A Few Changes to Encourage Trading

[mouser]

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.

If you allow something like that then you need to reduce the salary cap to offset the teams spending more real $'s on players then before. Otherwise it just increases the % of salary players lose via escrow.

 

[GodEmperor]

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?

He could get injured playing for them, he could get injured playing for Team Canada and he could get injured off ice, how does Edmonton be compensated for that?

 

[GodEmperor]

On point two, it's actually an extremely interesting proposition, why?

Because it actually helps the teams trading far more than it does the teams trading for players.

I mean what's the cost for 2.5 months of McDavid? Has to be a 1st, 2nd and prospect right?

Ofc McDavid exponentially increases even the worst teams' chance to win the cup, but what if everyone starts doing that and now guys like Eichel, Barkov and others who are close to McDavid (not saying they're better or comparing them, but they are relatively speaking close to him and they could have better chemistry with certain players creating superior overall lines), but McDavid also degrades the long term ability to hold the team together due to not having picks and ELCs to inject in the lineup as the contracts pile up.

So on the FACE, this might seem like it would benefit the best teams more, but realistically it would probably dissolve them sooner and it wouldn't benefit them as much as everyone would engage in this behavior.

This would actually be a good way to introduce extreme parity to the league, very interesting idea tbh, not going to happen as the NHL is very conservative, but very very interesting idea.

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

He could get injured playing for them, he could get injured playing for Team Canada and he could get injured off ice, how does Edmonton be compensated for that?

You really don't see a difference between a player getting injured playing for his own team and one that gets injured playing for a rental team?

 

[GodEmperor]

You really don't see a difference between a player getting injured playing for his own team and one that gets injured playing for a rental team?

Actually I do, one you get assets and compensation for, the other the player gets hurt for nothing and if the team sucks and it's a big injury, you get even less than nothing, your chances of winning go DOWN in the future.

So yeah, in all cases, you'd rather get something for his injury as opposed to not (him sticking with you).

But I know people love these scenarios where players become brittle little flowers that will break down the second they dawn another jersey. It's the same thing with the Olympics, except these people never stop and think "OH WAIT, HE COULD GET HURT PLAYING WITH US and actually....there are cases where he WILL get hurt with us but NOT on the other team."

Probabilistically speaking, this is an extremely irrational way of looking at the world and it more so is a cognitive bias of the endowment effect.

 

[WesMcCauley]

Obviously every system isn't perfect, but I like a system that encourages trading.

Here are a few thoughts/ideas, some less novel and likely recycled.

1. Trading salary. There's arguments against this, but teams can already retain caphit if trading a player, so how about the team retains the player and trades the salary/cap hit. It's essentially trading money. Teams can eat some salary, without actually needing to take the player and gain some assets along the way.

2. Deadline rentals. Actually renting the players out. Player A is on a Team 1 that's in the basement, signed or 3 more years. Team 2 is looking for a rental, but nothing with term. Team 1 can trade Player A to Team 2 until the end of the season/playoffs, but is returns to Team 1 after the season. Every season usually the only players available are UFA's. Not a hockey moves are made, but I always enjoy teams getting shuffled up. If there was less long term repercussions for trading said player, and no worries of collusion. Basement teams could benefit from sending a star player on a cup run, only to return at the end of the season. This will lessen the values of UFA's, but I think create more movement league wide. UFA's might just be moved to get something for them, and good teams can really stack up. Player returns at the beginning of the following contract/season cycle.

3. Re-instate the waiver draft. Definitely not needed, but instead of teams trying to slip players through waivers, bring back a formal option to exchange some guys at the end of pre-season. Likely wouldn't be any use big name guys, but drafts are always interesting. Some rules can be made, to make sure a team doesn't lose too many players, or have ample opportunity to select someone to replace the asset they might have lost. More or less having a year protected/unprotected list that teams can swap.

Anyways, just some thoughts. Flame away.

Teams wouldnt do this, specially with important players to their team because of the risk of injuries etc.

 

[greasysnapper]

Why does there need to be more trading? So you have something to talk about in the summer months? You realize this isn't EA Sports NHL 18. There are real people that get traded, people who have families and lives established in cities. Creating colluding ideas for the owners to make more trades just makes it harder for the players. The Union would never let it slide, and if they did you'd merely see contracts start to go up even more, and guess who handles that bill? You, the fan.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Why does there need to be more trading? So you have something to talk about in the summer months? You realize this isn't EA Sports NHL 18. There are real people that get traded, people who have families and lives established in cities. Creating colluding ideas for the owners to make more trades just makes it harder for the players. The Union would never let it slide, and if they did you'd merely see contracts start to go up even more, and guess who handles that bill? You, the fan.

