NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers

[Oilslick941611]

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

did you even read my post? I never said they would.

 

[seabass45]

As for Trouba and the larger ramifications, I'll say what I said in other threads: players under contract can't do much aside from raise the issue with the PA, and maybe if this gets out of hand and they try to escalate the issue further. However, they're all talking about what this means for future contracts and I would imagine more of them are going to push for stronger waiver protection in their next deals.

 

[Jozay]

He could’ve negotiated a NMC, none of this would’ve happened. Rangers operated with the limits set

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Like others have said, I think it's hilarious that players can force teams to trade them even when they're under contract, but heaven forbid teams do the same thing to them.

Suck it up, buttercup. Go cry into your stack of millions.

 

[FiveTacos]

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.

I dunno, seems like there was no need for a league wide memo. He had to have some idea of who even could/would take on those contracts. Why send it to teams that are similarly cap strapped? Or teams that he obviously would never waive his NTC to go to, even under threat of waivers?

The original failed trade months ago never should have been public ... failed trades that we don't hear about due to invoked NTCs or NMCs must happen all the time. "Hey this team wants to trade for you, would you accept going there?" "Nope." Done, end of story, no one else has to know. Other GMs know when to be discreet, they're often on the other end of those situations.

The waiver threat definitely wouldn't something leaked by another org, as that should have been a 5 minute private conversation. "Here's a list of possible trade destinations of interested teams, accept one or we have to waive you instead, sorry that's just where we're at". Why the hell make that public? No other team would need to know about that.

But yes, six year max contracts would solve a lot of the problems in the NHL.

The PA would want major concessions then ... namely dropping UFA age to 25 or something so that the shorter max year deals better line up with a player's prime. If you're taking away end of career big money, then they'll want access to that money earlier in their prime years.

So yeah, maybe you solve the "overpaid twilight years" or "the guy suddenly declined," problem, but you'll just create new problems. You'll have to make big money decisions on many younger guys before they've fully finished developing. You'll have guys leveraging impending free agency to force trades in their early 20s instead of their mid 20s. And now a core player you want to keep through his prime, you'll have to pay him maximum money in his 20's twice for 12 total years instead of just once at 7 or 8 years.

Any system you can think of to avoid one type of bad contract, just opens up possibilities for a different type of bad one. You ultimately can't protect GMs from their own bad decisions.

 

[dgibb10]

Ah, a "conversation".

I'm sure Trouba had "conversations" about remaining in New York through his wife's residency.

"Conversations" don't have legally binding effect. In your scenario, the player has to accept the risk that after 29 days of 'clearing' waivers, the team decides "hmm, he's in a bit of a slump and we'd like to give that prospect his spot, maybe we'll bury him in the AHL for 3 months", or the player decides "oh, sunbelt team that's competing for a Cup actually claimed me, maybe I'll go do that instead".

That's an awful lot to put trust into a conversation to try and churn over very little cap space.

Do you understand the difference between a coversation a half decade away and 1 day away?


"hmm, he's in a bit of a slump and we'd like to give that prospect his spot, maybe we'll bury him in the AHL for 3 months":

Any player who's being waived for performance reasons (assuming they are making a large sum of money) is a guy teams WANT to be claimed. They would be waived anyway.

Also, any player with an NMC being waived in a paper transaction for this purpose would have to waive again to be sent down.


"oh, sunbelt team that's competing for a Cup actually claimed me, maybe I'll go do that instead".

Also, all the sunbelt teams are capped out. They cannot claim guys with big salaries being sent down in paper transactions like this

Yes, players may leave less desirable destinations who try it. The loophole still exists and would be used and manipulated by desirable locations. In fact yes, the sunbelt locations would be the BIGGEST abusers of this loophole.

No, not every team would be able to do it. Not every player would be willing to do it.

But it would happen.

Eg sending down 3 NMC guys in paper transactions at about 20k a day in savings (total) over 10 days accrues enough cap space to add an extra million at the deadline. Or pay an ELC bonus to prevent rollover.

NHL teams operate on handshake agreements like that constantly.

Eg, the entire expansion draft process, where a bunch of players waived their NMCs temporaily to help their teams protect other guys, and handshake agreements to not claim specific players.

 

[3074326]

Player sucks and makes way too much money, then gets mad that he gets traded? You're lucky they didn't trade you before now, brother. A lot of entitlement coming out of the camp of the guy who tries to end careers. GFY

 

[WarriorofTime]

Do you understand the difference between a coversation a half decade away and 1 day away?

As a lawyer that deals with contracts every day, this doesn't matter.

