NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers

[Borlag]

Negotiates a deal with NTC. Announces that he wont report to any team if he is traded. GM is at fault?

If anything, it gives a clear indicator to players wanting to sign that it's a team actually honoring what the contract states and that no player can rise above it.

Given similar situation, I would WANT my team to handle it exactly like Drury did.

 

[King In The North]

I can see it, they wish they were in Trouba's position making millions to barely play NHL hockey in New York.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I think the NHLPA needs to consider picking their spots better.

They complain about about absolutely everything all the time for no reason.


Outside of headshots, I can't really think of many things on the contract or salary side that I've agreed with the players on since the 05 lockout.

 

[TGWL]

While I can understand Trouba's frustrations with how the organization handled things, I can't blame them for needing to get Trouba out of NY. I also won't find myself mad if the next CBA agreement includes not being able to be waived and claimed by teams on your blocked list, because at the end of the day it probably should. It's not a no move so you can be waived and sent down, but it should still limit being waived and claimed by those teams, because otherwise what's the point of having the M-NTC. Trouba ended up waiving here but clearly was pushed to do so, which is the issue other players/agents are expressing. (potentially)

 

[Borlag]

While I can understand Trouba's frustrations with how the organization handled things, I can't blame them for needing to get Trouba out of NY. I also won't find myself mad if the next CBA agreement includes not being able to be waived and claimed by teams on your blocked list, because at the end of the day it probably should. It's not a no move so you can be waived and sent down, but it should still limit being waived and claimed by those teams, because otherwise what's the point of having the M-NTC. Trouab ended up waiving here but clearly was pushed to do so, which is the issue other players/agents are expressing. (potentially)

That's much more reasonable take, however at the same time they should take issue in players refusing to comply with their own contracts. Partial NTC is just that, a partial. Want to block all trades, negotiate a full NTC. Want to avoid waivers as well, negotiate it.

 

[Oak]

If they had the 24 hr news cycle in 1975 you would’ve heard the same thing

I disagree. It might have been there a little bit, but people from that generation were so good at hiding their emotions and just pushing through discomfort. Not sure how old you are but they were just built different. Social norms that we no longer have.

 

[Figgy44]

I thought this segment from the article summarized The Hockey News article nicely:

Trouba confirmed that the Ragers threatened him with waivers and made clear his frustration toward how everything was handled on the part of Drury.

I always question THN. It often seems like THN puts together articles out of context. I don't really like Trouba and I don't like the idea of meeting him more often now that he's in the Pacific, but I can't imagine he's being an whiny or Drury being as underhanded as this article implies?

 

[FiveTacos]

While I can understand Trouba's frustrations with how the organization handled things, I can't blame them for needing to get Trouba out of NY.

I don't even necessarily have a problem with either side doing what they did. They both leveraged the tools they had.

Did it have to play out so publicly though? Seems to me the failed trade could have been kept quiet, and all the subsequent months of drama too. And it would have just been a simple story of, "we're moving on, we needed cap flexibility, we found a mutually agreeable solution, we waited until his family was almost ready to finish up here anyway, we'd like to thank him for his service, blah blah."

 

[TGWL]

That's much more reasonable take, however at the same time they should take issue in players refusing to comply with their own contracts. Partial NTC is just that, a partial. Want to block all trades, negotiate a full NTC. Want to avoid waivers as well, negotiate it.

I agree that in the end the player could have negotiated a contract that prevented movement, but I do see the other side in "I blocked those teams and putting me on waivers to be claimed by those blocked teams shouldn't be allowed", because that really just defeats all M-NTC. All it does it put the team in a position where they potentially lose value in a trade but can put in you in a position to go to those teams. I wouldn't be against that changing. But for now it's 100% allowed so you have to just put that on Trouba's negotiated deal and whatever summer conversations they had that lead to this last resort option from Drury.

 

[Slats432]

I am generally a pro management guy, but if a team strong arms a player to take a trade to where he doesn't want to go, it isn't right if it was negotiated. That said, in the next CBA it should be an easy win for the players to get the trade protection wording improved to cover these situations.

 

[nturn06]

Negotiates a deal with NTC. Announces that he wont report to any team if he is traded. GM is at fault?

If anything, it gives a clear indicator to players wanting to sign that it's a team actually honoring what the contract states and that no player can rise above it.

