Pens have the market cornered on over paid wingers. Not send Mikeyhev the other way without payment

Typical Vancouver fan trade. Something for nothing and the tricks are free.
We will however do Clifton for Willander? Hurry a limited time offer.

Johanssen is a former 1st round pick and can help your prospect pool.

Yes it's so thin and this garbage blocks the many real prospects from coming up

five years after the draft, it doesn't matter what round they were taken in. he stinks.

bruins won't pay that price and likely won't pay lindholm's contract price after watching him stink this year.

Package the Bruins are giving up is more than you're sending for Guentzel

I expect it is because the Lindholm trade includes a negotiated extension, you're not getting a rental. 8-year extension > UFA rental. Calgary is experiencing the same problem right now with Hanifin, teams will pay more for the extension, and Hanifin doesn't want to sign an extension, so the teams drop their offer to a much lower amount.

You really think we need help with our prospect pool? No we need nhl ready dman. Rejected by buffalo.

that doesn't impact the price much. we have a lot of data on this. does it bump a third to a second? sure. does it add a major piece to the trade? absolutely not.

All the reports from insiders indicate a rental vs. long term contract significantly impacts the return. Why would you pay nearly the same amount of assets for a guy who will be with you for 30 games vs. a guy who will be with you for 300? It's a lot more than a 3rd round-pick difference.

You will get more assets for a player willing to sign with the other team than you will for a player unwilling to sign.

show your work. lets see these reports. start with one.

Hampus Lindholm is an excellent example, he signed an 8-year extension the day after his trade.

Lindholm for 1st + 2017 1st round pick (Vaakanainen) + 2nd + 2nd + John Moore (LTIR)

Compare that to Dimitry Orlov, who was designed to be a rental:

Orlov for 1st + 2nd + 3rd + Cap Dump

The difference is, a top prospect + 2nd round pick + no cap dump

oh, so these aren't reports, it's just your guess work?

Moore was not LTIR, he was buried in providence and was a multi year cap dump.

So let's look at what it actually was
Lindholm 50% retained for, 1st, prospect that the bruins had given up on (where he was drafted doesn't matter, he stunk), 2nd+2nd+multi year cap dump.

now, so long as these aren't actually insider reports that you suggested and just stuff we're making up, we don't know how much the money side of things played a role. It may well be that those two seconds were for retention and taking on a multi year cap dump. I think that's a stretch, but I think it's probably pretty fair to assume that the cap dump and retention cost more than a 2nd round pick. Vaakainanen was a bit of a throw in at that stage, so lets say the finances were a 2nd and him. does a 1st and a 2nd for a number one d man sound like a clear "they paid up for the extension," scenario.


so i guess i would say if there are insider reports, please share. if we're going to guess, let's get the facts straight.

You wanted an example, I gave one using your team.

Moore played 18 games between the NHL and AHL, he was on LTIR at the time of the trade and never played for the Ducks or Gulls. He was on LTIR.

You said the difference would be a 3rd. I have shown that the difference is a top prospect + 2nd. It isn't guess work, it's a direct comparison between two players traded to the same team, one with an extension in place and one without.

But since you keep refuting it without an insider proof:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/john-klingberg-worth-trade-contract-extension/

"So the baseline for Klingberg in a trade would seem to start with Ristolainen and Faulk, two fine defenders who you'd likely put beneath Klingberg on a depth chart. Ideally, the Stars would find a trade partner who could sign Klingberg immediately to an extension, and thus drive the price up further."

"The price for Klingberg probably starts at a first-round pick and a top prospect in the system, then goes up if Klingberg can work out a re-sign as part of the deal. His agent is talking to teams, after all."

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/trade-targets-noah-hanifin-is-holding-the-calgary-flames-hostage-in-trade-talks

The Hanifin file has been a grind for the Flames, as Hanifin’s camp is more or less holding the trade process hostage, flexing his power as a pending free agent to sway interested suitors. Officially, Hanifin can only block a trade to eight teams via his limited ‘no-trade’ clause. In reality, all Hanifin’s camp has to do is quietly signal to an interested party that he will not be willing to sign there long-term and it effectively kills the potential of a deal... The net result may be a return the Flames feel isn’t commensurate with his value.

so what you have here is the random speculation of one reporter i've never heard of that maybe some guy would get more if there was an extension in place? From 2021....that's the best you can do? just some vague sentence about a raised price point? sure. i'm on board with that. turns a 3rd into a 2nd. just like i said.