"hmm, he's in a bit of a slump and we'd like to give that prospect his spot, maybe we'll bury him in the AHL for 3 months":

Any player who's being waived for performance reasons (assuming they are making a large sum of money) is a guy teams WANT to be claimed.

Teams have 30 days to assign after a players clears waivers.

Also, any player with an NMC being waived in a paper transaction for this purpose would have to waive again to be sent down.

Only after 30 days

"oh, sunbelt team that's competing for a Cup actually claimed me, maybe I'll go do that instead".

Yes, players may leave less desirable destinations who try it. The loophole still exists and would be used and manipulated by desirable locations. In fact yes, the sunbelt locations would be the BIGGEST abusers of this loophole.

Any team runs the risk of a player changing their mind and effectively acting like a free agent at their current contract.

No, not every team would be able to do it. Not every player would be willing to do it.

But it would happen.

It's unclear if it's even legal..

Eg sending down 3 NMC guys in paper transactions at about 20k a day in savings (total) over 10 days accrues enough cap space to add an extra million at the deadline. Or pay an ELC bonus to prevent rollover.

need 20 roster spots and have the buried penalty, gotta factor in that math, the amount of cap relief that a team gets from assigning a player to the AHL is the lesser of their cap hit and the NHL Minimum Salary + $375,000 (Buried Threshold).

NHL teams operate on handshake agreements like that constantly.

They also operate on fully fleshed out negotiated contracts because that's how the real world operates.

Eg, the entire expansion draft process, where a bunch of players waived their NMCs temporaily to help their teams protect other guys, and handshake agreements to not claim specific players.

Teams and players can do whatever they want.

 

[MXD]

Is there a mechanism/clause enabling the player to veto a waiver claim from a team on his NTC? ... Making this an NMC-to-those-teams-the-player-don't-want-to-be-traded-to but otherwise not preventing the player to be sent down/waived-then-claimed by another team?

If yes... I don't quite see the issue.

This case won't ellicit much sympathy from the fans here because the only player liable to such issues are players underperforming relative to their salary cap, which fans usually tend to want out of their teams.

 

[dgibb10]

As a lawyer that deals with contracts every day, this doesn't matter.

Teams have 30 days to assign after a players clears waivers.

Only after 30 days

Any team runs the risk of a player changing their mind and effectively acting like a free agent at their current contract.

It's unclear if it's even legal..

need 20 roster spots and have the buried penalty, gotta factor in that math, the amount of cap relief that a team gets from assigning a player to the AHL is the lesser of their cap hit and the NHL Minimum Salary + $375,000 (Buried Threshold).

They also operate on fully fleshed out negotiated contracts because that's how the real world operates.

Teams and players can do whatever they want.

"Teams have 30 days to assign after a players clears waivers.

Only after 30 days"

Players have to waive each time if they have a clause that protects them. This would apply to NMC guys. NTC guys I guess sure would have to take that risk that they completely fall off the map in 3 weeks after the all star break to the point where the team wants to send them down for an AHLer, but are also still somehow good enough that they'd be claimed at a large salary, but also the team doesn't want to trade them.

"Any team runs the risk of a player changing their mind and effectively acting like a free agent at their current contract."

Again, you seem to fail to understand that some players want to stay with their current teams. This loophole will involve said players.


"need 20 roster spots and have the buried penalty, gotta factor in that math, the amount of cap relief that a team gets from assigning a player to the AHL is the lesser of their cap hit and the NHL Minimum Salary + $375,000 (Buried Threshold). "

Yes, you can go to a 20 man roster. Waiving a guy saving 1.15 mill/192 days = approx 6k a day

So by waiving 3 guys to 20 man that is around 20k a day x10 or 11 days is about 200k total. But, since it's the deadline (42 days left in season out of 192), 200k allows you to obtain a guy at (or costing more than you otherwise would have) approximately 900k AAV more than you otherwise would have.

You could go further by replacing more guys 1.15 with league min guys if you want for about 400k, or about 2k a day in savings.


"
They also operate on fully fleshed out negotiated contracts because that's how the real world operates.

Teams and players can do whatever they want."

Yes, and teams and players will operate in ways that allow them to manipulate the cap.

 

[seabass45]

Is there a mechanism/clause enabling the player to veto a waiver claim from a team on his NTC?

No.

 

[FlyguyOX]

Don't sign with rangers. Simply. Other orgs treat their players fantastic in comparison.

 

[Tawnos]

I dunno, seems like there was no need for a league wide memo. He had to have some idea of who even could/would take on those contracts. Why send it to teams that are similarly cap strapped? Or teams that he obviously would never waive his NTC to go to, even under threat of waivers?

