2016 Lead up to the Trade Deadline thread

[Beowulf]

I have been wondering what this team is going to look like post trade deadline.

obviously it is going to depend on if they take anybody back in deals or if its only for futures this could be a pretty young group the 2nd half of the year.

It may be a younger group, but the guys the team will be bringing up will most likely be the older guys on the Marlies, not guys like Nylander or Brown. They'll give the guys who have been in the system a reward for waiting it out for so long, while the team is essentially playing out the season without a care.

Agreed. Guys like Arcobello, Frattin, Carrick, Brennan, perhaps Campbell will likely be the ones called up over the younger, more highly touted ones.

Then once the Leafs' season ends they can promptly be sent back down for the Calder Cup run, unless there's some roster rule(s) I'm forgetting?

 

[bustaheims]

Then once the Leafs' season ends they can promptly be sent back down for the Calder Cup run, unless there's some roster rule(s) I'm forgetting?

I think they eliminated the whole Clear Day thing, but there's still some sort of rules around that, yeah.

 

[L K]

Then once the Leafs' season ends they can promptly be sent back down for the Calder Cup run, unless there's some roster rule(s) I'm forgetting?

I think they eliminated the whole Clear Day thing, but there's still some sort of rules around that, yeah.

They have to be declared eligible, you don't have to actually send them down anymore.  So you don't need to play around and demote a Leivo/Nylander to the minors for the Clear Day Roster.  They just have to be eligible to play in the AHL. So you can't demote a 32 year old guy who would have to clear waivers to play in the minors.

 

[Beowulf]

Then once the Leafs' season ends they can promptly be sent back down for the Calder Cup run, unless there's some roster rule(s) I'm forgetting?

I think they eliminated the whole Clear Day thing, but there's still some sort of rules around that, yeah.

They have to be declared eligible, you don't have to actually send them down anymore.  So you don't need to play around and demote a Leivo/Nylander to the minors for the Clear Day Roster.  They just have to be eligible to play in the AHL. So you can't demote a 32 year old guy who would have to clear waivers to play in the minors.

Makes sense, thanks for the info LK.

 

[Kin]

Last night when discussing Roman Polak and where he might go Bob McKenzie said something about thinking that this year there'd be a "soft market" for depth players and that the Leafs might not get the kind of return similar players have gotten in the past.

Anyone else get the sense that he's right? It seems likely that there'll be roughly the same number of sellers as there is any year and while parity has a lot of teams in potential buying positions I kind of get the sense that what you really need for a really active market is a bunch of teams who are pretty confident in their abilities to go deep and, as a result, are looking for that slight bump to give them an edge.

Short of Chicago or Washington(and maybe LA), how many teams out there who you'd really be surprised if they'd get knocked out in the first round? Not many and, the way I think about deadline deals, it's the "contenders" who really look to make depth acquisitions.

 

[L K]

There aren't even a lot of clear cut sellers at the deadline right now either.  Winnipeg and Carolina could add some good players to the deadline if they fire sale but it's not like Edmonton/Buffalo are teeming with guys who are going to be traded.

 

[Highlander]

Nik, you make a lot of sense as always. I think McKenzie may be right, it seems the draft is so much more important than ever before, draft picks are being prized like gold. However the way that Polak has played this year would make you think he could fetch a 2nd for his tough and inspired play of late.
Lets hope some of our players; I would think P.A.P. who has been playing a very strong two way game could also fetch us something.  The others outside of Riemer, Gardiner I can't see much return.
Then again with Hunter and his team, he could find us a few gems in the later rounds.

 

[bustaheims]

Last night when discussing Roman Polak and where he might go Bob McKenzie said something about thinking that this year there'd be a "soft market" for depth players and that the Leafs might not get the kind of return similar players have gotten in the past.

Anyone else get the sense that he's right? It seems likely that there'll be roughly the same number of sellers as there is any year and while parity has a lot of teams in potential buying positions I kind of get the sense that what you really need for a really active market is a bunch of teams who are pretty confident in their abilities to go deep and, as a result, are looking for that slight bump to give them an edge.

Short of Chicago or Washington(and maybe LA), how many teams out there who you'd really be surprised if they'd get knocked out in the first round? Not many and, the way I think about deadline deals, it's the "contenders" who really look to make depth acquisitions.

