Talk:2013–14 NHL transactions

When the year starts

Uncleben85 is repeated removing June 30, draft day, trades from this page because they feel it is not right to have 2 June sections on the page at the beginning and the end of the season. I feel that this is irrelevant, that the draft is part of the new year and any trades should be included in the same year as the draft. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea that Uncleben85 has proposed. The idea is quite useful and I will be following the July 1 start date for the transaction articles going forward. Deadman137 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: When the year starts

This is not about what's convenient to me. Where does it say this draft is the kick off for the 2013-14 season? It may be, don't get me wrong, but I haven't seen that stated explicitly. In fact I've seen the opposite (http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/page/calendar2013/2012-13-nhl-calendar). On top of that, having two June sections isn't a huge issue, but it does look worse and adds confusion. The way the NHL is structured, with regards to players (whether its contracts, transactions, buy-outs, salaries, years experience, etc.) is by the turn-over of SPCs on the scheduled date of July 1 (July 5 this year due to obvious complications to the schedule). To focus our transactions pages on the cessation of a player's contract vs the commencement of new player contracts is a reasonable structure. Please do not target me or spin like I'm just switching things up for my sole and selfish convenience. My previous reversion I did in discussion with Deadman137, who initiated editing this page and whose edits I reverted. ~ Uncleben85 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a wikipedia standard to keep all articles on the same timeline. We use the draft as the first day of the season since it is very debatable on what day the "season" starts. For example if we do what you do then we will have trades counted in one season on this page and on another season on team season pages. There has been a yearly discussion on this almost, because most people consider the season ended the minute the cup is handed out. Others count the season over when the award show is held (although this year it was a little out of wack). Others count the season starting when pre-season starts and still others consider the season starting when the puck is dropped on the first official game. In order to make sure all pages held to the same timeline this has been discussed many times and the draft has always been held to be the first official event of the new season to avoid the debate on if the awarding of the Cup or the awarding of the other awards is the last event. If you were to use July 1st on this page and the draft on every other page this page would end up considering the draft in the previous season whereas all of our other pages consider it in the new season. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion, and its almost impossible to come to consensus. I understand, DJSasso , you went back recently and edited all the previous transaction pages to range from June-June, which is very much appreciated, I'm sure it was a lot of work. But I am proposing a new standard, that yes, would be different from previous years, but would keep the pages more stream lined and straight forward, and in my opinion such that they make more sense. Start of free agency is the date in the NHL calendar when the year starts for SPCs and player transactions regarding those SPCs. Why not follow that, especially if the format we have is monthly sections, and we will have repeated sections (read: June)? Also, just to clarify things, if we do use the Draft as the turn-over, do we just apply a blanket to Draft Day as a whole, or do we cut it at trades that are made after the draft starts? For example Falk-Ferriero happened Draft Day this year, but before the Draft (I think I know what anyone's answer would be, but why not discuss it?). --Uncleben85 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time of year again! Is there any point of me petitioning to change the format we use on these pages or do people want to still stick with it because it means less immediate work and because its "what we do?". Having this page out of sync would hardly be a travesty, and if you go back to years past, the format is strikingly different already, just due to natural evolution, different contributors and easier access to information. The other option is to go back and change not only this and the new page, but all the old pages. It's a task, but a task that can be done over time, and can easily be done by the end of the off-season. Uncleben85 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbe

Was the buy out a standard buyout or was it a compliance buyout? It's listed as a standard buy like Kuba, but TSN is showing it as a compliance buyout [1]. It wouldn't be the first time information got misreported, but I couldn't find much doing a quick Google search one way or the other. Just trying to find out whats correct thanks. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 23:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. I wish the NHL was being transparent with these buyouts. All of the dates of buyouts so far are very sketchy and frustrating. Bob McKenzie originally stated it was a mutual termination. Then that turned into several sources including himself saying it was a regular buyout. TSN's buyout page however does indeed have it as a compliance. CapGeek has it listed as a normal buyout, and frankly there is no reason for Buffalo to waste a compliance on a cheap buyout - not only is it a cheap contract, but Gerbe is younger than 26 and would only be a 1/3 buyout, not a 2/3 - so I doubt its a compliance. Uncleben85 (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the info and the direct to CapGeek, I actually trust them more than than TSN when it comes to accuracy. Sometimes they seem to rush things and not get it 100% the first time around. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]