A Few Changes to Encourage Trading

[BruinsBtn]

I would like to see more trades. I think the biggest problem is that GMs are so terrified of 'losing' a trade that they never pull the trigger.

 

[Anglesmith]

To the first one, the CBA specifically forbids trading a player away, then trading for him back with retained salary within a year. That means they have specifically thought of the scenario where a team would use that maneuver in order to simply trade salary for some kind of incentive, and said to themselves "no, that's not right, that's not something we want, we can't allow it." So I don't see that happening.

As to why, I believe it is because it is risky to have the possibility of trades where one team literally loses nothing. I believe the league seeks to make sure that in any trade, each team must be giving something up.

 

[Cor]

Allowing cash to be traded would be good.

Toronto trying to make a deal with say, Arizona, and Arizona is on the fence? Hey, we’ll toss in 1M in cash

 

[37Bergenov14]

Same contract rules exist. NMC's and NTC's are standard on high end contracts anyways. So it i would be par for course?

I guess i see it a bit differently - a long term contract (without NMC/NTC) where a player gets traded is one thing. They get moved with the expectation (usually) that they will be sticking around for a while, not moved right back in a few months. That's the sticking point to me - that a player with a long term contract can be moved back and forth so quickly (e.g. just being sold for one playoffs). At the end of the day these are not lifeless assets, but real people that have families/homes. Obviously moving around comes with the territory, but such rapid moves are one of the things I would think a player is hoping to avoid if they sign a long term contract (otherwise, why on earth would would a player bother signing long term without a full NMC/NTC over the entire term of the contract). Just my two cents I suppose.

 

[Revelation]

How about the max contract length is one day so every player has to resign with their team each day and can move to another team at any point imagine all the movement around the league wooooowww

 

[Beezeral]

As a hockey fan, I'd enjoy that.

When I was 13 so would have I. Seeing the same 20 superstars in the playoffs every year while likely on different teams every year would be the dumbest thing ever.

This idea is right up there with having a post season tournament to decide who gets first overall pick for worst ideas.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Why does there need to be more trades?

 

[Beville]

Just trade the player not the contract;

Whatever contract they were on gets wiped and they sign a new one with the new team.

Then it’s just value vs value.

 

[Scott Stevens]

The league doesn’t need more trades. Fans just need to pop that Ritalin.

 

[Ciao]

Some really stupid ideas floating around here. Kinda giddy.

 

[ShootIt]

Step 1) Get rid of NMC and NTC contracts.

NHLPA won't like that IMO.

Rather not have another lockout with Fehr at the wheel

 

[Beauner]

Why does there need to be more trades?

that's what I'm wondering. This isn't NHL18. I understand the players signed up for/know the possibility of being traded, but these guys are humans, many of whom have families. Why is there a need to encourage uprooting these guys and shuffling them all around North America?

 

[DEVILS130]

I’d say no to 1, big no to 2, unsure about 3.

2 intrigued me, but the more I thought about it, I realized it would be a total disaster. So let’s say the Oilers miss the playoffs again. They trade McDavid to WPG and he wins a cup in a 2 month stint with the Jets. Doesn’t that cheapen the value of winning the cup?

Another issue is it creates a system where the teams out of the playoffs have an incentive to trade every player on their roster. There’s literally no disadvantages to trading a player (except maybe the frustration of seeing that player win a cup elsewhere?). If they were to do this, they’d have to put a limit on number of rentals you could trade.

 

[Stephen]

I've always thought teams should be able to trade cap space directly as an asset, but not necessarily like salary retention.

For example, Team A trades Team B $1,000,000 in cap space, and it costs a percentage of that cap space in real dollars, putting luxury tax money directly into the hands of Team A, plus a negotiated return or a schedule of picks associated, so instead of trading Datsyuk to Arizona, Detroit could have bought the cap space from the Coyotes, but paid out real dollars which would have gone back into Arizona's spending budget.

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

Like a poster said, get rid of the NTC and NMC for everyone.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

I’d say no to 1, big no to 2, unsure about 3.

