HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

trade deadline concept: good or bad?

View Poll Results: trade deadline concept: good or bad?
Good 17 89.47%
Bad 2 10.53%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2007, 12:55 PM
  #1
canadave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nova Scotia, Earth
Country: United Nations
Posts: 888
vCash: 500
trade deadline concept: good or bad?

The trade deadline means a team can essentially rent impending free agents and basically use them for just the playoffs. Even if your team wins the Cup, it's possible that your superstar players might have only recently arrived at the deadline. A team can win the Cup on the basis of rentals, rather than the players it started the year with.

So, my question is: is this a good state of affairs or a bad one?

canadave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 01:10 PM
  #2
Draekke
Registered User
 
Draekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadave View Post
The trade deadline means a team can essentially rent impending free agents and basically use them for just the playoffs. Even if your team wins the Cup, it's possible that your superstar players might have only recently arrived at the deadline. A team can win the Cup on the basis of rentals, rather than the players it started the year with.

So, my question is: is this a good state of affairs or a bad one?
How would you propose to fix the situation? No trades during the season? Or bring the deadline back a few weeks?

Would be pretty harsh to do away with trades if that's where you are heading...

Draekke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 01:26 PM
  #3
canadave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nova Scotia, Earth
Country: United Nations
Posts: 888
vCash: 500
Sorry, good point, I should've made myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that the NHL do away with trades; the question is whether the current way of doing things is good (leave it the way it is) or bad (change it somehow--whether that means moving the deadline back a few weeks, making trade deadline-acquired players ineligible for the playoffs, instituting some kind of rule saying a player acquired at the deadline must remain with the team for at least X number of months even if they're a free agent--something, anything, that makes it harder for teams to just "Rent-A-Star" for the playoffs.

canadave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 01:31 PM
  #4
Draekke
Registered User
 
Draekke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
oh alright. Yeah, I think it's good the way it is. With the twenty-ish games remaining I think that player becomes a part of the team. I know last year I felt that Roli was a part of the team and that he was a major component, and it felt like we had him longer than the deadline.

Draekke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 02:36 PM
  #5
koeltrain
Registered User
 
koeltrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,448
vCash: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadave View Post
Sorry, good point, I should've made myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that the NHL do away with trades; the question is whether the current way of doing things is good (leave it the way it is) or bad (change it somehow--whether that means moving the deadline back a few weeks, making trade deadline-acquired players ineligible for the playoffs , instituting some kind of rule saying a player acquired at the deadline must remain with the team for at least X number of months even if they're a free agent--something, anything, that makes it harder for teams to just "Rent-A-Star" for the playoffs.
Sorry, but I find that absolutely ridiculous. Why even bother? The thing is that teams are paying a price to get that rental. It often comes at the expense of good young talent (that is becoming much more important... well as long as the cap stays relatively low anyways and the parity among teams remains).

koeltrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 02:38 PM
  #6
subnet
HFBoards Sponsor
 
subnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: PacNW
Country: Canada
Posts: 765
vCash: 583
perhaps they could make a provision that only players signed-up for the following year could be traded - this means no UFA short-term rentals...

subnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 02:46 PM
  #7
Q038
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Edm
Country: Canada
Posts: 610
vCash: 500
I thought i read or heard an idea is being pondered by powers in charge of such decisions are concidering instituting a rule that any player in the last year of his contract is traded he cannot play for the team he left for one full year.. or something to that effect

Q038 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 02:48 PM
  #8
canadave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nova Scotia, Earth
Country: United Nations
Posts: 888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by koeltrain View Post
Sorry, but I find that absolutely ridiculous. Why even bother? The thing is that teams are paying a price to get that rental. It often comes at the expense of good young talent (that is becoming much more important... well as long as the cap stays relatively low anyways and the parity among teams remains).
Yes, the teams pay a price, but the point is that it's still a rental in the case of UFA's who are acquired. The point of the poll/question is to see if you think teams being able to rent UFA's for 20 games of the regular season and the playoffs, with full knowledge they probably won't sign them next season, is a good or bad thing.

Personally, I'm not all that thrilled with the concept, and I'd probably vote "bad" if I could vote in my poll. I know we got Roloson with that concept, and it worked out well for us, but in terms of being a fan, I really don't like the idea of having playoff success--even winning the Cup--on the backs of several players who were sworn enemies for three-quarters of the season.

EDIT: To elaborate my thoughts in this regard, picture this scenario. Let's say the Oilers trade for [insert your four most hated players here] and by some miracle they help us not only squeak into the playoffs, but win the Cup. Would you be thrilled seeing them hoist the Cup and parade it around Rexall? Only to see them leave for the highest bidder a month later? Maybe...maybe not. I guess it also comes down to whether you're a fan first and foremost of the team or of individual players...


Last edited by canadave: 02-23-2007 at 02:53 PM.
canadave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 02:49 PM
  #9
canadave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nova Scotia, Earth
Country: United Nations
Posts: 888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbintexas View Post
perhaps they could make a provision that only players signed-up for the following year could be traded - this means no UFA short-term rentals...
Yes--this is along the lines of an alternative I'd like to see discussed more.

canadave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2007, 02:55 PM
  #10
koeltrain
Registered User
 
koeltrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,448
vCash: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadave View Post
Yes, the teams pay a price, but the point is that it's still a rental in the case of UFA's who are acquired. The point of the poll/question is to see if you think teams being able to rent UFA's for 20 games of the regular season and the playoffs, with full knowledge they probably won't sign them next season, is a good or bad thing.

Personally, I'm not all that thrilled with the concept, and I'd probably vote "bad" if I could vote in my poll. I know we got Roloson with that concept, and it worked out well for us, but in terms of being a fan, I really don't like the idea of having playoff success--even winning the Cup--on the backs of several players who were sworn enemies for three-quarters of the season.

EDIT: To elaborate my thoughts in this regard, picture this scenario. Let's say the Oilers trade for [insert your four most hated players here] and by some miracle they help us not only squeak into the playoffs, but win the Cup. Would you be thrilled seeing them hoist the Cup and parade it around Rexall? Maybe...maybe not? I guess it also comes down to whether you're a fan first and foremost of the team or of individual players...

I voted that it is good. Think Foppa. That was a lot of talent + picks for an UFA rental. Could Nashville win the cup now... yes. Could they have before... potentially. It still is up to the GM's to have smart asset management. Sometimes a rental doesn't pan out at all... then year after year of aquiring rentals it's hard to do it because you have nothing left to sell. It adds a nice aspect to the business of hockey if you ask me. In fact, the trade deadline is one of my favorite times of year. Behind #1 playoffs and #2 my fantasy pool draft.

koeltrain 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 05:53 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.