Given similar situation, I would WANT my team to handle it exactly like Drury did.

Yea, he behaves like the GM gave him the NTC...

 

[surixon]

pretty much yup. Drury may have hurt his franchise's ability to sign certain players in the future


if Rangers and someone else are offering the same contract they very well might go with the other team after this. NYR is in the wrong for how this was handled


thats the way things go sometimes, maybe dont sign him for so much and give NTC just to find a loophole and send him exactly where he didnt want to go.

See Vegas, they are about as cut throat as it gets and they still have a lineup of players wanting in. The Rangers are an attractive market for players, they will have no issue attracting talent.

I am generally a pro management guy, but if a team strong arms a player to take a trade to where he doesn't want to go, it isn't right if it was negotiated. That said, in the next CBA it should be an easy win for the players to get the trade protection wording improved to cover these situations.

So on that note is it OK for a player to strong arm a team to go where they want to go when it isn't negotiated, like Trouba did to the Jets or countless other players do like Gauthier, Fox etc. You can't have it both ways, if players can't use these tactics to get what they want then so can management.

 

[ManofSteel55]

What loophole?

The loophole that allows for players to end up on teams on their NTC list due to waivers.

No loophole, just need to be better at negotiating your contracts.

If you look at the definition of loophole, it is absolutely a loophole. Any set of rules that has a way to bypass another rule within it creates a loophole. I'm not saying the Rangers were wrong for exploiting that loophole, because its there, so of course they can use it, but it is a major flaw in the way NTC's are written if there is a waivers by-pass still within it. It screams of poor policy/contract writing.

From a contract writing perspective, I don't think its the "going on waivers" part that is really the issue, as much as it is the possibility of being taken off of waivers by a team he doesn't have on his trade list. That's the loophole here, that that the Rangers could have had a deal arranged with (for example only) Columbus, and when Trouba declined going to Columbus, he could have ended up there anyway if they put him on waivers. That's the part that has the loophole. If they somehow closed that "loophole" so he could still go on waivers, but only could be claimed by teams that are on his trade list, I think it would navigate the loophole situation.

 

[TheNewEra]

the nhlpa has no grounds to complain about this saga

that being said lets see if this means the rangers arent able to sign big name free agents, rangers have a solid amount of cap space so lets see if it actually impacts them or if its the nhlpa complaining for the sake of it

 

[Slats432]

See Vegas, they are about as cut throat as it gets and they still have a lineup of players wanting in. The Rangers are an attractive market for players, they will have no issue attracting talent.



So on that note is it OK for a player to strong arm a team to go where they want to go when it isn't negotiated, like Trouba did to the Jets or countless other players do like Gauthier, Fox etc. You can't have it both ways, if players can't use these tactics to get what they want then so can management.

I agree that makes sense as well. Should be interesting how it shakes out in the next CBA.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

See Vegas, they are about as cut throat as it gets and they still have a lineup of players wanting in. The Rangers are an attractive market for players, they will have no issue attracting talent.



So on that note is it OK for a player to strong arm a team to go where they want to go when it isn't negotiated, like Trouba did to the Jets or countless other players do like Gauthier, Fox etc. You can't have it both ways, if players can't use these tactics to get what they want then so can management.

for now, if they keep doing it things could change. but people do have short selective memories

 

[Tawnos]

I don't even necessarily have a problem with either side doing what they did. They both leveraged the tools they had.

Did it have to play out so publicly though? Seems to me the failed trade could have been kept quiet, and all the subsequent months of drama too. And it would have just been a simple story of, "we're moving on, we needed cap flexibility, we found a mutually agreeable solution, we waited until his family was almost ready to finish up here anyway, we'd like to thank him for his service, blah blah."

I don't think this is realistic, TBH. The NHL is a web of gossip. What's interesting is that the Rangers organization under Drury has been notoriously leak proof, to the frustration of their beat writers. Most of the information that comes out in regards to the Rangers behind the scenes either comes from other organizations or from agents. Even this latest thing about Trouba and Kreider being on the block came from someone other than the Rangers front office. Drury sent out his message to the GMs around the league and one of their front offices leaked it to the public. Did Drury know it was going to get out? Probably. But the Rangers front office are not the ones who gave it to the media.