2 intrigued me, but the more I thought about it, I realized it would be a total disaster. So let’s say the Oilers miss the playoffs again. They trade McDavid to WPG and he wins a cup in a 2 month stint with the Jets. Doesn’t that cheapen the value of winning the cup?

Another issue is it creates a system where the teams out of the playoffs have an incentive to trade every player on their roster. There’s literally no disadvantages to trading a player (except maybe the frustration of seeing that player win a cup elsewhere?). If they were to do this, they’d have to put a limit on number of rentals you could trade.

I think there would be rules, salary cap, and roster limits, if anything were to happen like this.

It would be more of a stipulation to a trade than just trading rentals. Just gives teams more options. Gives the lower teams more chances to sell assets. Gives playoff teams more ability to beef up. I know there's people against this, but at least for star players, their NMC's give them power. They don't have to agree to being a rental.

Anyways, I'm just spitballing here. It's freakin' the end of June here. Not like any real hockey happens for months, so just creating a topic. Thanks for those that even if they are against these ideas actually provide substance to their responses.

 

[ElLeetch]

Don't touch the salary cap. This is a hard cap league. Selling off space so the rich get richer and the poor can stay poor is so very dumb.

But the point of the Salary cap was to provide a fair split between players and owners so the league can stay healthy. As long as the split and total value is the same, salary traded within the system will remain 'neutral' to the overall cap, and thus, health of the league. The cap was *NOT* intended to "stop rich teams from being rich"

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

Point #2 is one of the dumbest ideas. I can only imagine a McDavid being involved in this scenario and suffering a career ending injury while playing for his rental team. How would Edmonton be compensated for that?

 

[cowboy82nd]

But the point of the Salary cap was to provide a fair split between players and owners so the league can stay healthy. As long as the split and total value is the same, salary traded within the system will remain 'neutral' to the overall cap, and thus, health of the league. The cap was *NOT* intended to "stop rich teams from being rich"

I thought the Salary Cap was put in place so ALL teams had a chance. I.E. Toronto buying up every player because they can over pay for them if necessary is not fair to the other teams in the league thus hurting the product, thus hurting the league.

 

[Pavlikovsky]

Allowing cash to be traded would be good.

Toronto trying to make a deal with say, Arizona, and Arizona is on the fence? Hey, we’ll toss in 1M in cash

No pls, Gretzky was bought this way, and Karlsson would already be gone for a 2029 7th + 40mil in cash because Melnyk is broke.

 

[StoneHands]

I don't agree that more trades are better. Sure, they're fun to read about and we don't really care if a star player is shipped out of a city that isn't our favorite team but that doesn't make it good for the league. In my opinion, the reason we don't see as many rivalries in the NHL today is because there is so much turnover in rosters whether it's from trades or free agency. I'm all for building from within and keeping teams together but the salary cap has made it almost impossible. Think about the Flyers/Pens rivalry that was insane a few years back. That once awesome rivalry was boring in this years playoffs because between both rosters there are only like 6-7 players left from the crazy 2012 series. We're talking 6-7 players total out of 45-50 just 5-6 years ago.

 

[YEM]

Don't touch the salary cap. This is a hard cap league. Selling off space so the rich get richer and the poor can stay poor is so very dumb.

none are poor

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

To make the league more fluid all you need to do is:

1) Implement "Buy-Outs" option for teams (essentially getting rid of guaranteed contracts)
2) Allow teams to exceed the cap by "X" percentage when making a trade (for a period of time)

You will see a lot more movement.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Mandate that teams must trade at least 3 players every year with a minimum of one player during the season, one during the draft and one after the draft before the season.

 

[GOilers88]

Being able to trade cap without the player just seems like a way to circumvent questionable contract signings.

Here, I'll trade you 5 million of Milan Lucic while retaining the services of a guy who will probably once again revert back to his 50 point self for a million, and completely negating all consequence of handing out such a stupid contract.

I don't like it.