FYI i never asked for an example of your guessing. I asked for an example of an insider reporting this.

and let's not make this out like i just randomly asked for insider reports. you brought that up as your primary point. and ya, i think it raises the price too. fractionally. I think with Lindholm they probably tossed in the throw away prospect as a result of those negotiations. it's never anything major though. it's a rental price and a kicker.

If you've never heard of Frank Seravalli, you're either brand new to hockey and don't know what you're talking about or lying because you've been proven wrong. Given your post history, it's clearly the latter.

You were incorrect and I've shown you proof. Admit you were wrong, learn from it, and move on. It's the best way to learn.

clearly....and i mean CLEARLY i was talking about the article about Klinberg.

you have shown extremely vague speculation. i didn't make it to the seravelli article because of how bad the first one was at "proving," your point.

update: seravelli doesn't even address your point. can you find something real?

"vAgUE sPeCUlaTiOn" I've provided three sources to reinforce my point, including a detailed comparison of two similar players traded within a year to the same team. Where is your proof? It's your turn to provide evidence to back up your point.

You have claimed an extension or not has minimal effect on a player's value at the deadline. Please, provide evidence.

sure. lindholm. or how about every deadline rental that instantly inks an extension. notice how the trades never look much different than a regular deadline rental? how about mark stone? elite player signs an extension on the flight, and got a pretty minimal return. or we could just go through every single deadline trade. they all look pretty comparable regardless of an extension.

btw, the whole lowercase uppercase thing doesn't make you look smart. it makes you look like you don't have any creativity and can't come up with a comment of your own. You presented zero evidence, as what you were claiming was that an extension significantly alters value. neither of the two sources you cited mentioned that at all, they just mentioned vaguely that the ability to extend could increase value - which is something i have agreed with, and actively asserted. seravelli didn't even touch on it at all.

I just don't really get why you're trying to make stuff up. we can all just look at what happens in this league, and draw conclusions that normal people would.

Where are your articles and insiders to back up your points? We have to use insiders! You can't use vague speculation!!!

I already referenced the Lindholm trade, I'm not sure why you're repeating that one when it goes against your point entirely. Stone was over 5 years ago, long before the Flat Cap Era. That's hardly relevant to the modern NHL. I used examples from within the last two years.

Spongebob text is designed to be mocking. You rejected my evidence and comparisons because they proved your opinion untrue. Your rejection had no counterpoint to reinforce your opinion, you said only no. Back up your point with evidence. Contradict my evidence with evidence of your own.

I have not made anything up, I've provided sources and comparisons — items you requested specifically and haven't been able to reproduce yourself. If you hold someone to a certain standard in a debate, you match that standard, too.

again, you were the one that brought up insiders. that was your case, "All the reports from insiders indicate a rental vs. long term contract significantly impacts the return." That was the very first thing you said to me.

I know what the text is designed to do. It doesn't have the desired affect. it just makes you look unintelligent.

You have made things up. You've tracked down articles and said, "see! this says A, B, and C!" And it just says something completely different that doesn't remotely support your point.

Stop shifting the goalposts. Lindholm's extension didn't significantly impact his trade value, because duh. look at the trade. likewise with every other deadline deal that results in an extension. If you want to just keep shifting the goalposts, have fun. i don't have the time for it.

Yes, and I provided two articles that back up my point. You have not provided any articles or reports, only "vAGuE sPeCuLaTioN."

Buddy, you seem unintelligent. You cannot type correctly, you have provided no sources to back up your side of the debate, and have only been able to provide your speculation to refute my points. You're trying to turn this into a strawman about Spongebob text.

I haven't made anything up, I've used direct comparisons between real NHL players who were in similar positions and traded to the same team less than a year apart, explaining how they're similar and how we can compare the values of those trades. I've provided links to two articles that reinforce my statements. When I've asked you to do the same as you've requested of me, you can only provide vague speculation; no specifics about what the player was traded for or how it backs up your point, only "Mark Stone and Lindholm." You haven't provided alternative trade examples, or news articles about players' values with an extension vs. without one, or another modicum of evidence.

I haven't moved the goalposts whatsoever, I am asking that you use the same goal posts.

no, you did not provide that. apologies if you provided anything insightful after that, it's where i stopped.

Your lack of intelligence and inability to understand how the articles correlate with my point isn't my problem. You keep saying, "This doesn't prove anything," or "No, you're speculating," yet you do nothing to refute my points or the articles. You continue to act like a child in this conversation, but I won't break out the crayons and make you a diagram of how this works. I won't stoop to your level of taking the ball and going home because you don't like how the conversation is going.

Provide evidence to back up your point and refute the points I have raised or admit that you were wrong.