TRADE: Matt Hunwick and Conor Sheary to Buffalo per Friedman

[inkman]

Are we sure about the trading Hunwick piece? It just doesn't make any sense... why would PIT care if BUF trades Hunwick before the '19 draft?

 

Is that stipulation even allowed in the CBA? It seems unfair.

The only people I hear talk about fairness are 6 years old

[GASabresIUFAN]

When Sheary plays in our top 6, he’ll get to 40 pts or 20 goals to change the pick from a 4th to a 3rd anyway. Seems to me we should trade Hunwick if we can.

[pi2000]

Think of it as PIT giving BUF a discount because BUF asked for it, in the event that BUF can't move Hunwick.  Make sense from that perspective?

 

Then why wouldn't PIT ask for a 3rd rnd pick, with BUF adding the condition that it will drop to a 4th if they keep Hunwick for the entire season?   The way they did it seems backwards. 

 

In any event, all that PIT should care about is getting Hunwick's salary off their books, they've done that... so they shouldn't care what BUF does with him... .that's not their problem anymore.     And BUF has plenty of cap room, it's not like they're going to be eager to move Hunwick.    That stipulation is highly unnecessary IMO.       

[Eleven]

Then why wouldn't PIT ask for a 3rd rnd pick, with BUF adding the condition that it will drop to a 4th if they keep Hunwick for the entire season?   The way they did it seems backwards. 

 

In any event, all that PIT should care about is getting Hunwick's salary off their books, they've done that... so they shouldn't care what BUF does with him... .that's not their problem anymore.     And BUF has plenty of cap room, it's not like they're going to be eager to move Hunwick.    That stipulation is highly unnecessary IMO.       

 

That's exactly what I envision.  Buffalo wanted the condition.  Not Pittsburgh.  

[pi2000]

That's exactly what I envision.  Buffalo wanted the condition.  Not Pittsburgh.  

 

But the deal wasn't for a conditional 4th.. it was for a conditional 3rd.    So it had to have come from the PIT end of the deal.

[Doohicksie]

But the deal wasn't for a conditional 4th.. it was for a conditional 3rd.    So it had to have come from the PIT end of the deal.

 

Semantics.  It's what they agreed on.  You don't know which way it had to have come (awkward choice of words, by the way).

[sabills]

Semantics.  It's what they agreed on.  You don't know which way it had to have come (awkward choice of words, by the way).

 

Right, couldn't you just as easily call it a "conditional 3rd that drops to a 4th if the Sabres trade Hutton before the 2019 or [blah lah blah]".

[shrader]

Right, couldn't you just as easily call it a "conditional 3rd that drops to a 4th if the Sabres trade Hutton before the 2019 or [blah lah blah]".

 

The way they report these has gotten very sloppy.  It should just be labeled as "a conditional 2019 draft pick".  Under one set of conditions it is a 3rd, under the other it is a 4th.  I'm not sure exactly when it changed, but they never used to include the round the way they do now by saying "conditional 3rd round draft pick".  This again is a product of the twitter world we live in.  They are trying to give as much information as they can while dealing with a character limit.  They used to say conditional pick and then follow that up by explaining the conditions.

[Eleven]

The way they report these has gotten very sloppy.  It should just be labeled as "a conditional 2019 draft pick".  Under one set of conditions it is a 3rd, under the other it is a 4th.  I'm not sure exactly when it changed, but they never used to include the round the way they do now by saying "conditional 3rd round draft pick".  This again is a product of the twitter world we live in.  They are trying to give as much information as they can while dealing with a character limit.  They used to say conditional pick and then follow that up by explaining the conditions.

 

Agreed.  That caused unnecessary confusion.

[Doohicksie]

Right, couldn't you just as easily call it a "conditional 3rd that drops to a 4th if the Sabres trade Hutton before the 2019 or [blah lah blah]".

 

There's your key phrase:  Just as easily.  The two ways of wording it are just as easily done, so one isn't more right than another.  It's legal language.  If the law clerk wrote it that way and the meaning is clear, why change it?

 

You guys are really overanalyzing this.  I'm an engineer but I have to contribute to and review contract wording sometimes.  If someone used words that are different than what I would have used, I don't say anything unless it changes the meaning of the sentence.  If they say "greater than or equal to nine" I'm not going to correct that to "not less than nine" even though the latter is shorter and more to the point.  It means the same thing, so why bother?

