2017 NHLTrade Deadline Discussion

[DickieDunn 2,571]

1 hour ago, BringBack19 said:

Holland is already setting himself up to do nothing or very little at the deadline. He always points to the next beneficial time frame to make trades as "that's where we will make moves". Then when the draft comes the mantra will be pushed to the trade deadline. I bet Vanek gets traded for a pick/prospect, and Smith for a mid to late pick. There will be no big moves that signal a rebuild, and the company line will be "we were only a few games away from the playoffs. There is no need to blow things up".  Until Holland is replaced we will continue to sign anchor contracts, and  see very few moves to make this team better. 

"I'll work the phones and if something makes sense, we'll do it. But it's not just a matter of me determining I'm going to be a seller because there's got to be a buyer."

"We're either going to do nothing or we're going to be a seller," Holland said. "If you're a seller, you're only selling to about 10-12 teams. Half the teams might determine they're either going to stand pat or they're a seller as well."

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2017/02/red_wings_ken_holland_working.html#incart_river_index

 

In short, he already has excuses prepared for not doing anything.  I can already hear him talk about how he didn't move Vanek or Green because they can be valuable players moving forward.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

5 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

"I'll work the phones and if something makes sense, we'll do it. But it's not just a matter of me determining I'm going to be a seller because there's got to be a buyer."

"We're either going to do nothing or we're going to be a seller," Holland said. "If you're a seller, you're only selling to about 10-12 teams. Half the teams might determine they're either going to stand pat or they're a seller as well."

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2017/02/red_wings_ken_holland_working.html#incart_river_index

 

In short, he already has excuses prepared for not doing anything.  I can already hear him talk about how he didn't move Vanek or Green because they can be valuable players moving forward.

Well the statements he made are not incorrect. You don't sell for the sake of selling, and yes only about 10 teams, maybe less, are going to be serious buyers. Guys like Smith and Ott may have little to no value on the market, and giving them away to a contender for next to nothing doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I doubt Holland will even shop Green at this deadline. I expect he will get lots of calls about Vanek though. That's pretty much a guaranteed move at this point.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

When you're going to lose them for nothing, at least they SHOULD be allowed to walk in the summer, getting a 7th for them is better than nothing.

 

Of course I expect Hoarder Holland to bring both back.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

When you're going to lose them for nothing, at least they SHOULD be allowed to walk in the summer, getting a 7th for them is better than nothing.

 

Of course I expect Hoarder Holland to bring both back.

I mean if Holland & the scouts have an eye on some gems that they think won't get selected, sure go get a 7th. I'm thinking Smith and Ott may not even be worth a 7th to a lot of teams. Better guys out there that may be available. And once those 5-10 teams get the guy they want, no ones going to a pay a nickel for Ott or Smith.

[scotzman 29]

31 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

"I'll work the phones and if something makes sense, we'll do it. But it's not just a matter of me determining I'm going to be a seller because there's got to be a buyer."

"We're either going to do nothing or we're going to be a seller," Holland said. "If you're a seller, you're only selling to about 10-12 teams. Half the teams might determine they're either going to stand pat or they're a seller as well."

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2017/02/red_wings_ken_holland_working.html#incart_river_index

 

In short, he already has excuses prepared for not doing anything.  I can already hear him talk about how he didn't move Vanek or Green because they can be valuable players moving forward.

...and this is why I've grown to despise Holland.

[derblaueClaus 1,668]

15 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

When you're going to lose them for nothing, at least they SHOULD be allowed to walk in the summer, getting a 7th for them is better than nothing.

 

Of course I expect Hoarder Holland to bring both back.

It's different this time. We were a bubble team over the last years, trading for rentals made some sense. This year we are clearly out. I fully expect Holland to acquire at least a few picks. If he doesn't he is doing his job wrong and I will join you on the "Fire Holland" bandwagon.

 

By the way: If Kenny decides to stay pat Sean McIdnoe aka downgoesbrown already has him covered : http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-gms-guide-not-making-trade/

[NitzGuy 38]

I don't think Vanek will go for as much as some people think he will. The last trade deadline he was dealt he performed pretty badly and then didn't turn many heads in Minnesota. He's done great here in Detroit this season but a couple injuries hurt his value a bit as well.

