Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Is there a limit to how far in the future a pick can be traded?
Frankly, I might take a first that was dated ten years from now depending on the team. You could really benefit from teams like Vancouver, Chicago and even Pittsburgh. At worst it's late and at best you win a top ten.
Furthest future draft pick i can recall ever being traded was the kings '93 first round pick to the Oilers from a trade made between the two teams in '88. I can't quite recall the players involved in the deal however.... . . . .
I personally think that the 1st rounder in 2020 is more valuable than it is now for various reasons. The development of players will only get better, and more players will strive to make the NHL and become superstars.
I personally think that the 1st rounder in 2020 is more valuable than it is now for various reasons. The development of players will only get better, and more players will strive to make the NHL and become superstars.
Frankly, I might take a first that was dated ten years from now depending on the team. You could really benefit from teams like Vancouver, Chicago and even Pittsburgh. At worst it's late and at best you win a top ten.
That was kind of my thought behind it. Never seen it, so I was curious if there was a rule or not.
Furthest future draft pick i can recall ever being traded was the kings '93 first round pick to the Oilers from a trade made between the two teams in '88. I can't quite recall the players involved in the deal however.... . . . .
"Traded from Edmonton Oilers with Mike Krushelnyski and Marty McSorley to Los Angeles Kings for Jimmy Carson, Martin Gelinas, round 1 pick in the 1989 draft (Jason Miller), round 1 pick in the 1991 draft (Martin Rucinsky), round 1 pick in the 1993 draft (Nick Stajduhar) and cash"
This trade must be one of the most one-sided in NHL history. Have you ever seen so many busts been aquired in the same deal?
There has to be some sort of limit. Could you imagine how much of a shot in the dark the pick would be if it was in say, 2020? So much can change between now and then and a team could go through a rebuild, a Cup win, and another rebuild in that time frame.
The limit is the common sense of GM's, or the "market".
Why would a GM want to get a 2020 1st rounder? It doesn't represent enough to the team to make it worthwhile. If your trading player A, who can contribute to a team now, for a pick 8 years in the future, you are taking value back that doesn't become value until 2020. It makes no sense. Unless you had an 10 year rebuild plan, why would a GM want to take that pick?
As for the GM trading that pick, I could see it making sense. It's a future pick with little value to him now. But why would the team authorize that? It represents a huge risk. It would force the team to make sure it was a bottom 10 team in 8 years. Not only would that be difficult but it would be a huge issue to have bearing down on you.
I'm not sure if there is a limit or not but I could definitely see it being a limit that the market just enforces itself. Look at how often teams trade away future picks already. It doesn't happen often and when it does, it's largely late round picks that aren't nearly as valuable to a team as a 1st rounder is. Even 2nd round picks really only get trade like a year in advance usually.
Trading an asset right now for an asset that will have value only at a certain period in time is a risk. Trading that asset that gains value in 8 years (or however far in the future it is), is too large a risk.
"Traded from Edmonton Oilers with Mike Krushelnyski and Marty McSorley to Los Angeles Kings for Jimmy Carson, Martin Gelinas, round 1 pick in the 1989 draft (Jason Miller), round 1 pick in the 1991 draft (Martin Rucinsky), round 1 pick in the 1993 draft (Nick Stajduhar) and cash"
This trade must be one of the most one-sided in NHL history. Have you ever seen so many busts been aquired in the same deal?
Damn you Barry Fraser & Glen Sather!
Yeah seriously...what were the Kings thinking? What a bust, that Gretzky and McSorley.
I personally think that the 1st rounder in 2020 is more valuable than it is now for various reasons. The development of players will only get better, and more players will strive to make the NHL and become superstars.
But you have to go 7 years without that asset being on your team. I cannot see how people do not understand that those 7 years are lost value. Who knows what happens in the future?
Offer sheet compensation goes up to 4 1st (your own), so it must be at least 4 years
Came here to post this. I'm not sure anyone would have interest in trading for a pick more than 4 yrs away. By the time you get that asset to make a contribution on the NHL level, it will likely be 5-6 yrs later at the most. Giving up an NHL player for a guy who is 12 at the time of the trade is a bit crazy when put in those terms
But you have to go 7 years without that asset being on your team. I cannot see how people do not understand that those 7 years are lost value. Who knows what happens in the future?
