Has a team ever backed off on the "trade" half of a sign-and-trade?

[1989]

Partially too lazy to Google it, partially more interesting in seeing people's reactions.

Hypothetically, let's say you have a blue-chip pending UFA/RFA who has been known to have requested a trade but the team wants to keep him.
However, as the GM starts trying to make a deal happen, all they're getting is crap offers which also want the player extended first.
So, he talks to the player and says "X team wants you; but they want a sign-and-trade as part of the deal" and player puts pen to paper but the GM backs out of the trade.

Has it ever happened / would you expect that it could, if it hasn't?

Click to read more...

 

[DJJones]

Wasn't Tkachuk one of the first true sign and trades we've seen in a long time?

I assume there was something on paper that his agent could argue if Calgary just decided to keep him. I'm sure he'd demand a trade regardless.

 

[GreeningOil]

That would likely be a stipulation in the contract.

Or that the player was traded, and then signed the contract with the new team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It seems like the proper way to handle this would be to waive anti-tampering rights so that the player could negotiate a deal directly with the opposing team prior to the trade, then sign that deal after being traded. Neither team would be in a position to pull a fast one on the player, though I suppose the player could back out and go UFA (even though that would be a wild scenario).

 

[Spawn]

It seems like the proper way to handle this would be to waive anti-tampering rights so that the player could negotiate a deal directly with the opposing team prior to the trade, then sign that deal after being traded. Neither team would be in a position to pull a fast one on the player, though I suppose the player could back out and go UFA (even though that would be a wild scenario).

This would get in the way of players being able to sign 8 year deals with the new team though I think.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This would get in the way of players being able to sign 8 year deals with the new team though I think.

Good point.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The NBA, where the deal is most common, has a specific "sign-and-trade" provision in its CBA.

I'm not really sure why Tkachuk technically signed the contract with Calgary. Typically, the player just signs with the newly traded team, as once the trade happens, he can sign an 8-year deal with Florida like he could with Calgary before. This is what Huberdeau did on the other side, he signed with Calgary shortly after the trade. The Leafs and Oilers negotiated a trade then sign for Zach Hyman that ultimately fell apart because the Leafs thought the Oilers should pay a higher trade premium for the ability to sign for an 8th year (which in turn often means a lower cap hit as the total value of the contract goes up). I haven't seen what CBA provisions were implicated with the Tkachuk situation, through my quick scour of the CBA I don't see any "sign-and-trade" provision in the most recent CBA.

 

[Figgy44]

Wasn't Tkachuk one of the first true sign and trades we've seen in a long time?

I assume there was something on paper that his agent could argue if Calgary just decided to keep him. I'm sure he'd demand a trade regardless.

Brad Treliving made NHL history with the Matthew Tkachuk trade - The Win Column

Considered the first in NHL history. But as mentioned, I'm certain any future ones would be stipulated. I also assume the sign and trade is one or more of several things:

1. Either way, org is signing player to a deal. But org and player are OK with this deal plus a trade if it transpires. For instance, Tkachuk would play for Calgary with that contract while continuing to wait for a trade.
2. The acquiring org hates contract negotiations and are willing to trade for a player with term in a certain range, but not put in the the extra effort/starting from scratch of pre-negotiating a deal prior to acquiring said player.
3. The acquiring org really wants that extra 8th year and will pay a premium for it (vs stuck at 7 years max contract).


But for OP's scenario, I assume it's maybe something like, they want a goalie, but their structure only allows for a 7 million dollar goalie. The acquiring team wouldn't risk nabbing someone like Swayman and getting stuck with a 9 million dollar AAV deal, thus losing them further assets to make more moves (in a position of weakness) to fit the contract in. In such a case, it's probably a contingency stipulation in the contract to have an extension in place before the trade to avoid a sudden headache or issue.

It's possible in situations like this a player could agree to a different contract to stay with original team, but a different contract in a sign and trade.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

The contract wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s printed on if you did this

 

[kaiser matias]

The NBA, where the deal is most common, has a specific "sign-and-trade" provision in its CBA.