It's just not possible for this stuff to be kept quiet anymore.

the nhlpa has no grounds to complain about this saga

that being said lets see if this means the rangers arent able to sign big name free agents, rangers have a solid amount of cap space so lets see if it actually impacts them or if its the nhlpa complaining for the sake of it

No one is talking about the NHLPA doing anything like filing a grievance. It's all about whether or not they can get some tweaks to the next CBA so it doesn't happen in the future.

Also, I've mentioned this before... people have been wondering if the Rangers actions will hurt their ability to sign big name free agents for at least 20 years. They wondered it when Leetch got traded. They wondered it when Redden got buried. They wondered it when Drury got bought out. They wondered it when Richards got bought out. They wondered it when Shattenkirk got bought out. This isn't going to affect them.

 

[dgibb10]

The loophole that allows for players to end up on teams on their NTC list due to waivers.


If you look at the definition of loophole, it is absolutely a loophole. Any set of rules that has a way to bypass another rule within it creates a loophole. I'm not saying the Rangers were wrong for exploiting that loophole, because its there, so of course they can use it, but it is a major flaw in the way NTC's are written if there is a waivers by-pass still within it. It screams of poor policy/contract writing.

From a contract writing perspective, I don't think its the "going on waivers" part that is really the issue, as much as it is the possibility of being taken off of waivers by a team he doesn't have on his trade list. That's the loophole here, that that the Rangers could have had a deal arranged with (for example only) Columbus, and when Trouba declined going to Columbus, he could have ended up there anyway if they put him on waivers. That's the part that has the loophole. If they somehow closed that "loophole" so he could still go on waivers, but only could be claimed by teams that are on his trade list, I think it would navigate the loophole situation.

Allowing teams and players to use NTCs to bypass the waiver system is so unbelievably ripe for exploitation it's insane

 

[thedjpd]

It's not, nor will they ever allow it to be based on how the league and the PA like things to be.

Voiding contracts is governed by law and the CBA as long as both parties agree, unless the contract itself says cannot be voided. But we know that’s not true as we’ve seen stipulations in the NHL for “mutual termination.” It’s not a CBA thing; it’s a contract thing.

One party can’t terminate at will but they certainly can if both agree.

 

[TeamRenzo]

and remember this isn't an isolated issue, similiar disrespect happened from Drury to Goodrow as well.

Drury is lucky he is GM of New York and not say Columbus, because no one will want to play for him.

I seriously doubt NYR will ever have difficulty attracted UFA's

 

[Divine]

Did NHL players never understand the difference between a NMC and a NTC?

Maybe they need better agents.

the nhlpa has no grounds to complain about this saga

that being said lets see if this means the rangers arent able to sign big name free agents, rangers have a solid amount of cap space so lets see if it actually impacts them or if its the nhlpa complaining for the sake of it

It won't. Players just want it all. They're hoping by voicing their concerns that they can get additional benefits without any compromises.

Will doing this affect a player in his 20's in his prime from choosing not to live in NYC with millions of dollars? No, but they sure will pretend it might in hopes they can benefit from it.

 

[effen]

Tampa threatened to put Ryan McDonagh on waivers if he didn't accept a trade to Nashville.

This scarred poor Ryan McDonagh so much he went back to Tampa a couple years later. Numerous think pieces were notably not written about this.

This happened in the far off before time of *checks notes* two years ago.

HURR DURR NOO YAWK HURR DURR PLAYERS SO BOTHERED HURR DURR

 

[Tawnos]

Allowing teams and players to use NTCs to bypass the waiver system is so unbelievably ripe for exploitation it's insane

You've already been proven wrong on this by myself and @WarriorofTime, but I see you've found a new person to try to argue with on it.

 

[Romang67]

I don't think the players will give up anything to expand what the NTC covers. I think we'll see considerably more NMC, and I think GMs like Drury will be more than happy to hand them out.

Heck, he just handed out an 8 year, $92M contract with a full NMC to a goalie who will be in his 30s for almost the entire contract duration. The players in big destinations don't even give up money for the NMC as it is. It's just slapped on at the end.

 

[Voight]

I thought this segment from the article summarized The Hockey News article nicely:



I always question THN. It often seems like THN puts together articles out of context. I don't really like Trouba and I don't like the idea of meeting him more often now that he's in the Pacific, but I can't imagine he's being an whiny or Drury being as underhanded as this article implies?

THN used to be reputable, but that as 15 years ago.