Claimed: Another Trade Deadline Comes and Goes; Zero Trades

[Devise 4,475]

Who would of thunk it? Actually probably everyone. It's been a quiet season, activity in general a bit lower around the site, we've had missed sims, we've had a lot of other turmoil potentially going on. But we also had a trade deadline. Did you know? I'd forgive you if you didn't, since absolutely nothing happened. It shouldn't really be a surprise though, as the four competitive teams of Helsinki, Stockholm, Quebec and New York all were tight to the cap with their rosters intact to start the season. Which meant, zero moves. The four teams will throw their horses at the wall again in the playoffs and we'll see what will happen in terms of one of the same four winning a Continental Cup. While the story lines are all certainly interesting, Helsinki going for a repeat, Quebec looking for the second cup in franchise history, Stockholm looking for a first cup since the name change and the first one since Season 25 for the franchise overall, while New York is looking to go 3 cups in 4 seasons before the team calls it. 

 

Probably the most exciting thing about this season though will be when it ends. Not just because we could see trades in the off-season and shake ups that lead to some new teams and new blood finally entering the competitive scene. But we could also see a more active trade deadline next season because of it. The VHL has always had a very quiet trade deadline, kind of the opposite of the NHL where almost always there is usually 3-5 bigger trades. Just do the UFA and RFA situations though to be fair, as teams more often than not will trade notable players rather than lose them for nothing. 

 

The question that needs to be asked though, what else could we do to make trade deadline a bit more enticing? Personally I think how we handle the salary cap for trade deadline is a joke. An absolute joke. We do it for "balance" reasons or to prevent teams from overloading, but realistically all we are doing is shutting the door on any trades. Teams on the playoff bubble who know it is not their time aren't going to waste valuable picks for pieces just to help them this season. And teams who are there already more often than not have very little cap to work with. But why do we do the salary situation the way we do? When a player is traded at the deadline, the team that acquires him takes 60 percent of that players salary on. Despite the fact that the trade deadline comes with less than half the season left. Shouldn't the team only pay for the person equal to the number of games remaining? I'd honestly be okay if we broke our salaries down to a per game basis, and then had a proper percentage so that the team trading for the player at the deadline is literally only player for the rest of that players regular season games. Playoffs should come free from a salary perspective imo. 

 

I don't know that the math on that would look like, but I sure as hell bet you it would be less than 60%. Given the games left by the time we have trade deadline (what is it, like 20 games?) it would probably be closer to 30%. Which to me, is where you would then start seeing better deadline deals. Teams would have more incentive to go for broke even if they only had a million or two in change left in cap. Because they could fit a big time player. But considering that the regular season activity is usually always low, I think a shake up to the trade deadline format would go a long way in helping boost things up. 

[Gudnason 607]

Think trade deadline is at the 80%/20% mark but your points and arguments are valid.

[Devise 4,475]

3 minutes ago, punkhippie said:

Think trade deadline is at the 80%/20% mark but your points and arguments are valid.

 

6.4 – Trading Salaries
When trading contracts, teams essentially pay whatever is left on the player's salary. The amount of salary taken on by a team at different points of the season and off-season are split into 4 groups. The team trading for the player is required to pay the following:

• 100% - off-season - Game 40
• 85% - Game 41 - 150
• 70% - Game 151 - 250
• 60% - Game 251 - ~280 (number not always correct, must be the last game simmed on the trade deadline day)

The team trading away the player is required to pay the % of the salary not taken on by the team trading for the player.

 

Aka there is no way to acquire a player for cheaper than 60% of their contracts, even if you wait till the final deadline day. Which I think is way too much considering you get them for at most 20-30 regular season games plus playoffs. We've done this forever for balance reasons. If we made it 20% like you said, a team with 1 million in cap space coudl trade for a 700+ TPE  5 Million salary player. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Devise

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

2 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

6.4 – Trading Salaries
When trading contracts, teams essentially pay whatever is left on the player's salary. The amount of salary taken on by a team at different points of the season and off-season are split into 4 groups. The team trading for the player is required to pay the following:

• 100% - off-season - Game 40
• 85% - Game 41 - 150
• 70% - Game 151 - 250
• 60% - Game 251 - ~280 (number not always correct, must be the last game simmed on the trade deadline day)

The team trading away the player is required to pay the % of the salary not taken on by the team trading for the player.