I'm not really sure why Tkachuk technically signed the contract with Calgary. Typically, the player just signs with the newly traded team, as once the trade happens, he can sign an 8-year deal with Florida like he could with Calgary before. This is what Huberdeau did on the other side, he signed with Calgary shortly after the trade. The Leafs and Oilers negotiated a trade then sign for Zach Hyman that ultimately fell apart because the Leafs thought the Oilers should pay a higher trade premium for the ability to sign for an 8th year (which in turn often means a lower cap hit as the total value of the contract goes up). I haven't seen what CBA provisions were implicated with the Tkachuk situation, through my quick scour of the CBA I don't see any "sign-and-trade" provision in the most recent CBA.

You have to think the league or PA would argue that a player backing off would violate the "spirit of the CBA". Whether that would have any credence is up to the arbitrator I suppose, but I feel one or both sides may challenge something like that, if only to get it clarified.

 

[Figgy44]

The NBA, where the deal is most common, has a specific "sign-and-trade" provision in its CBA.

I'm not really sure why Tkachuk technically signed the contract with Calgary. Typically, the player just signs with the newly traded team, as once the trade happens, he can sign an 8-year deal with Florida like he could with Calgary before. This is what Huberdeau did on the other side, he signed with Calgary shortly after the trade. The Leafs and Oilers negotiated a trade then sign for Zach Hyman that ultimately fell apart because the Leafs thought the Oilers should pay a higher trade premium for the ability to sign for an 8th year (which in turn often means a lower cap hit as the total value of the contract goes up). I haven't seen what CBA provisions were implicated with the Tkachuk situation, through my quick scour of the CBA I don't see any "sign-and-trade" provision in the most recent CBA.

I don't think that's fully correct. I seem to recall there was some difference in contract that meant that for 8 years, Tkachuk had to be a sign and trade with the signing with Calgary then traded over. Florida would have been max 7 years for Tkachuk if trade and sign, not 8 years.

It had something to do with the reserve list at the trade deadline and the fact his 3 year contract was expired and he had no contract at the time of trade. Thus the sign and trade was required. If you dig up some older threads, I think those details are discussed from time to time.

However, Weegar and Huberdeau's situations were slightly different situations and had a year left on their contracts, so IIRC Calgary was able to extend them prior to them playing a single game for them or something because of that extra year remaining?

So even though all 3 of their contracts were signed in the same off season, I think there was a specific reason why in certain scenarios the contracts could be 8 years max or 7 years max.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I don't think that's fully correct. I seem to recall there was some difference in contract that meant that for 8 years, Tkachuk had to be a sign and trade with the signing with Calgary then traded over. Florida would have been max 7 years for Tkachuk if trade and sign, not 8 years.

It had something to do with the reserve list at the trade deadline and the fact his 3 year contract was expired and he had no contract at the time of trade. Thus the sign and trade was required. If you dig up some older threads, I think those details are discussed from time to time.

However, Weegar and Huberdeau's situations were slightly different situations and had a year left on their contracts, so IIRC Calgary was able to extend them prior to them playing a single game for them or something because of that extra year remaining?

So is it just a matter of the fact that the only thing went down after July 13th (normally July 1st, but still some COVID-related pushback to the usual scheduling), meaning Tkachuk was a RFA at the time of the trade? Had the trade been completed on June 30th, Tkachuk could have been traded then signed for 8 years with Florida? I recall a part of Tkachuk's decision to not sign long-term in Calgary was that Gaudreau walked as a UFA to Columbus, which obviously had to be post-July 1st.

So even though all 3 of their contracts were signed in the same off season, I think there was a specific reason why in certain scenarios the contracts could be 8 years max or 7 years max.

Seems you can't sign an 8-year if your RFA rights are traded as a player not currently under contract?

 

[Figgy44]

So is it just a matter of the fact that the only thing went down after July 13th (normally July 1st, but still some COVID-related pushback to the usual scheduling), meaning Tkachuk was a RFA at the time of the trade? Had the trade been completed on June 30th, Tkachuk could have been traded then signed for 8 years with Florida? I recall a part of Tkachuk's decision to not sign long-term in Calgary was that Gaudreau walked as a UFA to Columbus, which obviously had to be post-July 1st.