The original failed trade months ago never should have been public ... failed trades that we don't hear about due to invoked NTCs or NMCs must happen all the time. "Hey this team wants to trade for you, would you accept going there?" "Nope." Done, end of story, no one else has to know. Other GMs know when to be discreet, they're often on the other end of those situations.

The waiver threat definitely wouldn't something leaked by another org, as that should have been a 5 minute private conversation. "Here's a list of possible trade destinations of interested teams, accept one or we have to waive you instead, sorry that's just where we're at". Why the hell make that public? No other team would need to know about that.

The leaguewide memo is a pretty standard practice, from my understanding. Some teams thought it was weird because of when it happened and that a team in the Rangers position would be looking at something like that, but no one thought it was strange thing to send in and of itself. You never know if or how teams might have changed their interest from the summer. Maybe one of those cash strapped teams might have been motivated to clear space or offer a player with salary that Drury was interested in.

The original failed trade months ago was not made public by Drury or the Rangers organization. It got leaked somewhere along the way, and as I said, it most likely was not coming from the Rangers side of things. You say GMs know when to be discreet. Not only am I not convinced there's evidence to support that statement, but GMs aren't the only ones involved. A GM doesn't say "nope" and it's done, end of story. They meet with their front office staff about these things. There are some NHL front offices that are especially leaky, particularly if one of the national writers has established a strong relationship with someone in the group.

For all that Trouba said that he wishes it hadn't become public, I would bet that the waiver threat was probably leaked by the Trouba's agent to muddy the waters. It would fit his reputation.

 

[Tawnos]

"guys teams DEFINITELY wouldn't manipulate the salary cap when given a blatant easy opportunity to do so"

Was your argument.

There are very clear loopholes for teams that simply have conversations with their players, and who's players want to be there.

-Being able to stash extra veteran depth or enforcers that is for all intents and purposes exempt from waivers without eating their cap hit since it is buried
-Being able to make paper transactions to accrue cap space (teams literally already do this with waiver exempt guys)
-Being able to limit rivals from claiming any of your players in general.

Also just the fact that it would prevent bad teams from claiming players in general (defeating a key purpose of waivers)

Meanwhile, the current "loophole" isn't a loophole at all.

Jacob Trouba negotiating a contract that made him eligible for waivers. NYR was happy to lose him for nothing on said waivers. Instead they gave him a choice to allow him to get some say in his destination, and get them a return. He could have had a full NTC and the same thing would have happened. This is why you negotiate for an NMC that prevents you from being placed on waivers, or play at a level that the team isn't willing to lose you for nothing.

You want to decimate the entire waivers system to accommodate guys who failed to negotiate for the available clause that prevents them from being placed on waivers.

No, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that (1) you clearly don't have a strong enough grasp on how this stuff works to have valid concerns and (2) the ultimate effect of the various ways you presented to manipulate the cap aren't nearly enough to risk losing players.

Teams actually don't make paper transactions very often in order to "accrue" cap space. They make paper transactions in order to fit into the daily cap when there are roster issues that would otherwise present a problem.

 

[FiveTacos]

The original failed trade months ago was not made public by Drury or the Rangers organization. It got leaked somewhere along the way, and as I said, it most likely was not coming from the Rangers side of things. You say GMs know when to be discreet. Not only am I not convinced there's evidence to support that statement,

Well if you're sort of shopping a guy that you end up keeping ... that could get awkward. So I think smart shopping GMs know to keep their mouth shut, in case they are needing discretion down the road as a seller. We often hear GMs talk years after the fact about how many trades were discussed but didn't happen. If I want to deal a guy with a NTC/NMC, I'm damn sure gonna make sure I keep him in the loop ... why do a bunch of negotiating just to have him kill the deal?

but GMs aren't the only ones involved. A GM doesn't say "nope" and it's done, end of story. They meet with their front office staff about these things. There are some NHL front offices that are especially leaky, particularly if one of the national writers has established a strong relationship with someone in the group.

True enough, and I suppose a NY media town is bound to have some insiders. It's been years since I lived in NY, guess I'm used to the Ducks, who haven't even had a full time local beat writer in recent years. We can't even find out when a guy is hurt until game time. It's just about the tightest ship in the league.

For all that Trouba said that he wishes it hadn't become public, I would bet that the waiver threat was probably leaked by the Trouba's agent to muddy the waters. It would fit his reputation.

Not sure it works in his favor any more than it does the Rangers to have it go public. It's just needless drama.