 

Aka there is no way to acquire a player for cheaper than 60% of their contracts, even if you wait till the final deadline day. Which I think is way too much considering you get them for at most 20-30 regular season games plus playoffs. We've done this forever for balance reasons. If we made it 20% like you said, a team with 1 million in cap space coudl trade for a 700+ TPE  5 Million salary player. 

 

And I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why this is a good idea. Trades for the sake of trades? I don't see the benefit in decreasing VHL parity.

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, Fire Hakstol said:

 

And I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why this is a good idea. Trades for the sake of trades? I don't see the benefit in decreasing VHL parity.

 

I never said it should be 20%. Only highlighting how crazy it would be if it was 20%. Obviously 20 is too low, but 30-40? The fact that it isn't even half and half and the other team only has to pay 40 percent salary for a player they get for more games than you is the silliest thing of all time. Come on. 

 

 

[Gudnason 607]

3 minutes ago, Fire Hakstol said:

 

And I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why this is a good idea. Trades for the sake of trades? I don't see the benefit in decreasing VHL parity.

 

Well these rentals are usually for retiring players or to be free agents. Otherwise their cap is fucked the next season. Parity is out the window at the trade deadline.

[Devise 4,475]

For the record too @Fire Hakstol all I'd be suggesting is dropping that number down to say 50% instead of 60 closer to trade deadline. Maybe even give it a bump down on trade deadline day to encourage more deals. It's not just about trades for trades sake, there are plenty of players who in the final seasons of their careers get left on teams they don't belong on because the competing teams have no room. Even if you bumped it down to 40% on deadline day, that is 2 Million needed for a 5 Mill player. That seems fair to me. That is still a decent amount of cap that most competitors won't have it. But they should have enough to acquire something. 

 

And wouldn't this help parity if instead of just building their teams in the off-seasons teams that aren't in the competitive race who may be looking to get out of it could actually sell some players that may not fit in? Even inactives. Even could get bidding wars in this instance which helps the teams who are selling players. But 20% is obviously way too low, and I agree with the reasoning on why it should never be that low. 

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

52 minutes ago, Devise said:

For the record too @Fire Hakstol all I'd be suggesting is dropping that number down to say 50% instead of 60 closer to trade deadline. Maybe even give it a bump down on trade deadline day to encourage more deals. It's not just about trades for trades sake, there are plenty of players who in the final seasons of their careers get left on teams they don't belong on because the competing teams have no room. Even if you bumped it down to 40% on deadline day, that is 2 Million needed for a 5 Mill player. That seems fair to me. That is still a decent amount of cap that most competitors won't have it. But they should have enough to acquire something. 

 

And wouldn't this help parity if instead of just building their teams in the off-seasons teams that aren't in the competitive race who may be looking to get out of it could actually sell some players that may not fit in? Even inactives. Even could get bidding wars in this instance which helps the teams who are selling players. But 20% is obviously way too low, and I agree with the reasoning on why it should never be that low. 

 

I misread what you said earlier and thought you were a proponent of the 20%, which obviously makes no sense. 

 

Problem is, which teams don't know if they're in the competitive race by the end of the off-season? At that point, you can almost guess 100% which teams are going to make the playoffs or not, and which teams have a chance at the cup. 

 

Now, if we were to ever contract down to 8 teams, I think this is a discussion worth having, but with 10 teams, I just think this helps the already stacked teams more than everyone else.

[ASIANBOUBABI 173]

I'm surprised. Smarch is desperate to sell Fujimoto, so thought someone would give him at least a 3rd.

[Gudnason 607]

27 minutes ago, ASIANBOOM said:

I'm surprised. Smarch is desperate to sell Fujimoto, so thought someone would give him at least a 3rd.

 

I offered him Thomas Smith. 

[BOOM 8,759]

Well that shows Smarchs' incompetence.

[Smarch 3,158]

3 hours ago, BOOM said:

Well that shows Smarchs' incompetence.

Didn't wanna rip him off

[BOOM 8,759]