|
|
Post by NashvilleGM on Feb 26, 2017 22:49:18 GMT -5
Just a quick peek as far back as the transaction history will go on the current web page there have been (as best I can tell quickly glancing) 12 trades involving just picks for cash. Cash amount undisclosed however the following picks were moved:
1st rd -- 0
2nd rd -- 2
3rd rd -- 1
4th rd -- 3
5th rd -- 4
6th rd -- 3
7th rd -- 1
Richard
NSH
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Feb 27, 2017 0:02:21 GMT -5
Just a quick peek as far back as the transaction history will go on the current web page there have been (as best I can tell quickly glancing) 12 trades involving just picks for cash. Cash amount undisclosed however the following picks were moved: 1st rd -- 0 2nd rd -- 2 3rd rd -- 1 4th rd -- 3 5th rd -- 4 6th rd -- 3 7th rd -- 1 Richard NSH Nice research Richard! I'm not sure if we have our earliest transactions archived somewhere... |
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Feb 27, 2017 2:09:58 GMT -5
When I see high picks moved it really troubles me that we aren't taking the sim realistically enough. Could you imagine the reaction of fans and media if a draft pick was traded for cash? I think the owner would be ripped a new one.
If a GM does a good job, they will build up their bank account, but hard to stock your organization when a team sells off potential prospects for cash.
|
|
SJSharks
Minor League Grinder
Posts: 472
|
Post by SJSharks on Feb 27, 2017 9:05:11 GMT -5
I have no beef with dealing picks for cash. Not the best practice to do but might be necessary. That being said, if I were to ever do it myself, it would be a last resort. I'd sooner deal a extra farmhand or some million to 1 shot prospect before dealing low picks. And looking at what Richard tallied up there (Nice job, Richard.), chances are there is most likely only 3 times it really might have bit someone in the ass dealing that pick for cash. If we were to put a ban on trading picks for cash, limit dealing the higher ones. 1st-3rd round are off limits. Yeah, you can get some decent good players in the later rounds. But chances are, the cash you get for that 7th rounder will be worth more than the "Morty Forest" or "Link Gaetz" you draft with that 7th rounder.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_ZeroCool on Feb 27, 2017 9:22:51 GMT -5
When I see high picks moved it really troubles me that we aren't taking the sim realistically enough. Could you imagine the reaction of fans and media if a draft pick was traded for cash? I think the owner would be ripped a new one. If a GM does a good job, they will build up their bank account, but hard to stock your organization when a team sells off potential prospects for cash. That's a good point....cause If a team is struggling for cash and trade away their picks for cash, 90% of the time those same GMs don't try to correct their money issues and just lose that money gained from trading the picks anyways. That is what I feel is the most troubling. They may do it just to get their team money in the black for the season...and then find themselves in the same situation year after year. |
|
|
|
Post by avalanchegm on Feb 27, 2017 12:23:05 GMT -5
I have never understood the argument about not being able to trade cash for picks. Again, it's an asset. If you mismanage your team it's an avenue to be used to get some relief without dealing one of your better players. Is it ideal? No, and yet again I've suggested people should hold themselves accountable and have a proper financial plan in addition to their plan for icing a roster. It's probably the least likely to bite someone later. We can all look back on the draft picks we've made and shake our heads. It's an exact science that fails far more than it succeeds. Would anyone here trade their 1st round pick for a million? Crazy, right?! What about a 2nd for $900,000? Or a 3rd for $800,000? Or a 5th for $500,000? How many of you would think it's better strategy to take $500,000 (essentially a signing bonus to retain a valued player on your team who is contributing to it) over rolling the dice on a prospect who might never contribute to your farm team? I wasn't here in 2006, but every example listed above happened. I'm not sure why the league did away with that practice after one draft, so perhaps someone who was around then can shed some light on it but have a look for yourselves: www.elitesimnews.com/2006draft-round1.htmAt the risk of sounding redundant, cash is an asset. Cap space is an asset. Draft picks are assets. We allow the trading of cash in deals that included players and picks, but we have an issue with it as the lone asset in a trade? To me, this is black and white. Either allow cash to be traded or don't, but don't let it happen in one instance but not another. |
|
ALL CAPS
Minor League Grinder
Season 21!
Posts: 274 
|
Post by ALL CAPS on Feb 28, 2017 2:10:22 GMT -5
Ron brings up a great point and it's one WORTH noting. If the NHL doesn't do it, we should look into following the same practice. You can trade cash in a trade in the NHL for an asset but not for a draft pick by itself. There has to be a tangible asset along with it. That's a point worth looking into. Currently, it is practice to be able to trade picks for cash in the NsHL. While this isn't an egregious exaggeration (bc they are both TANGIBLE ASSETS), in keeping with realism, the NHL doesn't do it...maybe we shouldn't either. Good point, Ron. I don't agree, because in the NHL you can't be fired for leaving you team with a negative cash flow. The fact that you can lose your job for leaving your team in the red places a value on cash. We can probably find many more rules that are implicated by this suggestion and there are good points to all sides. |
|
ALL CAPS
Minor League Grinder
Season 21!