I just feel like GM's won't be busting the bank for him. I guess it all depends on demand so we'll see.

If we were in good shape I'd love to keep him but as it stands I'd be okay if we get a first for him.

Honestly I feel like we could get more for Green.

[LeftWinger 4,934]

If we're trading our 1st in a package, it's for a #1 D and their 1st. That is our most pressing need!

 

I say we still try to acquire BOTH Trouba and Fowler....not at the deadline, but before the expansion draft. Anaheim and Winnipeg cannot protect 4 D, unless they expose more forwards...

Edited February 14, 2017 by LeftWinger

[Fedorovfan 25]

Sell!!! Sell big!!! This is a defense heavy draft. They could go along in building the backend and shoring up desperate needs

[amato 3,210]

11 minutes ago, NitzGuy said:

I don't think Vanek will go for as much as some people think he will. The last trade deadline he was dealt he performed pretty badly and then didn't turn many heads in Minnesota. He's done great here in Detroit this season but a couple injuries hurt his value a bit as well.

I just feel like GM's won't be busting the bank for him. I guess it all depends on demand so we'll see.

If we were in good shape I'd love to keep him but as it stands I'd be okay if we get a first for him.

Honestly I feel like we could get more for Green.

 

A first this year from a contending team (31st in their minds, since they think they'll win the cup) is not "busting the bank;" especially with how shallow the draft is. I think a first is the most many people have speculated we'll get for Vanek at the deadline.. and some have speculated even less. Have you seen anything more being tossed around? 

 

I think he'll end up going for a decent defense prospect or a 2nd this year and a mid level prospect if we're lucky.. but a second round pick seems most likely imo.  

[krsmith17 7,191]

14 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

If we're trading our 1st in a package, it's for a #1 D and their 1st. That is our most pressing need!

I thought we already went over this... That's never going to happen. Name a team that is going to give us a number one defenseman and their first round pick for our first? If we're trading for a true number one defenseman, we're giving up our first, plus other assets (picks, prospects, roster players)...

19 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I say we still try to acquire BOTH Trouba and Fowler....not at the deadline, but before the expansion draft. Anaheim and Winnipeg cannot protect 4 D, unless they expose more forwards...

I was thinking about this situation, Winnipeg in particular... Byfuglien has played a fair bit of forward in the past. Would it be possible for them to play him on the wing down the stretch and list him as a forward for the expansion draft to allow them to protect all 4 of their "defensemen"?...

[amato 3,210]

31 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I thought we already went over this... That's never going to happen. Name a team that is going to give us a number one defenseman and their first round pick for our first? If we're trading for a true number one defenseman, we're giving up our first, plus other assets (picks, prospects, roster players)...

I was thinking about this situation, Winnipeg in particular... Byfuglien has played a fair bit of forward in the past. Would it be possible for them to play him on the wing down the stretch and list him as a forward for the expansion draft to allow them to protect all 4 of their "defensemen"?...

 

Buff is listed as a defenseman on the jets roster and IIRC, he's play pretty much all defense for them.. at least in recent memory anyway. I would think they'd have to list him as defense, but who knows.

 

Let's hope they have to protect him as defense anyway and hope that they'll want to trade Trouba to say an eastern conference team on the brink of a (hopefully) quick rebuild  

 

i also don't think the ducks will want to trade Fowler with how good he's been for them this year.. It's too bad Theodore and Montour aren't a year older. 

[martyrme19 73]

23 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

We sent a 1st to Tampa for Quincey. Holland couldn't get the deal done with Sakic, so Yzerman swapped Downie for Quincey, then immediately turned around and swapped Quincey for our 1st. It was obviously a coordinated effort by old pals Yzerman and Holland, and I believe Sakic had some negative comments about it afterward.

Wow no kidding. I can't believe I didn't know this. I was always a bit curious about the trade....can you recall back then how a 1st round was justified for Quincey? I'm not much of a hater but always thought that was a gross overpayment especially since we lost him not long before for nothing.

[LeftWinger 4,934]

1 hour ago, amato said:

 

Buff is listed as a defenseman on the jets roster and IIRC, he's play pretty much all defense for them.. at least in recent memory anyway. I would think they'd have to list him as defense, but who knows.

