HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Four first round picks.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-04-2011, 10:04 AM
  #1
666
Registered User
 
666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Four first round picks.

Does anyone else think that the top RFA compensation of four first rounders (or any of the draft pick compensations for that matter) is a bit absurd. No one can predict where teams will finish but let's face it there are some pretty substantial differences in expectations. Since the picks have to be your own that means that a weak team would have to give up potentially 4 lottery picks and strong team potentially the equivalent of four early second rounders.

I guess the reasoning is that it gives the weaker team an advantage BUT it's not the rights owning teams that sign the offer sheet it's the players. If the offer comes from a rich good team and can't be matched it will be significantly less compensation than if the offer comes from a rich lousy team.

The whole concept seems to be badly broken.

666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 10:06 AM
  #2
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 20,471
vCash: 50
So what do you want to replace it with. The system seems fine to me and most of the time the RFA stays with the team anyway.

bleedblue1223 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 10:27 AM
  #3
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,228
vCash: 500
The system is fine. Nobody knows what number their picks will be, but in theory, if you are getting a player who can cost you enough to give up 4 first round picks, he had better be a game changer who takes your team to another level. If that level still isn't very good, obviously your team isn't one piece away and shouldn't bother. Its a good system and keeps gm's (usually) from making dumb offers for unproven players.

As per some teams giving less compensation, who cares? If the team who has the players rights is so concerned about offer sheets, they should sign him to an extension before free agency, no?

zeus3007* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 10:34 AM
  #4
Gosabres08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9
vCash: 500
Its a toss up, but look at it this way. Edmonton offer sheeted Thomas Vanek in '07, which the Sabres instantly matched. Now nobody could say how Edmonton would have done w/ Vanek, but looking back now, the Sabres could have gotten Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi, Taylor Hall, and RNH with the 4 first rounders they would have received. I love Vanek as much as anyone, but the thought of having those 4 on top of our already deep prospect pool is jaw-dropping.

The point is, Vanek could have led Edmonton to 4 straight Cups (no, not really, but for arguments sake) and left the Sabres with significantly less valuable picks, its always a big risk

Gosabres08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 10:48 AM
  #5
666
Registered User
 
666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
The system is fine. Nobody knows what number their picks will be, but in theory, if you are getting a player who can cost you enough to give up 4 first round picks, he had better be a game changer who takes your team to another level. If that level still isn't very good, obviously your team isn't one piece away and shouldn't bother. Its a good system and keeps gm's (usually) from making dumb offers for unproven players.

As per some teams giving less compensation, who cares? If the team who has the players rights is so concerned about offer sheets, they should sign him to an extension before free agency, no?
Some good points but let's assume that we are talking about Stamkos and also let's assume that TB for what ever reason can't afford what Stamko's wants and would prefer 4 first rounders (of course they could trade the rights as well). Now let's say Vancouver is wealthy and offers $11M or Calgary (no offense but I think they are in trouble) also has the ability to offer $11M. TB would much rather have Calgary's picks than Vancouver's but it's Stamko's decision not there's.

BUT much more importantly Calgary would almost certainly end up paying more than Vancouver and that's not fair to Calgary. Of course we would never know but it could end up that the cost to Calgary could be as much as 3 or 4 time more. It's just not right.

As for alternatives, maybe at the top scale the offering team get's to protect 5 assets and the owning team then get's their pic of any 3 assets or something like that. This way teams that are deeper would probably pay more but I think that's better than the scenario where weaker team pay more.

666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 10:50 AM
  #6
ShootIt
Registered User
 
ShootIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 561
Country: United States
Posts: 6,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gosabres08 View Post
Its a toss up, but look at it this way. Edmonton offer sheeted Thomas Vanek in '07, which the Sabres instantly matched. Now nobody could say how Edmonton would have done w/ Vanek, but looking back now, the Sabres could have gotten Jordan Eberle, Magnus Paajarvi, Taylor Hall, and RNH with the 4 first rounders they would have received. I love Vanek as much as anyone, but the thought of having those 4 on top of our already deep prospect pool is jaw-dropping.

