- May 3, 2016
- 8,906
- 5,185
Speculation: Changing the concept of rentals
- Thread starter Deadly Dogma
- Start date
SomeDude
Registered User
I’m pretty sure the CBA prohibits teams from loaning NHL players to another club.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Insurance would be tricky if they get hurt.... especially career ending or more than one year that required surgery
Jacob582
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2012
- 9,975
- 3,564
I think the trading team could decide whether to take the player back or not. So if the player gets hurt the team that traded for him assumes the risk for the salary/contract.
Also, build in conditional picks if the player gets hurt.
Also, build in conditional picks if the player gets hurt.
Jacob582
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2012
- 9,975
- 3,564
Main logistical issue is assuming the player would be fine going back and forth.
Second would be the handshake agreement between the two teams to do a trade back. What happens if a GM is replaced? What's to stop the acquiring team from shopping Thomas Chabot (now at a 50% discount) to other teams? It's a different sport but I'm always reminded of Carlos Boozer and his agent reneging on a handshake agreement with Cleveland and signing with Utah.
The scenario seems more likely for a vet on an expiring deal who wants to chase a Cup (ie Keith Tkachuk going back to St. Louis after being a rental with Atlanta).
Second would be the handshake agreement between the two teams to do a trade back. What happens if a GM is replaced? What's to stop the acquiring team from shopping Thomas Chabot (now at a 50% discount) to other teams? It's a different sport but I'm always reminded of Carlos Boozer and his agent reneging on a handshake agreement with Cleveland and signing with Utah.
The scenario seems more likely for a vet on an expiring deal who wants to chase a Cup (ie Keith Tkachuk going back to St. Louis after being a rental with Atlanta).
ForsbergForever
Registered User
- May 19, 2004
- 3,354
- 2,102
I'm not sure if this is a question, per se. If the OP is asking if the current rules permit a trade in which player A moves from Team X to Team Y for the remainder of the regular season and playoffs, at which point the player reverts to Team X again, then the answer is that this is not permitted.
There are no timed components permitted to a trade like this. It is also highly illegal for teams to have an agreement in a drawer (e.g. Team X cannot officially move player A to Team Y, but with a second secret deal in a drawer in which they move the player back to Team X at season's end for a particular agreed return). If the league finds out about it, the fines and draft pick penalties would be severe. The league would also probably suspend front office officials found to be complicit.
To swing these sort of transaction(s), Team X needs to trade player A to Team Y today. That ends the transaction. Teams X and Y can certainly discuss a second unrelated trade that might follow in the offseason, but the key is that there is nothing binding about any of those discussions today. Any developments in the interim (e.g. the player earns a Conn Smythe Trophy between then and now) will impact the player's value, potential future destination, and the return. Neither team is bound to any previous musings about what might occur in future. Either team can decide it does not want to pursue this second trade and back out.
If the OP is well aware of this, and is instead suggesting that the league look at introducing the concept of rentals, then that's a different issue. I think the answer would be that there is no appetite for this, though. It is true that teams loan players to other teams all the time under FIFA, but I don't know that this is ever between teams in the same professional league. In hockey, the NHL has a hard cap which adds new layers that are not present in international soccer (Fair Play rules notwithstanding).
As something that would have the whiff of cap circumvention, I think the league would put the kibosh on proposals concerning such a rental arrangement between NHL teams. Such a proposal would get shot down quickly.
There are no timed components permitted to a trade like this. It is also highly illegal for teams to have an agreement in a drawer (e.g. Team X cannot officially move player A to Team Y, but with a second secret deal in a drawer in which they move the player back to Team X at season's end for a particular agreed return). If the league finds out about it, the fines and draft pick penalties would be severe. The league would also probably suspend front office officials found to be complicit.
To swing these sort of transaction(s), Team X needs to trade player A to Team Y today. That ends the transaction. Teams X and Y can certainly discuss a second unrelated trade that might follow in the offseason, but the key is that there is nothing binding about any of those discussions today. Any developments in the interim (e.g. the player earns a Conn Smythe Trophy between then and now) will impact the player's value, potential future destination, and the return. Neither team is bound to any previous musings about what might occur in future. Either team can decide it does not want to pursue this second trade and back out.
If the OP is well aware of this, and is instead suggesting that the league look at introducing the concept of rentals, then that's a different issue. I think the answer would be that there is no appetite for this, though. It is true that teams loan players to other teams all the time under FIFA, but I don't know that this is ever between teams in the same professional league. In hockey, the NHL has a hard cap which adds new layers that are not present in international soccer (Fair Play rules notwithstanding).
As something that would have the whiff of cap circumvention, I think the league would put the kibosh on proposals concerning such a rental arrangement between NHL teams. Such a proposal would get shot down quickly.
Last edited:
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Could make it contingent on the player's approval. Every player prospectively traded under this arrangement has a full NTC.