 

Let's hope they have to protect him as defense anyway and hope that they'll want to trade Trouba to say an eastern conference team on the brink of a (hopefully) quick rebuild  

 

i also don't think the ducks will want to trade Fowler with how good he's been for them this year.. It's too bad Theodore and Montour aren't a year older. 

The Ducks will have to trade someone. They cannot protect them all. Bieska has an NMC, he must be protected. Add to that Fowler, Vatanen, Lindlholm AND Stoner, who, when off LTIR, puts them back over the cap. The only reason they could afforx to sign lindholm without having to trade Fowler at the start of the season was Stoner on LTIR. 

[mackel 674]

3 hours ago, derblaueClaus said:

It's different this time. We were a bubble team over the last years, trading for rentals made some sense. This year we are clearly out. I fully expect Holland to acquire at least a few picks. If he doesn't he is doing his job wrong and I will join you on the "Fire Holland" bandwagon.

 

By the way: If Kenny decides to stay pat Sean McIdnoe aka downgoesbrown already has him covered : http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-gms-guide-not-making-trade/

Did Kenny write this column for him?  It's almost word for word a Holland quote.

[amato 3,210]

19 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

The Ducks will have to trade someone. They cannot protect them all. Bieska has an NMC, he must be protected. Add to that Fowler, Vatanen, Lindlholm AND Stoner, who, when off LTIR, puts them back over the cap. The only reason they could afforx to sign lindholm without having to trade Fowler at the start of the season was Stoner on LTIR. 

 

I think they'll ask Bieska to waive his NMC or trade him, even at a loss, before trading  any of Fowler, Lindholm, or Vetanen. And I'm sure they would be fine with losing Stoner. 

[LeftWinger 4,934]

they can ask all they want. NMC way different than NTC. It could happen, but the NMC player has far more control over it.

 

Fire sale needs to happen starting today. I can't agree with this article more...

http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2017/02/deadline-primer-detroit.html

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

52 minutes ago, martyrme19 said:

Wow no kidding. I can't believe I didn't know this. I was always a bit curious about the trade....can you recall back then how a 1st round was justified for Quincey? I'm not much of a hater but always thought that was a gross overpayment especially since we lost him not long before for nothing.

Looking back it was definitely an overpayment. Holland knew he was losing Stuart after the season, so Quincey was his attempt to offset that loss. Losing Stuart at the time was big loss. Ken obviously really wanted Q because he was a former Red Wing that he had drafted. So I'm guessing the overpayment was a combination of him willing to overpay for that particular player, and a thank you to Yzerman for helping him get the guy out of Colorado. Quincey just wasn't what we expected. He flourished in LA, but lost his touch after.

5 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

they can ask all they want. NMC way different than NTC. It could happen, but the NMC player has far more control over it.

 

Fire sale needs to happen starting today. I can't agree with this article more...

http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2017/02/deadline-primer-detroit.html

What's the big difference?

[LeftWinger 4,934]

19 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Looking back it was definitely an overpayment. Holland knew he was losing Stuart after the season, so Quincey was his attempt to offset that loss. Losing Stuart at the time was big loss. Ken obviously really wanted Q because he was a former Red Wing that he had drafted. So I'm guessing the overpayment was a combination of him willing to overpay for that particular player, and a thank you to Yzerman for helping him get the guy out of Colorado. Quincey just wasn't what we expected. He flourished in LA, but lost his touch after.

What's the big difference?

Here:

No-Movement Clause (NMC) and No-Trade Clause (NTC) Eligibility:

Once a National Hockey League player has played seven years or reached twenty-seven years of age (Group 3 Free Agent Status) he is eligible to qualify for the NMC or NTC in his contract.  These clauses can start mid-contract once the player reaches his Group 3 status. (example: in the fourth year of a seven-year deal)

There are basically two types of movement clauses NHL GMs need to pay attention to and/or work around with some players.

The No-Movement Clause:

A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless the player approves one of these moves. The player has the final say.  Some players will often have a limited trade list here as well.   A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.

