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.

Most Ironic Trades Ever

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-15-2012, 04:28 PM
  #126
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,140
vCash: 500
If you take the Pronger/EDM scenario back a few more steps, it comes even more convuluted and crazy.

EDM acquired Pronger from St Louis for: Eric Brewer, Doug Lynch, Jeff Woywitka.

Woywitka was obtained from Philly for Mike Comrie (who also demanded a trade)

Eric Brewer and a second-rounder (Brad Winchester- who scored an OT winner against Detroit during Pronger's only season in EDM) was picked up for Roman Hamrlik.

Hamrlik was aquired for Jason Bonsignore (EDM's highest pick prior to the post-Pronger implosion), and Bryan Marchment. Also coming back to Edmonton with Hammer? Paul Comrie... That's right, brother of the Mime Comrie who became Woywitka who went with Hamrlik's replacement Brewer to get Pronger...

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:32 PM
  #127
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie Spankie View Post
In 2002, the Bruins drafted Yan Stastny in the 8th round.

In 2005, the Bruins traded Yan Stastny for a 4th round pick.

In 2006, the Bruins traded Sergei Samsonov for Marty Reasoner, Yan Stastny, and a 2nd roudn pick.

In 2007, the Bruins traded Yan Stastny for a 5th round pick.
That second-rounder in 06 ende up being Lucic

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:43 PM
  #128
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,019
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by YouCantYandleThis View Post
Are either of those REALLY ironic? seem like soft examples.
Is anything in this thread really ironic?

SmellOfVictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:08 PM
  #129
CBJSprague24
"Scoreboard, son."
 
CBJSprague24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 52mi from the Nat
Country: United States
Posts: 6,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schenn View Post
A few years ago both James Wisniewski and Andy Wozniewski were traded on the same trade deadline day. I believe it was maybe 08-09.
Wisniewski was traded that day for Samuel Pahlsson.

Both ended up on the Blue Jackets a couple seasons later.

Also, Raffi Torres and Gilbert Brule were traded for each other between Edmonton and Columbus, only to be teammates in Phoenix last season.

CBJSprague24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 07:52 PM
  #130
Mind of Milbury
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 24
vCash: 500
Maybe this trade isnt specifically ironic, but maybe if you put it into context. Consider: The Rangers had a (in)famous reputation for drafting good young players, developing them to the point of being ready for an NHL shot, then trading them for sometimes past-its-expiration-date talent (Middleton, Ridley, Amonte, Weight, Savard all come to mind....). So when the Rangers traded Brian Leetch, they traded a player whom they drafted, developed (albeit very shortly) and allowed to play in the NHL as their own property, to the Maple Leafs for youth and futures (Maxim Kondratiev, Jarkko Immonen, and 2 draft picks), essentially reversing the process. Like I said, maybe not ironic specifically, but it certainly has a nice bit of, whats it called, symmetry? about it? That trade happened not long before the lockout wiped out an entire season, signalling the beginning of a new Rangers philosophy regarding the draft and the players acquired whereby they keep the young players rather than trade them.


I havent gone through the whole thread, apologies if it was brought up already.....

Mind of Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:31 AM
  #131
Hipster Doofus
Registered User
 
Hipster Doofus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 6,437
vCash: 500
This is ironic in the sense both teams tried to get a franchise at the same position, and in the end, both failed.

Islanders trade Roberto Luongo, an italian-canadien, in anticipation of drafting Rick DiPietro, an italian-american, 1st overall with the intention of making DP their franchise guy. Luongo get traded to Florida, becomes their franchise guy and one of the leagues elite goalies.

Luongo gets traded from Florida to Vancouver for Todd Bertuzzi (who was a Canuck by means of another Mad Mike blunder) as MM thought he was to soft and traded him to Vancouver. Florida, fearing they couldn't sign Luongo longterm, acquired him to be a big-time powerwinger but he barely played do to a major injury and signed with the Ducks.

Islanders have no issue signing DP longterm, achieve modest success with him, but lose him to injury before he ever established himself. Essentially the opposite outcome of what happened with Florida.

In the end, both teams were left with nothing (save DP's albatross contract)

If you want to further add to it, Olli Jokinen, also apart of the deal, was traded for Ballard and Boynton. Ballard became Bernier, Grabner and Howden. Of the three, only Grabner is of note and he was lost to the Isles on waivers meaning from the original deal, the only team with assets still remaining from it are the Isles do to Grabner and that was by waivers. This is less ironic and more just completing the circle of lunacy.

Hipster Doofus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 06:27 PM
  #132
Carolinas Identity
This is ARRGH State!
 
Carolinas Identity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: United States
Posts: 7,624
vCash: 500
Not a trade, but I always felt this was hilariously amusing. Source


Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
In professional sports, a poison pill is a component of a contract, which one team offers a player, that makes it difficult or impossible for another team (which has the right of first refusal) to match. While it can often refer to a salary structure or clause that would affect all teams equally, it has taken on a new specific meaning of a clause that has unbalanced impact. For example, in March 2006, the Minnesota Vikings offered Steve Hutchinson, an offensive guard with the Seattle Seahawks, a seven-year, $49 million contract of which $16 million was guaranteed. This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer.