Seems you can't sign an 8-year if your RFA rights are traded as a player not currently under contract?

I don't know the full details, but I wonder if this might help:



It seems because Tkachuk wasn't on the roster at the TDL and had an expiring contract (vs Weegar and Huberdeau having 1 year left), that Tkachuk max would be 7 years (FLA) if trade and sign and Weegar/Huberdeau were 8 years max if extended that same off season because they had the "signed through" clause that Tkachuk didn't have.

Hence, sign and trade so that Florida could get that 8th year.

 

[1989]

As someone generally ignorant of the CBA/contract specifics certainly the conversation especially around Tkachuk as the lone example is really interesting. I definitely wasn't aware that it was the first sign-and-trade vs. typical trade-and-sign so I guess it kind of invalidates my initial premise, though I maintain it could still happen if not outright defined in the CBA or player contract; GMs don't (and haven't) necessarily need to respect player's wishes, however it makes them look.

 

[a mangy Meowth]

In the NHL it's really more of a trade-and-sign, unlike the NBA

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I remember this happened with no penalty.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/oilers-cry-foul-over-nylander-signing-1.662061

Then the f***face in Quebec traded Lindros twice.

 

[qc14]

I would imagine the team backing out would lead to a pretty immediate grievance from the PA and I'm sure the league would back them 100% -- Bettman hates when people try to do stuff to circumvent the CBA or the spirit of it and I think he would not look fondly on shenanigans like this. Not to mention a huge backlash not just from players and agents towards the team but also other GMs, who could now not trust them to do any business.

 

[StreetHawk]

It seems like the proper way to handle this would be to waive anti-tampering rights so that the player could negotiate a deal directly with the opposing team prior to the trade, then sign that deal after being traded. Neither team would be in a position to pull a fast one on the player, though I suppose the player could back out and go UFA (even though that would be a wild scenario).

That was basically what occurred with Tkachuk and PLD as they signed the max term of 8 years. Since they were not with Fla or LA by the tdl they would have been limited to7 years on a straight trade.
I’m sure there is a provision that upon signing the contract that the trade is consummated.

 

[MikeyMike01]

This would get in the way of players being able to sign 8 year deals with the new team though I think.

Only between the trade deadline and free agency. Otherwise the team trading for a player can resign to 8 years, if he was eligible for an 8 year extension prior to the trade.

This was not the case before the 2020 MOU, which changed the rules regarding this.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I remember this happened with no penalty.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/oilers-cry-foul-over-nylander-signing-1.662061

Then the f***face in Quebec traded Lindros twice.

The Nylander thing is amusing because there was a third person in the conversation who reportedly did not want to go to Edmonton. Who was that? Nylander's wife, Camilla and when Nylander told her he signed with Edmonton--she was not happy and that is when things went sideways.

For those who were not aware--the Oilers called a news conference to announce the signing, sent out press releases, Nylander had already agreed to do a handful of media interviews with Edmonton media--who had booked the interview times with Mike Gillis(his agent at the time) and the oilers were selling Nylander jersey's at the time of the Washington announcement.

To be clear, Washington did nothing. They had been talking to Nylander/Gillis.

The one thing some people over look here is that the Caps did the oilers a favour. Nylander only played 115 more nhl games and was done in the NHL

 

[Oddbob]

Partially too lazy to Google it, partially more interesting in seeing people's reactions.

Hypothetically, let's say you have a blue-chip pending UFA/RFA who has been known to have requested a trade but the team wants to keep him.
However, as the GM starts trying to make a deal happen, all they're getting is crap offers which also want the player extended first.
So, he talks to the player and says "X team wants you; but they want a sign-and-trade as part of the deal" and player puts pen to paper but the GM backs out of the trade.

Has it ever happened / would you expect that it could, if it hasn't?

No GM would do this.

 

[Forge]

As someone else stated, I feel like there's highly likely to be some sort of clause in the contract that protects the player from this.