another team for a negotiated amount vs renting them.
With that mindset I do actually like the idea (with the provisions mentioned above, I don't think a free-for-all is a great idea but limited would be good). In real life the loan would be for money, but since we don't have that in this league, our currency *is* draft picks, so I could see how this could work.
My question is this: can a player be loaned in exchange for another player? Or can I loan a player for a loaned player (for instance, loan my star forward from my deep forward class in exchange for the loan of a defenseman from someone else?). Few kinks to work out but I'm starting to like the idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jan 21, 2022 13:35:05 GMT -5
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. You still aren't playing this through far enough. You KEEP Jagr, you get Jagr plus some 83s? (Again, the mid-first round picks, since they are playoff teams draft picks). You TRADE Jagr, lets say for a 90-93, an 88-90, and some picks (around what his trade history shows he has been traded for WITHOUT ANY RENTAL VALUE). So...why would I take some 83-84 players to be on my 3rd line when I could get legit first liners instead? Who I could then rent out if I was someone who was this set on renting? You will always get more value out of trading. |
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Avalanche on Jan 21, 2022 13:40:51 GMT -5
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. You still aren't playing this through far enough. You KEEP Jagr, you get Jagr plus some 83s? (Again, the mid-first round picks, since they are playoff teams draft picks). You TRADE Jagr, lets say for a 90-93, an 88-90, and some picks (around what his trade history shows he has been traded for WITHOUT ANY RENTAL VALUE). So...why would I take some 83-84 players to be on my 3rd line when I could get legit first liners instead? Who I could then rent out if I was someone who was this set on renting? You will always get more value out of trading. You may think that but just watch, this will destroy the value of picks and trading outside of the deadline won't happen as much. You'll have your Penguins and Devils that will pay an arm and a leg for a 90 rental and the rest of us will have to fight for the scraps. I mean hey, my team is pretty much set up for the next 7 years so who am I to complain, good luck to guys like Leafs and Wings though who just traded a lot of their players for picks. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 13:45:05 GMT -5
It's also important to remember that rentals are only allowed at the trade deadline, and I think Leafs should post something similar to his buyer/seller block and post something that says "Post your available rentals if you have any" and then people can bid in that thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Kings on Jan 21, 2022 14:02:15 GMT -5
I'm not voting yet, but I think if we did try this out I'd adjust it as such:
Loan deals need 3-5 trade mod /league members approvals
Teams can only acquire 1 loanee for the tester season
Teams can loan out as much as they like
I'd also scrap the minimum payments and see what happens
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 21, 2022 14:02:38 GMT -5
Can a player be loaned in exchange for another player? We talked about this before posting it and decided "we will see what the trade looks like and see if we think it's fair." So, technically yes, as I stated before, the outline in this is that there is a minimum standard for the "loan." We don't really care what goes on beyond that, within reason. Can I loan a player for a loaned player (for instance, loan my star forward from my deep forward class in exchange for the loan of a defenseman from someone else?). No. You cannot acquired an already loaned player from another team. These trades only happen at the trade deadline. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Red Wings on Jan 21, 2022 14:09:51 GMT -5
Can I loan a player for a loaned player (for instance, loan my star forward from my deep forward class in exchange for the loan of a defenseman from someone else?). No. You cannot acquired an already loaned player from another team. These trades only happen at the trade deadline. I think he meant like give an Yzerman to him, and get a Lidstrom back, after the season they reswap. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Calgary Flames on Jan 22, 2022 2:06:45 GMT -5
Hi, guy that's done nothing in this league for the last year or so here;
So, here's my general issue with the idea of a Rental Trade - it only works if we have players under contracts.
Right now, this league is set on players having undisclosed lifetime contracts, so we don't have to worry about contracts and renewals and extensive free agency bidding and whatnot, which is fine. That's what I've grown used to in this league. However, the aim of any 'Rental Move' in the NHL in real life is throwing a 'pennies to the dollar' offer to a team, looking to acquire an expiring contract to bolster depth for a playoff run, in hopes that the limited time will either get them a successful run, or the player staying on for a longer term.
With the expiring side out of the equation in this league, that complicates the waters in terms of trade value, and could potentially ruin full-blown deals that have nothing to do with Rentals or Loan moves. It could just make trades in general obsolete as well - the only thing that would happen would be rental moves. You guys can decide whether or not that would be beneficial to the league.
From a comparison standpoint, if we look at Rental Trades similar to European Soccer, we have to look at the reasons why teams loan out players to other squads. That can be best summarized by these reasons;
- Team A is looking to loan out Player X to Team B because he's an excess of goods, and would see better time at another team. More than most of the time, it's a bottom of the table team in the same league adding him in hopes to avoid relegation, or a lower division team picking him up in hopes of promotion. There's no promotion or relegation in this league.
- Team A is looking to give experience to a young player, so they loan him out to Team B with the expectation that he will start more games with them instead of their team. This league doesn't run a dynamic rating system, so that would prove to be pointless to do. I don't think we'd see someone like Tony Amonte head to Washington because instead of Middle 6 time, he'd be getting top line time.
- Team A don't want to use Player X, but don't want to sell them quite yet, because he could be a potential piece in a puzzle for a future season, so they send him away so he can actually play. This would open up possible opportunities in this league for Low-Mid 80s players to be loaned out in deals so they could play, but be returned to their original team for future projects.
- Financial aspects, which I won't go into detail, because in this league, finances are irrelevant.
Overall, this isn't a bad idea. I believe this is an idea, though, that won't be successful. With finances and contracts being null and void in this league, it makes no point for rental deals to be relevant either. I think it ultimately ends up muddying the waters on trade value, or it just completely ruins the trade market in general.
If this were to be implemented, I do believe this would have to be heavily moderated, so we could make a baseline marker of which deals are acceptable as a rental deal, and which ones are either not valued enough or too overvalued. And those trades would need to be unanimously agreed upon by both parties, and the moderators. Any doubt should be vetoed.
I've said my piece, and I'm sure there's counter-points. I just overall think without salaries or contract lengths, adding in rental deals is a bad move.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins on Jan 23, 2022 23:08:35 GMT -5
was i supposed to vote in both of these polls? i got the inbox one and voted there then saw this and voted here i donno what one is official but ill say for someone like me who doesnt want to gamble on picks id rather have a playoff run adding some guys or even a guy if thats the rule and shit teams without playoff run get a chance to get something for their stars since they just wasted a whole season by bein a shit team.
and i also think it gives us more trade chances not less. i dont understand the talk about stopping the trades or trade value at all. i would make more trades for sure every single deadline either renting or renting out for absolute sure and i think activity and trade boost is a good thing a lot of the time
|
|
|
|
Post by Winnipeg Jets on Jan 23, 2022 23:36:15 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. I find myself more on this side just because if you take the worst case, but assume no team is risking a top 5 pick, then even if you re-rent Jagr every year you would end up with 4 80-83 overall players. This isn't really game breaking and would take 4 full seasons to get the return. On the other hand we get more action at trade deadline and teams may have to get creative and have big blockbusters that involve some rentals and some not. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Jan 24, 2022 8:57:29 GMT -5
I think we will definitely continue this discussion into the off-season given that the votes are pretty interesting so far.
For those that hate this idea, is there adjustments that would make it more palatable for you?
|
|