 

[dgibb10]

No, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that (1) you clearly don't have a strong enough grasp on how this stuff works to have valid concerns and (2) the ultimate effect of the various ways you presented to manipulate the cap aren't nearly enough to risk losing players.

Teams actually don't make paper transactions very often in order to "accrue" cap space. They make paper transactions in order to fit into the daily cap when there are roster issues that would otherwise present a problem.

You vastly overestimate this "risk".

Sure it's a risk if you're winnipeg or chicago or SJS

If you're a top tier destination like florida, or you have a guy who's built a life in a place, it's not.

Heck Trouba himself would be a perfect example of a guy who could have been used to manipulate this. Trouba actively tried to do everything possible to stay in NYR. Same with Fox, and Panarin.

So, under the system you suggest. Every year when trouba had his full protections, he would have been free and easy to make a paper transaction for to save space and add cap to NYR at the deadline.

NHL teams run less than full rosters constantly to manipulate the cap by taking advantage of waiver exempt free call ups. Only difference is now you can have those waiver exempt players be 30 year old veterans if you want.

Also you guys seem to fundamentally not understand what a no TRADE clause is.

It prevents teams from signing players who take a discount to play for them, and then flipping them for a profit.

If you want to be protected from waivers because you're worried you'll suck, get waiver protection.

The ONLY potential change that makes sense is a distinction between protections for being sent down, and protections for an expansion draft, to make teams more willing to let players have protection from being sent down without risking being forced to expose a much better player.

This suggestion of letting players pick and choose from waiver claims completely decimates the entire concept of waivers, f***ing over bottom feeders who the waiver system is generally built to help.

 

[Tawnos]

Well if you're sort of shopping a guy that you end up keeping ... that could get awkward. So I think smart shopping GMs know to keep their mouth shut, in case they are needing discretion down the road as a seller. We often hear GMs talk years after the fact about how many trades were discussed but didn't happen. If I want to deal a guy with a NTC/NMC, I'm damn sure gonna make sure I keep him in the loop ... why do a bunch of negotiating just to have him kill the deal?



True enough, and I suppose a NY media town is bound to have some insiders. It's been years since I lived in NY, guess I'm used to the Ducks, who haven't even had a full time local beat writer in recent years. We can't even find out when a guy is hurt until game time. It's just about the tightest ship in the league.



Not sure it works in his favor any more than it does the Rangers to have it go public. It's just needless drama.

I'm not sure how you expect Drury to keep other GMs, front offices, or agents to keep their mouths shut about this stuff. As I said, the story of the Drury regime has been of one very tight lipped. Most Rangers fans know that when you see something like "the Rangers asked Vancouver about JT Miller" the information is almost certainly coming from the Canucks organization. It's generally not the NY insiders that have the information until after the fact. Almost every story with the Rangers goes down like this: (1) National media or local non-NY media reports a story. (2) Rangers beat writers try to confirm and usually end up getting some more detail in the process. It's rare for news like that to break from a NY source first.

Needless drama has never stopped Overhardt from stirring the pot before.

You vastly overestimate this "risk".

Sure it's a risk if you're winnipeg or chicago or SJS

If you're a top tier destination like florida, or you have a guy who's built a life in a place, it's not.

Heck Trouba himself would be a perfect example of a guy who could have been used to manipulate this. Trouba actively tried to do everything possible to stay in NYR. Same with Fox, and Panarin.

So, under the system you suggest. Every year when trouba had his full protections, he would have been free and easy to make a paper transaction for to save space and add cap to NYR at the deadline.

NHL teams run less than full rosters constantly to manipulate the cap by taking advantage of waiver exempt free call ups. Only difference is now you can have those waiver exempt players be 30 year old veterans if you want.

Also you guys seem to fundamentally not understand what a no TRADE clause is.

It prevents teams from signing players who take a discount to play for them, and then flipping them for a profit.

If you want to be protected from waivers because you're worried you'll suck, get waiver protection.

The ONLY potential change that makes sense is a distinction between protections for waivers, and protections for an expansion draft.

This suggestion of letting players pick and choose from waiver claims completely decimates the entire concept of waivers, f***ing over bottom feeders who the waiver system is generally built to help.

It's pretty funny to see you claim we don't understand what a NTC is when you clearly STILL don't understand how an NMC works even though I've explained it to you at least twice now.