In the wake of this contract offer, similar clauses have appeared in other contract offers, including a contract offered to Vikings wide receiver Nate Burleson by the Seahawks, which, with irony fully intended, was structured as a seven year, $49 million deal. The contract given to Burleson had two vengeful poison pill clauses in response to the contract offered to Hutchinson. Firstly, it stipulated that if Burleson were to play five or more games in the state of Minnesota during any single season over the life of the contract, the entire $49 million would become guaranteed. Secondly, if Burleson were to earn more per year on average than all of his team's running backs combined, the $49 million would be guaranteed. Since the Vikings play half of their games at home in Minnesota, and their running backs combined earned less per year than the $7 million in Burleson's contract, Minnesota was unable to match it.

Carolinas Identity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 12:17 PM
  #133
AmazingNuck
Registered User
 
AmazingNuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
Didn't Anaheim think they would still be ok trading Gardiner because they thought eventually Justin Schultz would be playing for them and we all know what happened.

Plus there was talk in the Lupul/Gardiner for Beauchemin trade that Burke originally asked for Schultz and instead Bob Murrary said he could have Gardiner.
Why didn't Murray just keep both Schultz and Gardiner? They weren't in a position to make a serious run anyway, and they could've just moved Lupul for something else.

AmazingNuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 11:31 PM
  #134
DanNYI2191
Registered User
 
DanNYI2191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Suffolk County
Posts: 254
vCash: 500
CLOSE THE THREAD RIGHT NOW.

With the large amount of noteworthy things going on in the NHL right now, HFB simply can't afford to waste the bandwidth on an entertaining thread that has a word in its title that is not necessarily the right piece of vocabulary.

/sarcasm

Seriously guys, what else do we have to talk about? This is a great thread IMO, and people need to put it down because every example isn't exactly ironic. Thumbs up to the OP for starting it.

DanNYI2191 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2012, 02:35 PM
  #135
rockinghorse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
It's not a trade, but Mike Ilitch and Jeremy Jacobs got into an argument during an owners meeting, Ilitch basically called Jacobs cheap.

So after Marty Lapointe put up 27 goals for Detroit, Jacobs thought he'd stick it to Ilitch signed him to a 4 year, $20M contract.

Marty never put up 20 goals again.
Did Jacobs and Ilitch make up?

rockinghorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 11:49 AM
  #136
Model T
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by outoftune View Post
I got a few for the flames........ not a flames fan but together i think they work under the circumstances


Jordan Leo- trade to Col- then trade for him to get him back to Calgary- (possibly losing both trades
I'd agree with losing the second one. I don't see how trading a second-pairing defenseman for a top-line winger is losing though.

Model T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 02:50 PM
  #137
mighty all the way
Registered User
 
mighty all the way's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 1,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmazingNuck View Post
Why didn't Murray just keep both Schultz and Gardiner? They weren't in a position to make a serious run anyway, and they could've just moved Lupul for something else.
He had no control over Schultz, Lupul was expendable because he had no place in the line up when he came back, and Gardiner was thought to be expandable in BM's eyes because we had Schultz, Fowler, Vatanen, and Sbisa.

That year we could had made a serious run if Hiller was healthy and if we actually had another top 4 dman. Thats why we got Beauch, and he was a logical choice since he knew Carlyle's system already and it would make an easy transition.

Lets say Lubo, Lydman, and Hiller all got injured before he made the trade, NO WAY does BM make the trade. But if having those guys be healthy and have another top 4 dman, the Ducks could have made it past the 1st and 2nd round.

mighty all the way is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 03:02 PM
  #138
Suddenly7
Registered User
 
Suddenly7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty all the way View Post
He had no control over Schultz, Lupul was expendable because he had no place in the line up when he came back, and Gardiner was thought to be expandable in BM's eyes because we had Schultz, Fowler, Vatanen, and Sbisa.

That year we could had made a serious run if Hiller was healthy and if we actually had another top 4 dman. Thats why we got Beauch, and he was a logical choice since he knew Carlyle's system already and it would make an easy transition.

Lets say Lubo, Lydman, and Hiller all got injured before he made the trade, NO WAY does BM make the trade. But if having those guys be healthy and have another top 4 dman, the Ducks could have made it past the 1st and 2nd round.
It was really disappointing for us to start to falling apart right before the playoffs. If we were healthy going into the playoffs I'm sure we would of made it really interesting.

Suddenly7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 03:14 PM
  #139
sparxx87
Registered User
 
sparxx87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty all the way View Post
He had no control over Schultz, Lupul was expendable because he had no place in the line up when he came back, and Gardiner was thought to be expandable in BM's eyes because we had Schultz, Fowler, Vatanen, and Sbisa.