Conversely that player you've had for 7 years is that much closer to retirement so come 2025 or so that 1st round pick you gave up in 2013 is probably way less value than the guy you got in 2020. Value remains fairly consistent it's just a question of when you are getting the value, and that's ignoring factors like your current depth or differences in what position you will be drafting.
If a GM is stupid enough to accept a pick that's only going to materialize ten years down the road, why prevent him from accepting the trade? Why punish the other GM who clearly knows how to make a deal?
If a GM is stupid enough to accept a pick that's only going to materialize ten years down the road, why prevent him from accepting the trade? Why punish the other GM who clearly knows how to make a deal?
Thought of something, what if a trade like this happened:
Team A:
Star Player
Team B:
2021 1ST
2022 1ST
ect...
Now lets say in 2020, Team B folds and the league has a contraction. What happens to those picks?
I think there is just a lot of potential for things to get messy if a team could trader a pick 10 years or more out, who knows maybe by then there is no more draft, then what?
Thought of something, what if a trade like this happened:
Team A:
Star Player
Team B:
2021 1ST
2022 1ST
ect...
Now lets say in 2020, Team B folds and the league has a contraction. What happens to those picks?
I think there is just a lot of potential for things to get messy if a team could trader a pick 10 years or more out, who knows maybe by then there is no more draft, then what?
That's an unlikely scenario since contraction is not financially feasible at this point in time (unfortunately). There are always scenarios that come up where a proposed change/plan can't address it, that's why instead of trying to plan for everything possible you go about it the other way: when something happens that does not fit well with the current conjecture, you plan for it.
So in that scenario of contraction: I'd think that once the League had decided that the team that traded all their picks will fold, then they will address the issue of the draft picks that were traded.
and time, development, and games played on your team are not comparable to inflation? Not to mention the fact that predicting the value of an individual team's pick beyond 4-5 years (or arguably even less) is practically impossible.
"[T]ime, development, and games played on your team" should not change depending on what year the player is drafted unless you're planning to fold your franchise at some point in the player's career. As rgb63 stated, a 1st rounder in 2020 should have the same value (in 2020) as a 2013 1st rounder has (in 2013), barring factors that can't really be controlled such as the team's performance in the standings for the specified year. Obviously, in 2013, it matters when the pick is, which is why teams trade for picks that come sooner rather than later.
I would be surprised if there's a limit to how far in the future you can trade your picks, just because I don't see any team being goofy enough to trade for a pick in 4048. Particularly given that GMs are always in danger of being fired before they can call out the name for that pick.
It'd be interesting to see a GM stock up on first rounders from a single year well into the future and get them at a discounted rate. Every time they'd add another top 30 pick they'd be getting that much more value (and risk obviously) towards a future run. This becomes that much more enticing in the modern day salary cap, where having quality players on ELCs seems to be a great means of success.
It's a pretty outside the box concept that makes me wonder what a GM would actually value a first rounder that far into the future. Because if that GM is under contract ala Dick Ripietro, they'd be able to take advantage of GMs who need to win before they lose their job.
The risk is a concern, and looking to build well into the future can't bode well for current day fan interest / revenues, but one would think that these first rounders far down the road wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. So if the risk was calculated well, and it only cost the GMs spare / expendable parts, it seems like a lucrative way of succeeding in a cap world.
I'm thinking the hardest part would be finding the GM(s) to make that trade with you. But positive thinking tells me you can definitely find three GMs in the league on the hotseat with their respective teams, desperate for current change. And if they're already soon on their way out of their position, they're probably the exact GMs that you could take advantage of in this regard.
Edit: Now to think of it, the hardest part is banking on these first rounders actually turning out to be impact players while still on their entry level contracts. But at the same time, it's not like you're putting all your stock into these future picks.
In the end, it all contingent on how GMs value these future picks (like I bolded in the previous post) and how many you could swindle. In theory, it seems like a solid idea.
BUT WE TALKING ABOUT PRACCCTICE