The point is, Vanek could have led Edmonton to 4 straight Cups (no, not really, but for arguments sake) and left the Sabres with significantly less valuable picks, its always a big risk
I doubt with Vanek the Oilers would of sucked so bad these past couple of years. Or not done bad enough to finish where they did those 4 years.

ShootIt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 10:51 AM
  #7
ShootIt
Registered User
 
ShootIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 561
Country: United States
Posts: 6,288
vCash: 500
Damn, can't edit my post. Completely skipped over your last sentence. Fail on my part gosabres

ShootIt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 12:18 PM
  #8
Nails Jenkins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666 View Post
Some good points but let's assume that we are talking about Stamkos and also let's assume that TB for what ever reason can't afford what Stamko's wants and would prefer 4 first rounders (of course they could trade the rights as well). Now let's say Vancouver is wealthy and offers $11M or Calgary (no offense but I think they are in trouble) also has the ability to offer $11M. TB would much rather have Calgary's picks than Vancouver's but it's Stamko's decision not there's.
But at the same time, Cup contenders like Vancouver are going to lack the cap space to make an offer like that and Stamkos is probably not going to sign with a lottery team. From his perspective, if there are 5 teams bidding for your services, why would you go to a bottom feeder who you know will be without 4 key draft picks to build up the prospect pool for the future, your future with the team that is.

As was mentioned earlier, the teams who can realistically make a push for a player like Stamkos is most likely a middle-tier team on the cusp of joining the elite, otherwise it doesn't make sense to make the offer in the first place.

I think the system works fine. The value of return is always relative (and unpredictable) and 4 first round picks are a huge piece to give up, whether those picks are lottery picks or not.

Nails Jenkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 12:25 PM
  #9
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
No the system is alright. There's nothing wrong with getting 4 1st round picks back, all they should do is maybe add another level of compensation as the transition from a 1st, 2nd and 3rd pick to those four 1st picks is a bit harsh.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 12:53 PM
  #10
Loso
Registered User
 
Loso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
High end teams don't usually have the cap space to make such an offer.

Moreso than anything it acts as a detterent.

Also an RFA of that level would make a team substantially better, so they should not be a lottery team.

Either way two 1st overalls and 2 30th overalls which would be the "average" draft position as opposed to 15/16 each year, is probably fair for the top tier RFAs.

McCollum + Depres + Hall + RNH for a Stamkos caliber player if you go 30,30,1,1 in the past four seasons though this is an unlikely turn of events.

Of course the results could always be flipped to

Stamkos + Tavares + Nelson + Rakell for a Stamkos caliber player if you go 1,1,30,30

The inherited risk is part of why it's a detterent in the first place, so both the offering team and the accepting team are aware of both extremes and must weigh the importance of the player with their new salary. In the end it becomes too big of a risk to be worth it.

You could get a Scott Stevens, or a Chris Gratton

Loso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 01:00 PM
  #11
666
Registered User
 
666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripe4theSnipe View Post
High end teams don't usually have the cap space to make such an offer.

Moreso than anything it acts as a detterent.

Also an RFA of that level would make a team substantially better, so they should not be a lottery team.

Either way two 1st overalls and 2 30th overalls which would be the "average" draft position as opposed to 15/16 each year, is probably fair for the top tier RFAs.

McCollum + Depres + Hall + RNH for a Stamkos caliber player if you go 30,30,1,1 in the past four seasons though this is an unlikely turn of events.

Of course the results could always be flipped to

Stamkos + Tavares + Nelson + Rakell for a Stamkos caliber player if you go 1,1,30,30

The inherited risk is part of why it's a detterent in the first place, so both the offering team and the accepting team are aware of both extremes and must weigh the importance of the player with their new salary. In the end it becomes too big of a risk to be worth it.