It's kind of hard to say. There aren't many clear buyers, but there aren't many clear sellers at this point, either. There are only 6 teams that aren't within 5 points of a playoff spot. Unless there's some separation over the next 3 weeks, there's going to be a lot of teams that might feel they're a good two weeks away from solidifying a playoff spot, and all it takes is a couple of them willing to pay a little extra to add players they think will help with that to turn a soft market into a really good one. On top of that, there aren't a lot of pending UFAs on the rosters of the other current sellers, and with a potential cap crunch on the way, the Leafs' pending free agents could very well be attractive enough targets to create a bit of a bidding war.

 

[rdowdall]

Last night when discussing Roman Polak and where he might go Bob McKenzie said something about thinking that this year there'd be a "soft market" for depth players and that the Leafs might not get the kind of return similar players have gotten in the past.

Anyone else get the sense that he's right? It seems likely that there'll be roughly the same number of sellers as there is any year and while parity has a lot of teams in potential buying positions I kind of get the sense that what you really need for a really active market is a bunch of teams who are pretty confident in their abilities to go deep and, as a result, are looking for that slight bump to give them an edge.

Short of Chicago or Washington(and maybe LA), how many teams out there who you'd really be surprised if they'd get knocked out in the first round? Not many and, the way I think about deadline deals, it's the "contenders" who really look to make depth acquisitions.

It's kind of hard to say. There aren't many clear buyers, but there aren't many clear sellers at this point, either. There are only 6 teams that aren't within 5 points of a playoff spot. Unless there's some separation over the next 3 weeks, there's going to be a lot of teams that might feel they're a good two weeks away from solidifying a playoff spot, and all it takes is a couple of them willing to pay a little extra to add players they think will help with that to turn a soft market into a really good one. On top of that, there aren't a lot of pending UFAs on the rosters of the other current sellers, and with a potential cap crunch on the way, the Leafs' pending free agents could very well be attractive enough targets to create a bit of a bidding war.

I think the problem though is that the Leafs pending free agents aren't difference makers.  They aren't going to put a team over the top.  They also aren't going to be the difference between a team making it and not making it. 

 

[bustaheims]

I think the problem though is that the Leafs pending free agents aren't difference makers.  They aren't going to put a team over the top.  They also aren't going to be the difference between a team making it and not making it.

Considering how tight the races are, the difference between a team making it and a team golfing early is pretty small. The kinds of upgrades the Leafs have available could very easily be enough to bridge those gaps for some teams. There also aren't likely to be any difference makers available at the deadline - not that are on expiring contracts, at least. There very rarely are. If teams are looking for difference makers, then expiring contracts aren't as appealing to them - and, in that case, the Leafs still have a couple guys who they can get into discussions about who are on much easier to manage contracts than the other potentially available options.

The Leafs aren't going to be getting 1st round picks for their rental guys, but no one was realistically expecting that. But, 2nd and 3rd rounders? I'll be pretty surprised if the Leafs don't walk away from the deadline with a few of those.

 

[rdowdall]

I think the problem though is that the Leafs pending free agents aren't difference makers.  They aren't going to put a team over the top.  They also aren't going to be the difference between a team making it and not making it.

Considering how tight the races are, the difference between a team making it and a team golfing early is pretty small. The kinds of upgrades the Leafs have available could very easily be enough to bridge those gaps for some teams. There also aren't likely to be any difference makers available at the deadline - not that are on expiring contracts, at least. There very rarely are. If teams are looking for difference makers, then expiring contracts aren't as appealing to them - and, in that case, the Leafs still have a couple guys who they can get into discussions about who are on much easier to manage contracts than the other potentially available options.

The Leafs aren't going to be getting 1st round picks for their rental guys, but no one was realistically expecting that. But, 2nd and 3rd rounders? I'll be pretty surprised if the Leafs don't walk away from the deadline with a few of those.

It might be hard for teams to part with 2nd and 3rd rounders though if they aren't going to get a player that can put them in to the playoffs though.  Their rationale may be that it would be better to keep those types of picks and try to build a stronger team in the offseason and plug holes then. 

For example, P.A. Parenteau is having a good season, but would a team like the Rangers give up a 2nd or 3rd to help with their offense now to possibly get them in to the playoffs?  Or would they prefer to keep that pick, let the chips fall where they may, and then make some moves to bolster their team in the summer?