Real people are traded. Yes, it happens. It's part of the profession. Considering the idea is "rental", player that travels and plays the game professionally has a chance to win the cup by not living at home for 2-4 months. Maybe some would be open to it. Not all, but maybe some.

I mean as it stands there aren't many trades. I'm not even sure this would increase the trading that much, but gives teams some more options. Perhaps even giving the players to have the option in their contracts.

If you are fine with the current system, so be it. To each his or her own. I'm fine with it, too. But as a trade junky, I'd be open to seeing more.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

If you allow something like that then you need to reduce the salary cap to offset the teams spending more real $'s on players then before. Otherwise it just increases the % of salary players lose via escrow.

Or create a rule, I mean the NHL already has a limit on number of contracts you can retain on. And how much of that contract can be retained.

I'm actually surprised that many jump to the conclusion that this is some sort of go hog wild proposal. The NHL introduced the cap retention on trades and not many fans seemed to feel it was an awful addition to the trading system.

Properly introduced it would just be more options.

 

[mouser]

Or create a rule, I mean the NHL already has a limit on number of contracts you can retain on. And how much of that contract can be retained.

I'm actually surprised that many jump to the conclusion that this is some sort of go hog wild proposal. The NHL introduced the cap retention on trades and not many fans seemed to feel it was an awful addition to the trading system.

Properly introduced it would just be more options.

Retention on trades doesn't automatically mean more real $'s are spent in total on players. Selling cap space would most likely result in more $'s being spent, hence bigger escrow.

 

[drewjenks]

**** no to #1. Stop trying to coddle the rich teams. They get to play within the rules too

....the rules that were created to f*** them so poor teams can have a chance.

Do you know how much rich teams have to directly pay poor teams with revenue sharing?

 

[theoriginalBCF]

Obviously every system isn't perfect, but I like a system that encourages trading.

Here are a few thoughts/ideas, some less novel and likely recycled.

1. Trading salary. There's arguments against this, but teams can already retain caphit if trading a player, so how about the team retains the player and trades the salary/cap hit. It's essentially trading money. Teams can eat some salary, without actually needing to take the player and gain some assets along the way.

2. Deadline rentals. Actually renting the players out. Player A is on a Team 1 that's in the basement, signed or 3 more years. Team 2 is looking for a rental, but nothing with term. Team 1 can trade Player A to Team 2 until the end of the season/playoffs, but is returns to Team 1 after the season. Every season usually the only players available are UFA's. Not a hockey moves are made, but I always enjoy teams getting shuffled up. If there was less long term repercussions for trading said player, and no worries of collusion. Basement teams could benefit from sending a star player on a cup run, only to return at the end of the season. This will lessen the values of UFA's, but I think create more movement league wide. UFA's might just be moved to get something for them, and good teams can really stack up. Player returns at the beginning of the following contract/season cycle.

3. Re-instate the waiver draft. Definitely not needed, but instead of teams trying to slip players through waivers, bring back a formal option to exchange some guys at the end of pre-season. Likely wouldn't be any use big name guys, but drafts are always interesting. Some rules can be made, to make sure a team doesn't lose too many players, or have ample opportunity to select someone to replace the asset they might have lost. More or less having a year protected/unprotected list that teams can swap.

Anyways, just some thoughts. Flame away.

I think they should institute Salary Cap Tax. I know some may not like this, but teams that have the money to spend to take on horrible contracts only benefits the teams that struggle. To me a team that can exceed the cap to a max extra 20M cap with a penalty $$$ that gets distributed to the lower revenue teams only helps them.

 

[treple13]

Option 2 is a HUGE NO.

It makes 3/4 of the season almost meaningless, since after trade deadline teams might be very different. It cheapens the experience for fans too. I'd rather my team win the Cup with my players rather than a bunch of mercenaries that will just go back to their teams after the season. It kills storylines. Taylor Hall playing in his first postseason after never making it with the Oilers. It really encourages tanking and hurts teams that try and win and fail, which is the opposite of how it should be, since teams well out of contention rent their players earlier and likely get better returns. NHLPA wouldn't go for it (nor should they), since it basically takes away the chance for fourth line type players to play in the playoffs (which again hurts storylines rather than helps it).

I really don't see any positives to it.

 

[Stephen]

Why does there need to be more trading? So you have something to talk about in the summer months? You realize this isn't EA Sports NHL 18. There are real people that get traded, people who have families and lives established in cities. Creating colluding ideas for the owners to make more trades just makes it harder for the players. The Union would never let it slide, and if they did you'd merely see contracts start to go up even more, and guess who handles that bill? You, the fan.

More movement of personnel theoretically allows for teams to move up and down the standings more instead of having the same few teams dominate year after year.

 

[Equinsu Ocha]

A solution in search of a problem.