 

Same thing going on here.

Oh yeah, and then shrader's version is different too.  As long as the meaning is clear and communicates the intent properly, there's no reason to reword it.

 

Another possibility:  If both GMs have to float trade proposals to their owners for final approval, maybe one asked for the wording because he felt it would be easier to sell it that way and get the approval.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Doohickie

[sabills]

There's your key phrase:  Just as easily.  The two ways of wording it are just as easily done, so one isn't more right than another.  It's legal language.  If the law clerk wrote it that way and the meaning is clear, why change it?

 

You guys are really overanalyzing this.  I'm an engineer but I have to contribute to and review contract wording sometimes.  If someone used words that are different than what I would have used, I don't say anything unless it changes the meaning of the sentence.  If they say "greater than or equal to nine" I'm not going to correct that to "not less than nine" even though the latter is shorter and more to the point.  It means the same thing, so why bother?

 

Same thing going on here.

Oh yeah, and then shrader's version is different too.  As long as the meaning is clear and communicates the intent properly, there's no reason to reword it.

 

Another possibility:  If both GMs have to float trade proposals to their owners for final approval, maybe one asked for the wording because he felt it would be easier to sell it that way and get the approval.

 

The problem then is that we're depending on people attempting to report this stuff quickly to get the specific wording correct, when they themselves may not know the difference. Which leads me to assume that we can assume nothing about the wording.

[pi2000]

Regardless of the wording... it's a dumb condition.    

 

1 - Why does PIT care what BUF does with Hunwick?   They removed his entire salary off the books... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED... end of story for PIT.

 

2 - If #1 is true (PIT doesn't really care what BUF does with Hunwick).... then why would BUF unnecessarily paint themselves into a corner?

 

I don't know why this bothers me so much.... maybe because it always seems like BUF is on the wrong end of these "conditions".... except for the Kane trade to SJ.... now that makes a lot of sense... if Kane does well and fits in with their group enough for them to resign him... then yeah, bump up the pick to a 1st. 

[Sabel79]

Regardless of the wording... it's a dumb condition.    

 

1 - Why does PIT care what BUF does with Hunwick?   They removed his entire salary off the books... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED... end of story for PIT.

 

2 - If #1 is true (PIT doesn't really care what BUF does with Hunwick).... then why would BUF unnecessarily paint themselves into a corner?

 

I don't know why this bothers me so much.... maybe because it always seems like BUF is on the wrong end of these "conditions".... except for the Kane trade to SJ.... now that makes a lot of sense... if Kane does well and fits in with their group enough for them to resign him... then yeah, bump up the pick to a 1st.

 

This one makes sense in the following way for Buffalo: worst case scenario, Sherry goes full-JAG and Hunwick’s salary hangs out, it’s a 4th and not a 3rd.

[TheAud]

Regardless of the wording... it's a dumb condition.    

 

1 - Why does PIT care what BUF does with Hunwick?   They removed his entire salary off the books... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED... end of story for PIT.

 

2 - If #1 is true (PIT doesn't really care what BUF does with Hunwick).... then why would BUF unnecessarily paint themselves into a corner?

 

I don't know why this bothers me so much.... maybe because it always seems like BUF is on the wrong end of these "conditions".... except for the Kane trade to SJ.... now that makes a lot of sense... if Kane does well and fits in with their group enough for them to resign him... then yeah, bump up the pick to a 1st. 

 

Try this one on. 

Buf: "Yeah, I'll take that terrible overpaid Hunwick off your hands if you give me Sheary for a 4th"

Pit: "Hey! He's not that bad. We were a Stanley Cup contender and he played half the season"

Buf: "No, he sucks and negates the value of Sheary"

Pit: "No it doesn't! He's at least a neutral addition..." 

(this goes on for awhile, it's a negotiation). 

Pit: "I tell you what, we think Hunwick has value, you don't. If you can trade him for something, that proves our point that he had value. In that case we get a 3rd instead of a 4th. If you are 'saddled' with him, then it's just a 4th'. 

Buf: "Fair enough, deal". (This is the abbreviated version)

 

So Pittsburgh doesn't actually care what Buffalo does with him per se, they are offering it as a hedge for Buffalo in order to get the deal done. 

That's my take on it anyway. 

[Ogre]

 

That's my take on it anyway.

Pretty damn good take.