That year we could had made a serious run if Hiller was healthy and if we actually had another top 4 dman. Thats why we got Beauch, and he was a logical choice since he knew Carlyle's system already and it would make an easy transition.

Lets say Lubo, Lydman, and Hiller all got injured before he made the trade, NO WAY does BM make the trade. But if having those guys be healthy and have another top 4 dman, the Ducks could have made it past the 1st and 2nd round.
Thats an interesting perspective, to say the least.

I'm not even a Lupul fan, but he's certainly a better option then Matt Beleskey or Nik Hagman.. Carlyle just refused to put him at LW.

Any way you look at it, that was poor asset management and pretty ironic.. Beauchemin was a Duck and wanted to stay a Duck, but they let him walk as a free agent... Then trade a 25 goal scorer and a 21 year old defenseman who played a top 4 role as a rookie, for a guy they gave away for free not 2 years prior.

You're kidding yourself if you think Murray wouldn't like a re-do on that one. Thats business though, you're gonna lose some... Its just ironic how the whole situation played out.

sparxx87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 03:30 PM
  #140
Exit Dose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cerritos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparxx87 View Post
Thats an interesting perspective, to say the least.

I'm not even a Lupul fan, but he's certainly a better option then Matt Beleskey or Nik Hagman.. Carlyle just refused to put him at LW.

Any way you look at it, that was poor asset management and pretty ironic.. Beauchemin was a Duck and wanted to stay a Duck, but they let him walk as a free agent... Then trade a 25 goal scorer and a 21 year old defenseman who played a top 4 role as a rookie, for a guy they gave away for free not 2 years prior.

You're kidding yourself if you think Murray wouldn't like a re-do on that one. Thats business though, you're gonna lose some... Its just ironic how the whole situation played out.
He never said anything to that effect.

Exit Dose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 03:47 PM
  #141
sparxx87
Registered User
 
sparxx87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Dose View Post
He never said anything to that effect.
Thats the implication made when justifying the deal, no?

Its the defnition of irony because Murray thought he traded and average prospect and a bad contract.

In all fairness though, I wish the NCAA changed their rules... Its hard for a team to evaluate their drafted NCAA players without them at training camp... If Gardiner attended Ducks training camp in each of the previous years, rather then just rookie camp, I doubt they make that trade.

They should allow a small window for drafted players to attend a week of NHL camp. This would benefit not only the teams, but the players as well..

sparxx87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:03 PM
  #142
Exit Dose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cerritos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparxx87 View Post
Thats the implication made when justifying the deal, no?

Its the defnition of irony because Murray thought he traded and average prospect and a bad contract.

In all fairness though, I wish the NCAA changed their rules... Its hard for a team to evaluate their drafted NCAA players without them at training camp... If Gardiner attended Ducks training camp in each of the previous years, rather then just rookie camp, I doubt they make that trade.

They should allow a small window for drafted players to attend a week of NHL camp. This would benefit not only the teams, but the players as well..
No, the justification for the deal was bringing in Beauchemin. Even if we hadn't made that trade, we would have still needed a defenseman to fill the role that Beauchemin has for us. There was no one in the system at that point that was even close to doing that. The only guy in that mould was Clark, and he only played his first few games last season.

Gardiner wasn't considered an average prospect. He just wasn't the top prospect at that position in our system. He still wouldn't have been our best young defenseman had we kept both or just traded Schultz. We just drafted extremely well at that position, starting with the draft that those two were taken in.

NCAA players can attend prospect camps so long as they do so on their own dime. Schultz, and I believe Gardiner as well, had done that at certain points. If memory serves, neither was there the year that Gardiner was traded. but Schultz attended the very next camp we had.

Exit Dose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:36 PM
  #143
sparxx87
Registered User
 
sparxx87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Dose View Post
No, the justification for the deal was bringing in Beauchemin. Even if we hadn't made that trade, we would have still needed a defenseman to fill the role that Beauchemin has for us. There was no one in the system at that point that was even close to doing that. The only guy in that mould was Clark, and he only played his first few games last season.

Gardiner wasn't considered an average prospect. He just wasn't the top prospect at that position in our system. He still wouldn't have been our best young defenseman had we kept both or just traded Schultz. We just drafted extremely well at that position, starting with the draft that those two were taken in.

NCAA players can attend prospect camps so long as they do so on their own dime. Schultz, and I believe Gardiner as well, had done that at certain points. If memory serves, neither was there the year that Gardiner was traded. but Schultz attended the very next camp we had.
I'm talking about training camp.. Rookie camp is much different.. Training camp would give teams the opportunity to evalute their NCAA players against NHL competition.

Gardiner and Schultz never attended Ducks training camp because they weren't allowed to under NCAA rules. CHL rules allow drafted players to attend camp should they be invited, and then returned to their junior teams at any point during or after camp.. They also allow them to be returned at any point during the season, with 9 games being the max before they burn the first year of their ELC.

Its different because obviously players are attending school in the NCAA, but at least allow the opportunity for them to attend the big camp if they're invited..

sparxx87 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 01:24 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.