Also, I don't think it's a trade back thing. The player just auto reverts back to the original team after his new team's season is over, whenever that is.
King Karl
five-year run of unparalleled suffering
You'd also just end up with a lot of the same guys winning cups every year with different teams. If you have Draisaitl at 4.25 on your team for a cup run, you're in pretty damn good shape. Why not throw in Chychrun at 2.3 and Raymond on his ELC. Seems like the trick really would be just bank up assets for a big run every few years.
- Mar 16, 2011
- 2,634
- 2,994
It would be a slippery slope letting stars dip their toes into a winning hockey team, only to be forced back to a basement team.
You'd probably start piling up some late fees.
You'd probably start piling up some late fees.
Pure Slaughter Value
Registered User
So you're fine with losing Bouchard forever, exchanging Koskinen for Miller and getting UPL and Oloffson for the playoffs?
I would expect limited usage. 1st round picks and the like don't move for rentals that often. The goal is to win, but not at all costs. Teams do try to find a balancing point between the short-term and the mid-term/long-term. Cycling through true rentals on a yearly basis would burn through a futures pool in a hurry.
Beezeral
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2010
- 10,028
- 5,223
I didn't know it was August already.
These posts are so insane. What's the point of having multi-year contracts if all the best players are going to be in the playoffs every year under this insane rental theory. Lets use the Sabres as an example. How many different playoff runs would Eichel have gone on over the last 5 years? For how many different teams? How on earth does that make any sense?
These posts are so insane. What's the point of having multi-year contracts if all the best players are going to be in the playoffs every year under this insane rental theory. Lets use the Sabres as an example. How many different playoff runs would Eichel have gone on over the last 5 years? For how many different teams? How on earth does that make any sense?
- Sep 1, 2010
- 9,937
- 7,857
quite the fan-centric concept
fun to think about when bored or lit,
but no genuine worthwhile reasons, in real world, to make things complex this way
players don't need distraction of the complications this introduces
receiving teams won't want a player with split loyalty
prior/future team won't want a valued asset risking injury for another team's success
I don't know OP, but this strikes me as
daydream of a fan of team having unexpectedly no-contending season, like this season's NYI,
wanting to benefit off the lost season, without actually surrendering much
fun to think about when bored or lit,
but no genuine worthwhile reasons, in real world, to make things complex this way
players don't need distraction of the complications this introduces
receiving teams won't want a player with split loyalty
prior/future team won't want a valued asset risking injury for another team's success
I don't know OP, but this strikes me as
daydream of a fan of team having unexpectedly no-contending season, like this season's NYI,
wanting to benefit off the lost season, without actually surrendering much
Jacob582
Registered User
- Oct 16, 2012
- 9,975
- 3,564
"Eichel has won three Stanley Cups and has captained a team that has never qualified for the playoffs"
Djp
Registered User
Loans aren’t allowed other than AHL team level.
you can trade for player X then trade them back after the season. The league will look at this with scrutiny.
if loaning was allowed you’d have all start playoff teams.
So you rent player X to team B and he gets a career ending injury . Team A is screwed .
What if player X likes it better on team B and don't want to return to team A
Lots can go wrong . Also what about cap ?
Just for the sake of discussion, what if you added a few constraints to the original poster's idea:
- Such rentals can only take place upon the end of the regular season, in a small window before playoffs begin.
- Each non playoff team may only "rent" out a single player of age 23 and younger.
There would not be many players moving at all, and it provides both assets to a basement team and the opportunity to reward a young player, with a taste of playoffs (great for their development, too).
- Such rentals can only take place upon the end of the regular season, in a small window before playoffs begin.
- Each non playoff team may only "rent" out a single player of age 23 and younger.
There would not be many players moving at all, and it provides both assets to a basement team and the opportunity to reward a young player, with a taste of playoffs (great for their development, too).
- May 3, 2016
- 8,906
- 5,185
There would for sure have to be injury compensation and the acquiring team MUST have the FULL contract insured.
I was thinking that only post elc players would be allowed to be moved in this fashion.
I do agree that we may not see a ton but the extra movement of 1st would mean that the non playoff teams get more assets.
My thoughts were that the Sabers wouldn't be bad 5 yrs in a row if they were able to add all the assets they would have by renting Eichel.
I figure the salary must be insured, the trade back at the end of playoffs is automatic. Also I think there should be injury compensation.
I think this would allow the non playoff teams to load up on picks/prospects and shorten rebuilds dramatically.
It would cause more movement in who are the top teams.
I like the points but I was thinking just post ELC players, but if ELC players were on the market its a great opportunity.
I like how the non playoff teams could legit accrue enough assets that a rebuild should be 2-3 seasons max!!
Ad
Latest posts
-
Devils team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - camp edition- Latest: Better Call Sal
-
-