 

[hockeyfan1]

I think the problem though is that the Leafs pending free agents aren't difference makers.  They aren't going to put a team over the top.  They also aren't going to be the difference between a team making it and not making it.

Considering how tight the races are, the difference between a team making it and a team golfing early is pretty small. The kinds of upgrades the Leafs have available could very easily be enough to bridge those gaps for some teams. There also aren't likely to be any difference makers available at the deadline - not that are on expiring contracts, at least. There very rarely are. If teams are looking for difference makers, then expiring contracts aren't as appealing to them - and, in that case, the Leafs still have a couple guys who they can get into discussions about who are on much easier to manage contracts than the other potentially available options.

The Leafs aren't going to be getting 1st round picks for their rental guys, but no one was realistically expecting that. But, 2nd and 3rd rounders? I'll be pretty surprised if the Leafs don't walk away from the deadline with a few of those.

It might be hard for teams to part with 2nd and 3rd rounders though if they aren't going to get a player that can put them in to the playoffs though.  Their rationale may be that it would be better to keep those types of picks and try to build a stronger team in the offseason and plug holes then. 

For example, P.A. Parenteau is having a good season, but would a team like the Rangers give up a 2nd or 3rd to help with their offense now to possibly get them in to the playoffs?  Or would they prefer to keep that pick, let the chips fall where they may, and then make some moves to bolster their team in the summer?

That would depend largely on how a team assesses itself in their current position/situation.  Since you're using the Rangers as an example, they're fourth overall in the East & second in their division, (a few points difference between them and the rest of their division and Conference rivals), which at first glance a trade for Parenteau/2nd or 3rd rounder would look enticing if it can propel to gain more points by way of more wins by way of more offence, that extra boost to give them that extra edge either way.

If the Rangers feel a Parenteau could make that difference and can afford to let go of a 2nd or 3rd rounder, then they'd go that route. 

Trouble is, there are no guarantees.  As the saying goes, "you takes your risks, you takes your chances".

 

[bustaheims]

It might be hard for teams to part with 2nd and 3rd rounders though if they aren't going to get a player that can put them in to the playoffs though.  Their rationale may be that it would be better to keep those types of picks and try to build a stronger team in the offseason and plug holes then. 

For example, P.A. Parenteau is having a good season, but would a team like the Rangers give up a 2nd or 3rd to help with their offense now to possibly get them in to the playoffs?  Or would they prefer to keep that pick, let the chips fall where they may, and then make some moves to bolster their team in the summer?

That kind of thinking has been pretty rare at the deadline. It's very much a "win now" kind of day. There's also a fair amount of reactionary behaviour. If, for instance, the Devils add a piece to their team, a couple of the other teams in the East will feel the need to react so they don't lose pace. Teams that feel their window to win is closing will definitely throw 2nd and 3rd rounders out there to try to get there this season rather than letting the chips fall where they may in the summer. We've heard the "soft market" stuff on a regular basis since the cap was introduced, and, really, all that's really meant is prices have become more realistic. 1st round picks and top prospects aren't being shipped out, but 2nd and 3rd rounders? They're still very much the currency of choice to get trades made.

 

[rdowdall]

It might be hard for teams to part with 2nd and 3rd rounders though if they aren't going to get a player that can put them in to the playoffs though.  Their rationale may be that it would be better to keep those types of picks and try to build a stronger team in the offseason and plug holes then. 

For example, P.A. Parenteau is having a good season, but would a team like the Rangers give up a 2nd or 3rd to help with their offense now to possibly get them in to the playoffs?  Or would they prefer to keep that pick, let the chips fall where they may, and then make some moves to bolster their team in the summer?

That kind of thinking has been pretty rare at the deadline. It's very much a "win now" kind of day. There's also a fair amount of reactionary behaviour. If, for instance, the Devils add a piece to their team, a couple of the other teams in the East will feel the need to react so they don't lose pace. Teams that feel their window to win is closing will definitely throw 2nd and 3rd rounders out there to try to get there this season rather than letting the chips fall where they may in the summer. We've heard the "soft market" stuff on a regular basis since the cap was introduced, and, really, all that's really meant is prices have become more realistic. 1st round picks and top prospects aren't being shipped out, but 2nd and 3rd rounders? They're still very much the currency of choice to get trades made.