The No-Trade Clause:

A No-Trade Clause is much less restrictive.  It only places restrictions on movement by trade.  A player with a No-Trade Clause cannot be traded by a team unless the player provides consent.  A limited (partial or modified) No-Trade Clause is often less restrictive than a full No-Trade Clause and depends on the conditions negotiated in the player’s contracts.  Often with these No-Trade Clauses, the player is asked to provide a list of teams to which he would be willing to be traded or NOT traded to.  This list can change or fluctuate from season to season. 

[amato 3,210]

36 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

they can ask all they want. NMC way different than NTC. It could happen, but the NMC player has far more control over it.

 

Fire sale needs to happen starting today. I can't agree with this article more...

http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2017/02/deadline-primer-detroit.html

 

True but I guess all I'm trying to say is, if I'm GM of the ducks, there's no  way I don't protect all of Lindholm, Vatanen, and Fowler.. maybe they go the 8 skater route if they can't get rid of bieksa.. those four d men + getzlaf, perry, kesler, rakell.. then just count on losing a decent forward? I don't know, unless they get a really good return, I don't see them trading Fowler anymore. 

 

Edit: whoops hit send without typing  

Edited February 14, 2017 by amato

[TimeBinder 28]

We will get minimal return on anyone traded  - unless someone gets desperate(injury) - we are stuck in a rut.  Everyone knows this; prepare for the long hall and new GM.  Rocky times ahead - don't think chris is as interested as his dad(always was his mom's team). 

[LeftWinger 4,934]

If we get the #1 or even the #3, a team may just do that if they really want that pick. Right now Calgary is in the playoffs, Winnipeg is tied with us, so they have a chance at #1 as well. They haven't done so well with Trouba. What if they got #2 and we got #4. Do you think they'd take the #4 and give us Trouba and their 2nd rounder which would be a late 1st really. They'd have #2 and #4 and we'd have Trouba and #33. Which could have someone attractive. They say Foote and Hague could be late 1st to early 2nd rounders...

 

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

54 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Here:

No-Movement Clause (NMC) and No-Trade Clause (NTC) Eligibility:

Once a National Hockey League player has played seven years or reached twenty-seven years of age (Group 3 Free Agent Status) he is eligible to qualify for the NMC or NTC in his contract.  These clauses can start mid-contract once the player reaches his Group 3 status. (example: in the fourth year of a seven-year deal)

There are basically two types of movement clauses NHL GMs need to pay attention to and/or work around with some players.

The No-Movement Clause:

A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless the player approves one of these moves. The player has the final say.  Some players will often have a limited trade list here as well.   A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.

The No-Trade Clause:

A No-Trade Clause is much less restrictive.  It only places restrictions on movement by trade.  A player with a No-Trade Clause cannot be traded by a team unless the player provides consent.  A limited (partial or modified) No-Trade Clause is often less restrictive than a full No-Trade Clause and depends on the conditions negotiated in the player’s contracts.  Often with these No-Trade Clauses, the player is asked to provide a list of teams to which he would be willing to be traded or NOT traded to.  This list can change or fluctuate from season to season. 

So the difference is NTC restricts trade and NMC restricts trade and being sent down.

So, speaking to your original point, why is harder to trade Bieksa with an NMC than it is with an NTC?

[LeftWinger 4,934]

Well I suppose they could always hold over his head(The NTC player) that he will be sent to the minors if he doesn't submit a list of teams, or waive the NTC all together.

 

With the NMC, the player says no, and there is nothing they can do unless they want to buy him out, then he gets a ton of cash up front and becomes a UFA to go where he chooses for even MORE money. PLUS the team is now paying him for twice as long... IF you can afford the hit, fine, but if you are at the cap, that could be a problem.

It could happen, like I've said before, players with NTC's and NMC's do get traded, but the NMC has more power over the team.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Well I suppose they could always hold over his head(The NTC player) that he will be sent to the minors if he doesn't submit a list of teams, or waive the NTC all together.

 

With the NMC, the player says no, and there is nothing they can do unless they want to buy him out, then he gets a ton of cash up front and becomes a UFA to go where he chooses for even MORE money. PLUS the team is now paying him for twice as long... IF you can afford the hit, fine, but if you are at the cap, that could be a problem.

It could happen, like I've said before, players with NTC's and NMC's do get traded, but the NMC has more power over the team.

True, they certainly don't have that weapon in their arsenal with an NTC.

At that point your probably looking at a buy out anyway though.