Posts: 274
|
Post by ALL CAPS on Feb 28, 2017 2:39:54 GMT -5
Overall, I say that the idea of adding a third re-rate or trading a re-rate is relatively harmless... but we have been provided with some examples of how it can be more complex.
Regardless, let's not cloud the issue and use this as an opportunity to motion more restrictive knee jerk measures.
If there are financial rules or suggestions to be looked - which I gather there are from the reactions to this thread - then I say we vet them accordingly.
More to the issue - if trading the rerates is a taboo, and yet finding ways to develop young players internally still remains such an issue - I would suggest that we look at the impact of adding more PDP's.
At present, I don't feel that the PDP structure provides much impact.
There has been some objection in this thread to GM's leaving their players on the prospects list as if that is a problem.
I don't see how that can be a problem when we have historically had place holders like (insert player name here... don't want to offend) eating up salary that young players could be making.
GM's should be under no pressure to create players quicker or risk pressure of the player's association.
Look at Mitch Marner for example - I'll use my own guy - I chose to keep him a prospect because he wasn't physically ready and that was something that would impact him in ratings. The patience that I've shown with him since he was originally drafted now projects to pay off in spades next season when the rest of you should come to know his name well (see: box scores).
My choice in doing that with Marner was calculated and intentional.
If I had the option of drafting a player that was more "NHL ready" in his draft season then my choice may have been different.
Each player is different and each GM must be able to manage in their own way.
Bottom line: We should keep to a minimum rules that limit the options of the GM to manage his own team.
|
|
|
|
Post by NashvilleGM on Feb 28, 2017 9:42:57 GMT -5
I am okay with setting a reasonable timetable to get a player off the prospect list. What that is could be up for debate. The NHL has such a "rule" if you will but they also have several levels that a player could play in:
A player not signed by drafted team within two years can reenter draft, assuming they are still eligible, and if they are not eligible, will become unrestricted an free agent. A team has the rights of an NCAA player until 30 days after the player leaves the college.
Now maybe that is 4 years for us. Maybe it is 3. I don't think I am in favor of going the route of a player re-entering a draft, however if a GM is waiting for a break out season to pull the player off the prospect list then that can create a void of players needed and we end up creating placeholders.
Just my two cents worth and I will expect to receive change back.
Richard
NSH
|
|
|
|
Post by The_ZeroCool on Feb 28, 2017 11:04:16 GMT -5
I think that would be an interesting idea to have a certain time frame on prospects that are already playing pro level in the real world. Say something like teams in NsHL have 2-3 years to activate a prospect when they play their first pro game in north america in the real world. In my opinion that would give a GM plenty of time to activate them and get the best possible rating for their activated prospect. Like Richard said, if it was up for debate thats my opinion on that. Other then that I am ok with the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAKingsGM on Feb 28, 2017 14:09:27 GMT -5
Well, back in the day, and according to the old NHL CBA, teams (in the NHL) got compensatory picks for losing Free Agents. We also allowed teams to take the cash instead. Their choice. Drafts were a lot longer and were based on the skill of the player. We did away with that when the NHL did away with it and grabbed a new CBA. We drafted 9 rounds as well at one time, in accordance with the NHL, however we modified a lot of things when they updated the CBA during that time. I hope this sheds some light.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAKingsGM on Feb 28, 2017 14:15:44 GMT -5
..I'm only saying we should err on the side of what the NHL does. Technically, the NHL doesn't allow cash to be traded (other than assuming salary). Period. Just a thought. It's a salary cap era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas GM on Feb 28, 2017 15:18:27 GMT -5
The NHL may not technically trade cash but they are allowed to retain salary in a deal which we currently aren't capable of doing. Plus, what's up he point of making a lot of cash if you can't spend it to benefit your team. Full disclosure that I have probably traded more cash in deals and for just picks than anyone in my few years here. If the NHL can bury contracts on LTIR and retain salary we should be allowed to trade our hard earned cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carolina GM on Feb 28, 2017 16:09:20 GMT -5
There are definitely ways that both the NHL and SIM allows teams to get money. But a straight pick for money trade looks bad considering how the vast majority of NHL teams view the draft.
I don't think stronger organizations like Anaheim, Colorado, Edmonton etc would trade a pick for cash. I know I wouldn't. Now I would trade $3 million for a first in a heartbeat. Glad the board is likely changing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Cherni on Feb 28, 2017 19:34:44 GMT -5
Let's also not forget, if we're going by what the NHL does, that all teams must draft at least one player in each draft. Too many times we see teams trading off all of their picks and not participating in a draft. I think there should be a penalty for GMs who abuse the system like that. Or even having 17 7th round picks, or whatever that number was, like we saw recently.
|
|