You could get a Scott Stevens, or a Chris Gratton
Your entire post assumes that draft position vs quality in linear and it's not.

1,1,30,30 is WAAAY better than
15,15,15,15

in fact
1,nothing, nothing, nothing is probably better than
15,15,15,15

666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 01:08 PM
  #12
ProMath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666 View Post
Your entire post assumes that draft position vs quality in linear and it's not.

1,1,30,30 is WAAAY better than
15,15,15,15

in fact
1,nothing, nothing, nothing is probably better than
15,15,15,15
exactly what I was going to post !

How many offer sheet per years ?? Not many,

Maybe if there were 10 offer sheet to key player each years ... we would worry about the system.

GM ''respect'' each other. Do you think other GM like offer sheet ? If a GM would do it over and over... what do you think would happen ? Every other GM would not trade with him anymore, and would offer sheet is key player. That what make the system ok.

ProMath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 01:09 PM
  #13
Loso
Registered User
 
Loso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 666 View Post
Your entire post assumes that draft position vs quality in linear and it's not.

1,1,30,30 is WAAAY better than
15,15,15,15

in fact
1,nothing, nothing, nothing is probably better than
15,15,15,15
The only reason I used those was because the OP was talking about two extremes and I figured that everyone knows that 4 of 1st overall and 4 of 30th are lopsided one way or the other.

Loso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 01:10 PM
  #14
666
Registered User
 
666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nails Jenkins View Post
But at the same time, Cup contenders like Vancouver are going to lack the cap space to make an offer like that and Stamkos is probably not going to sign with a lottery team. From his perspective, if there are 5 teams bidding for your services, why would you go to a bottom feeder who you know will be without 4 key draft picks to build up the prospect pool for the future, your future with the team that is.

As was mentioned earlier, the teams who can realistically make a push for a player like Stamkos is most likely a middle-tier team on the cusp of joining the elite, otherwise it doesn't make sense to make the offer in the first place.

I think the system works fine. The value of return is always relative (and unpredictable) and 4 first round picks are a huge piece to give up, whether those picks are lottery picks or not.
Vancouver might not have the cap space but if they gave 4 first rounders for Stamkos and we assume those picks are late firsts they could then trade some good players for more picks to create cap room i.e Kessler. The great teams that are at the cap have a huge advantage in this situation. Not only do the weak teams not have the players to trade they certainly can't afford those lottery type picks. It's a huge imbalance.

Rumors are that the Flyers are interested. I wouldn't consider them middle tier. The loss of their 4 first rounders wouldn't be too bad as they already cleared the cap space by trading valuable assets for youth / picks. I think it would make a TON of sense for Vancouver to trade Kessler ++ to clear cap room to get Stamkos for just picks.

While the return is relative and random there sure is a big difference between Vancouver losing 4 picks and clearing cap vs pretty well any other team.

666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 02:19 PM
  #15
JTK1967
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23
vCash: 500
I like money, and the idea that a team can buy a player if they deem it prudent enough.
You wana offer sheet stamkos to a 8mil avg deal? Fine, you owe TBL 2 first round picks, 2 seconds and 8 million as a transfer fee.
The reason i say this is because many of the teams that are at the bottom end or in smaller markets need these players to attract fans so 4 first round picks means nothing to them if their loosing money now.
This ensures that they get monetary compensation now, and can buy a big name player to replace the possible lost revenue. I.E someone offersheets stamkos, TBL signs richards and gets 2 first round picks and 2 second round pick.
Ideas?

JTK1967 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2011, 02:34 PM
  #16
BoltSTH
Registered User
 
BoltSTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,019
vCash: 500
What about 4 1st rounders OR a player on the roster of of their choosing (regardless of NMC or NTC). That way a team with a 1 or more elite players would not make an offer sheet. I doubt say Boston, Caps, or Pittsburgh would risk losing Chara, Ovie, or Crosby.

BoltSTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.