 

As others have pointed out up thread, what’s the big difference between a 3rd and a 4th? Especially when you’ve acquired a a reasonably good player. I don’t know the details, but couldn’t you just waive Hunwick? If he’s a throw in, who cares?

[pi2000]

Try this one on. 

Buf: "Yeah, I'll take that terrible overpaid Hunwick off your hands if you give me Sheary for a 4th"

Pit: "Hey! He's not that bad. We were a Stanley Cup contender and he played half the season"

Buf: "No, he sucks and negates the value of Sheary"

Pit: "No it doesn't! He's at least a neutral addition..." 

(this goes on for awhile, it's a negotiation). 

Pit: "I tell you what, we think Hunwick has value, you don't. If you can trade him for something, that proves our point that he had value. In that case we get a 3rd instead of a 4th. If you are 'saddled' with him, then it's just a 4th'. 

Buf: "Fair enough, deal". (This is the abbreviated version)

 

So Pittsburgh doesn't actually care what Buffalo does with him per se, they are offering it as a hedge for Buffalo in order to get the deal done. 

That's my take on it anyway. 

 

I see it the opposite... If he has value, meaning he's worth his contract, then wouldn't BUF want to keep him?   If BUF feels he's not worth the money, ie poor value, then they would look to trade him.   

 

I give up.

[TheAud]

I see it the opposite... If he has value, meaning he's worth his contract, then wouldn't BUF want to keep him?   If BUF feels he's not worth the money, ie poor value, then they would look to trade him.   

 

I give up.

 

If he's worth 2+M per year for 2 years then do the Sabres get Sheary and him both for a 3rd or 4th? No way. 

Come on, man. It's a negotiation. Ever buy a used car? Did you consider pointing out all the flaws of the car to extract a lower price or some concession from the seller? Nothing any different going on here. They probably do want to trade Hunwick but are worried they can't get anything for him. Pens are just saying "hey, if you can't get anything for him them it's only a 4th, not a 3rd". 

Pretty damn good take.

 

As others have pointed out up thread, what’s the big difference between a 3rd and a 4th? Especially when you’ve acquired a a reasonably good player. I don’t know the details, but couldn’t you just waive Hunwick? If he’s a throw in, who cares?

In a certain sense a 3rd and 4th aren't a lot different, but when it's your profession to build an NHL hockey club, build a winner, and prudently spend your owner's millions of dollars at a time, you probably should be fairly focused on optimizing each draft pick acquired or traded away, and only taking on $4.5M in salary over two years for a player if you have a good chance to utilize him and not simply waive him and consume cap space, and those millions go out the door for nothing.  I mean, if it's worth it to get Sheary you do what you have to do but no reason not to drive the absolute best deal you can as well. I think this is an area where ex-GMTM was lacking. He made bold moves but didn't necessarily optimize each trade for the best possible deal (just my sense of it, I can't really prove that) to maximize assets.  

[PerreaultForever]

It's also a negotiation between friends. There could easily be an "I'll owe you one" in there between them. But the bottom line for me is 3rd, 4th I don't care. The deal makes us a better team and gives us time to develop kids JBot has drafted. 

[Thorner]

But the deal wasn't for a conditional 4th.. it was for a conditional 3rd.    So it had to have come from the PIT end of the deal.

 

It was for a conditional 4th. 

[pi2000]

It was for a conditional 4th. 

 

The trade was for a 4th... under the condition that it becomes a 3rd if Sheary hits some numbers OR Hunwick is dealt before the 2019 draft... so the 3rd is conditional, making it a conditional 3rd.    

 

If he's worth 2+M per year for 2 years then do the Sabres get Sheary and him both for a 3rd or 4th? No way. 

Come on, man. It's a negotiation. Ever buy a used car? Did you consider pointing out all the flaws of the car to extract a lower price or some concession from the seller? Nothing any different going on here. They probably do want to trade Hunwick but are worried they can't get anything for him. Pens are just saying "hey, if you can't get anything for him them it's only a 4th, not a 3rd". 

 

I've bought a used car twice... but never did I agree to give the seller more money if I turned around and sold it within a calendar year.     That's basically what JBOTs agreed to do.  

 

You seriously think PIT would've walked away from the deal if JBOTs said... "no way I'm giving you a third if we deal Hunwick.   We're taking his salary off your books, that's more than enough to make up for the idea of Sheary for a 4th (conditional 3rd if hits numbers)."    