 

[dgibb10]

I'm not sure how you expect Drury to keep other GMs, front offices, or agents to keep their mouths shut about this stuff. As I said, the story of the Drury regime has been of one very tight lipped. Most Rangers fans know that when you see something like "the Rangers asked Vancouver about JT Miller" the information is almost certainly coming from the Canucks organization. It's generally not the NY insiders that have the information until after the fact. Almost every story with the Rangers goes down like this: (1) National media or local non-NY media reports a story. (2) Rangers beat writers try to confirm and usually end up getting some more detail in the process. It's rare for news like that to break from a NY source first.

Needless drama has never stopped Overhardt from stirring the pot before.



It's pretty funny to see you claim we don't understand what a NTC is when you clearly STILL don't understand how an NMC works even though I've explained it to you at least twice now.

Do you think in this new world you suggest, guys with full NMCs would only get the choice of "no waivers" and "everyone can have you", while guys with NTCs would be able to pick and choose?

Jesus this idea is even more insane than before.

Things that are reported as "full NMCs" have all protections of an NTC (which would be changed in the new rulings to allow a player to refuse a claim from a team). They simply ALSO have additional protections regarding being sent down to the minors and expansion protections on top of that.

It's just pointless to report it as separate things when "full NMC" does the trick.

A no trade clause protects you from being traded. Nice and simple

You can also get protections from waivers and expansions.



You're allowed to get just trade protections.

You're allowed to get full protections for both.

You're allowed to get partial trade protections AND waiver protections.

You're even allowed to get waiver protections without trade protections. Just nobody does it because it would virtually never protect you.

 

[Tawnos]

Do you think in this new world you suggest, guys with full NMCs would only get the choice of "no waivers" and "everyone can have you", while guys with NTCs would be able to pick and choose?

Jesus this idea is even more insane than before.

Things that are reported as "full NMCs" have all protections of an NTC (which would be changed in the new rulings to allow a player to refuse a claim from a team). They simply ALSO have additional protections regarding being sent down to the minors and expansion protections on top of that.

It's just pointless to report it as separate things when "full NMC" does the trick.

A no trade clause protects you from being traded. Nice and simple

You can also get protections from waivers and expansions.



You're allowed to get just trade protections.

You're allowed to get full protections for both.

You're allowed to get partial trade protections AND waiver protections.

You're even allowed to get waiver protections without trade protections. Just nobody does it because it would virtually never protect you.

I can't explain this all to you again, so I'm done here.

 

[dgibb10]

I can't explain this all to you again, so I'm done here.

You were wrong so you're done here*

You think that NTCs should give a player the ability to pick and choose where he wants to go on waivers. Incredibly stupid in that it defeats the entire point of waivers, but sure lets go with it.

Then you fail to realize that this protection would apply to guys with full NMCs as well (unless otherwise negotiated per the specific terms of the clause).

Then you cope about how teams would NEVER manipulate the cap, and how players could NEVER actually like their team and want to help them win.



If you want to be protected from a situation like this, negotiate it into your contract that you cannot be placed on waivers.

there are a NUMBER of guys in the NHL with such clauses in their contracts already (without full trade protection), such as:

Coyle, M Backlund, Landeskog, Monahan, E Kane, Draisaitl, Nurse, Reinhart, Eriksson Ek, gallagher, Marchessault, Skjei, Letang, JT Miller, Ovi, Hamilton, Palat.

Blame trouba's agent for failing to protect him for this scenario, or blame trouba for being too arrogant that he thought that there was no way NYR would be willing to let him go for nothing.

 

[crowi]

After hearing the Trouba interview and how well respected somone like Trouba is, there will definitely be backlash that NYR will feel.


It will probably be just cap related tho and they can naviagate through it.

If players are still willing to sign with an organization like Chicago, then anything is possible.

Yeah right. NYR will feel the sting.... SURELY. Gimme a break.

 

[thedjpd]

Maybe you should have also signed a contract that ensures you will still get paid even if they fire you.

Trouba did sign a contract that allows the team to send him through waivers; so that pretty much negates this whole conversation, doesn't it?

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Most of these guys grew up rich they don't all understand the privilege they have making millions playing a game

 

[qc14]

"Employees are not happy that their colleagues are being forcibly transferred to other departments due to collusion between employers that while technically legal make existing protections against said moves somewhat obsolete. Because of this, they are bringing these concerns up with their union reps for the next round of collective bargaining"

Seems like something pretty normal and that I would want to have happen!

Only other thing I'll say is that if you're in favor of Drury using every legal option available to him even if it's a little bit slimy than you should be for Trouba as well. Players should all take notice and be prepared to work the media with threats about not reporting if traded.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Don't sign with rangers. Simply. Other orgs treat their players fantastic in comparison.

Well, sort of.......dont sign with Chris Drury