That's a possibility.  The lack of trades up till this point has me thinking that teams are more likely to stand pat and not make moves, even at the deadline.  It feels like the NHL is becoming more and more like the NFL, where every transaction is basically a formula, and that transactions rarely, if ever, happen in season.  NHL teams appear to be taking the approach of building the team in the summer and then seeing what happens throughout the course of the year, and then trying to build in the offseason to improve in the next season. 

 

[bustaheims]

That's a possibility.  The lack of trades up till this point has me thinking that teams are more likely to stand pat and not make moves, even at the deadline.  It feels like the NHL is becoming more and more like the NFL, where every transaction is basically a formula, and that transactions rarely, if ever, happen in season.  NHL teams appear to be taking the approach of building the team in the summer and then seeing what happens throughout the course of the year, and then trying to build in the offseason to improve in the next season.

I don't know if I agree with that. In general, since the cap, there have been less and less trades happening in-season before the couple weeks before the deadline, but there's been some exceptionally high trade volumes on deadline day. It's less about teams waiting to see what happens, and more about them waiting so that deal have the least possible implications on the salary cap.

 

[rdowdall]

That's a possibility.  The lack of trades up till this point has me thinking that teams are more likely to stand pat and not make moves, even at the deadline.  It feels like the NHL is becoming more and more like the NFL, where every transaction is basically a formula, and that transactions rarely, if ever, happen in season.  NHL teams appear to be taking the approach of building the team in the summer and then seeing what happens throughout the course of the year, and then trying to build in the offseason to improve in the next season.

I don't know if I agree with that. In general, since the cap, there have been less and less trades happening in-season before the couple weeks before the deadline, but there's been some exceptionally high trade volumes on deadline day. It's less about teams waiting to see what happens, and more about them waiting so that deal have the least possible implications on the salary cap.

Yeah, but I think the parity is slowly eroding at the trade deadline day as well.  I may be wrong , but I was under the impression that last year was one of the slowest trade deadline days in recent history.  Also, their was some limited movement leading up to it.  This year, I think there have been three trades in total since the start of the season.  There is lots of chatter, but nothing seems to be happening.  It may be as you say, that they are waiting for the contracts to dwindle to the point where they have the least amount of impact on their caps.  Maybe that trend will continue, and the only time that deals get made during the season are on trade deadline day or a couple of days before hand.  It could be though that the price on rentals is dropping, and will continue to drop because the cost usually ends up being tipped in favour of the seller because only one team wins the cup.

 

[bustaheims]

Yeah, but I think the parity is slowly eroding at the trade deadline day as well.  I may be wrong , but I was under the impression that last year was one of the slowest trade deadline days in recent history.  Also, their was some limited movement leading up to it.  This year, I think there have been three trades in total since the start of the season.  There is lots of chatter, but nothing seems to be happening.  It may be as you say, that they are waiting for the contracts to dwindle to the point where they have the least amount of impact on their caps.  Maybe that trend will continue, and the only time that deals get made during the season are on trade deadline day or a couple of days before hand.  It could be though that the price on rentals is dropping, and will continue to drop because the cost usually ends up being tipped in favour of the seller because only one team wins the cup.

There were 42 trades in from February 24th to March 2nd last season, making it one of the busiest deadline seasons in history.

 

[McGarnagle]

I assume now that teams look at the new reality of the cap, and realize that the franchise benefit from winning a cup is not nearly the carrot that it used to be. You can't take the revenue and reinvest it in the club - so moving significant assets and picks for rental is essentially moderate term suicide.

I was surprised that Nashville gave up so much last year.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I think you're underestimating how significant a cup run is in non-traditional markets where selling tickets is not a given.

Not only do you get playoff revenue, but the increased interest in the team locally from the media and in terms of ticket and merch sales is significant.

I think we are seeing fewer teams "selling the farm" at the deadline, but there are a lot of teams willing to make moves if they believe they are close.

 

[bustaheims]

I assume now that teams look at the new reality of the cap, and realize that the franchise benefit from winning a cup is not nearly the carrot that it used to be. You can't take the revenue and reinvest it in the club - so moving significant assets and picks for rental is essentially moderate term suicide.

For a lot of teams, it's not about re-investing the money in the team. It's simply about bringing in that extra income to mitigate losses/turn a marginal profit. To a lot of teams, getting an extra ~$5M from a handful of home dates is well worth sacrificing a 2nd round pick for from a pure financial POV.