 

Which is why I think it has something to do with Hunwick wanting to stay close to home or something... however he doesn't have a NMC/NTC rider on his contract.    So it's probably just PIT being nice... or JBOTs way of promising Hunwick we're going to keep you around for at least 1 more season.    But again, being nice doesn't build Stanley Cup contenders.    

Edited June 29, 2018 by pi2000

[Thorner]

Technically it's referred to as a conditional 4th:

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/penguins-trade-sheary-hunwick-sabres-draft-pick/

[Neo]

Regardless of the wording... it's a dumb condition.

 

1 - Why does PIT care what BUF does with Hunwick? They removed his entire salary off the books... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED... end of story for PIT.

 

2 - If #1 is true (PIT doesn't really care what BUF does with Hunwick).... then why would BUF unnecessarily paint themselves into a corner?

 

I don't know why this bothers me so much.... maybe because it always seems like BUF is on the wrong end of these "conditions".... except for the Kane trade to SJ.... now that makes a lot of sense... if Kane does well and fits in with their group enough for them to resign him... then yeah, bump up the pick to a 1st.

 

Why would a team care about the number of goals a traded player scores, or the number of playoff rounds another team achieves, or whether a player re-signs? Those are all “conditional” terms, aren’t they?

 

Teams ascribe value today to the asset they send away and then define outcomes that may adjust the value up and down. Common outcomes indicating value for the recipient team are goals, playoffs, re-signings, etc.

 

We see it regularly. What’s new here is an outcome indicating value we’d not seen before. That is, the ability to subsequently move a player for something else of value.

 

Same concept as Sheary goals/points; different measurement units.

 

 

 

Tangential: comments in this thread about fairness and six year olds, the value of contracts and consent among free men, and the acknowledgment that outcomes are different and unpredictable makes me pine away for .... I shan’t say it.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Neo

[That Aud Smell]

^

 

Good stuff there, neo.

[TheAud]

The trade was for a 4th... under the condition that it becomes a 3rd if Sheary hits some numbers OR Hunwick is dealt before the 2019 draft... so the 3rd is conditional, making it a conditional 3rd.    

 

 

I've bought a used car twice... but never did I agree to give the seller more money if I turned around and sold it within a calendar year.     That's basically what JBOTs agreed to do.  

 

You seriously think PIT would've walked away from the deal if JBOTs said... "no way I'm giving you a third if we deal Hunwick.   We're taking his salary off your books, that's more than enough to make up for the idea of Sheary for a 4th (conditional 3rd if hits numbers)."    

 

Which is why I think it has something to do with Hunwick wanting to stay close to home or something... however he doesn't have a NMC/NTC rider on his contract.    So it's probably just PIT being nice... or JBOTs way of promising Hunwick we're going to keep you around for at least 1 more season.    But again, being nice doesn't build Stanley Cup contenders.    

We just have very different reads on it, that's all. No way JBots was being nice in my opinion. 

If the car seller had said "I'll give you a lower price now, but if you sell the car for a higher price in a year then you come back and give me the difference" you might take that right? You either keep the car at a price you agree to, or you sell the car and got to use it for a year or less and netted out at zero. The point is in this case buying the car is tied to a motorcycle purchase you really want.... 

Holy cow I am done with these analogies! 

[apuszczalowski]

There's your key phrase: Just as easily. The two ways of wording it are just as easily done, so one isn't more right than another. It's legal language. If the law clerk wrote it that way and the meaning is clear, why change it?

 

You guys are really overanalyzing this. I'm an engineer but I have to contribute to and review contract wording sometimes. If someone used words that are different than what I would have used, I don't say anything unless it changes the meaning of the sentence. If they say "greater than or equal to nine" I'm not going to correct that to "not less than nine" even though the latter is shorter and more to the point. It means the same thing, so why bother?

 

Same thing going on here.

 

Oh yeah, and then shrader's version is different too. As long as the meaning is clear and communicates the intent properly, there's no reason to reword it.

 

Another possibility: If both GMs have to float trade proposals to their owners for final approval, maybe one asked for the wording because he felt it would be easier to sell it that way and get the approval.

legally the lawyers wording covers more then your wording. The reason they used that wording is so it covers anything less than 9 AND if it ends up at 9. Your wording would cause issues if it ended up 9 because is 9 less than or greater then itself? A good lawyer will word things so there is little to no debate over the result. It's either black or its white, no gray area