NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

They need to add a rule of NTC's as a certain team should have a certain limit.

 

[Anthem]

It really is a bad setup. Players are in their prime from 22-30. They typically become potential UFAs at 27. The teams have no choice but to offer them max length deals, or they just walk. It basically guarantees that most good players will end up with a contract that is horrible for the last 2-5 years.

And no I don't have any sympathy for the players who force these 8 year contracts and then have to live in......sunny Anaheim for 2 years while they earn $8 million/year to play $3 million/year hockey.

Trouba is a classic example of a player who just never lived up their hype/potential. He tried to reinvent himself as a veteran leader with intangibles, but is just a cheap shot artist and kind of a jerk. His offence has also withered in the playoffs, with 19 points in 73 playoff games.

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

I would go with 4 and RFA status is only for the first contract out of ELC. If you don't want to be there you can be gone in 4 years.

Why should Chicago get 7 years to build a team around Bedard. Tanking the way they did should have consequences. 3 years to convince your 1OA to commit or you lose them at the end of year 4 is a really big incentive. Short contracts also mean more player movement (because guys aren't on old cheap deals) so rebuilding out of a tank is much easier.

I'd also raise the draft age so everyone gets 1-2 years at college before being drafted. new NCAA rules make it possible. Tons of guys who aren't absolute top picks do 1-2 years after being drafted anyway. Getting an extra year to watch them play against tougher competition should weed out the busts and let lame bloomers rise, which should help raise the value of mid 1st rounders.

Basically I want rules to increase player movement, decrease the attractiveness of tanking, speed up rebuilds, and seriously curb the advantage from drafting.

They need to add a rule of NTC's as a certain team should have a certain limit.

Why are you so anti-player?

 

[TooManyHumans]

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?

I was responding to "If I underperform to my wage like Trouba does I get fired." He still gets paid on waivers because that's the way it works in the NHL. If anyone doesn't like that different jobs don't get that benefit, they are free to try to get a job playing in the NHL.

 

[Whoot Whoot]

I’m probably in the minority but the NHLPA has too much power

 

[Oneiro]

I would go with 4 and RFA status is only for the first contract out of ELC. If you don't want to be there you can be gone in 4 years.

Why should Chicago get 7 years to build a team around Bedard. Tanking the way they did should have consequences. 3 years to convince your 1OA to commit or you lose them at the end of year 4 is a really big incentive. Short contracts also mean more player movement (because guys aren't on old cheap deals) so rebuilding out of a tank is much easier.

I'd also raise the draft age so everyone gets 1-2 years at college before being drafted. new NCAA rules make it possible. Tons of guys who aren't absolute top picks do 1-2 years after being drafted anyway. Getting an extra year to watch them play against tougher competition should weed out the busts and let lame bloomers rise, which should help raise the value of mid 1st rounders.

Basically I want rules to increase player movement, decrease the attractiveness of tanking, speed up rebuilds, and seriously curb the advantage from drafting.


Why are you so anti-player?

Extremely naive to believe that NHLPA wants more movement. You're putting too much weight on the elite, franchise guys and not enough on the remaining 80%. Shorter timeframes = more risk for the majority of the league. I agree decisions get more efficient but that's every economic system - the stock market is far more efficient (and unfriendly to the layman) the shorter the timeframe.

And again, most kids in the middle tier do not want to delay the big paycheck. Those new requirements - essentially delaying a pro career - will just shut out more guys from the security they are seeking via their athletic career.

This is just a self-righteous, silly perspective that doesn't factor in anyone's incentives at all.

 

[Anthem]

Extremely naive to believe that NHLPA wants more movement. You're putting too much weight on the elite, franchise guys and not enough on the remaining 80%. Shorter timeframes = more risk for the majority of the league. I agree decisions get more efficient but that's every economic system - the stock market is far more efficient (and unfriendly to the layman) the shorter the timeframe.

And again, most kids in the middle tier do not want to delay the big paycheck. Those new requirements - essentially delaying a pro career - will just shut out more guys from the security they are seeking via their athletic career.

Guys don't want UFA status after 4 years instead of 7?

How much of the league is getting 8 year deals? How many are actually getting longer than 4?

You're giving up certainty in length for freedom of movement and vastly more leverage early. How is that completely ignoring what players want?

It would shut out guys who aren't part of the union. Why should the PA care?

> This is just a self-righteous, silly perspective that doesn't factor in anyone's incentives at all.


Imagine posting such arrogant drivel. Just an arrogant post by a fool.

 

[a mangy Meowth]

Awe

 

[12ozPapa]

Unreal. Got a problem with it - negotiate a NMC

 

[lawrence]

sounds b.s to me. More like this agent blowing smoke through the media. I doubt any players actually complained to him about "trouba"

 

[rojac]

Guys don't want UFA status after 4 years instead of 7?

How much of the league is getting 8 year deals? How many are actually getting longer than 4?

You're giving up certainty in length for freedom of movement and vastly more leverage early. How is that completely ignoring what players want?

It would shut out guys who aren't part of the union. Why should the PA care?

> This is just a self-righteous, silly perspective that doesn't factor in anyone's incentives at all.


Imagine posting such arrogant drivel. Just an arrogant post by a fool.

I think if the NHLPA chose "four years until UFA" as a hill to die on, then they'd basically be asking for a lengthy lockout.

 

[rojac]

sounds b.s to me. More like this agent blowing smoke through the media. I doubt any players actually complained to him about "trouba"

I have no trouble whatsoever believing that there are players in the NHL who never realized that they could be threatened with waivers that could send them anywhere even if they have the protection of a modified or non-modified NTC. A lot of these guys are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

 

[Kuz]

Want to get an NMC and youre not really at the level where a team would risk one on you. Then its probably possible to get one if you take 1-2 mill less per year on your contract. Trouba went max money on his contract and lost security because of it. Only him and his agents fault hes traded now if he wanted security.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Drury should have done that during the summer when he circumvented his NTC. If anything Drury was too nice.

 

[Curufinwe]

I have no trouble whatsoever believing that there are players in the NHL who never realized that they could be threatened with waivers that could send them anywhere even if they have the protection of a modified or non-modified NTC. A lot of these guys are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Friedman says players almost never send him unsolicited messages, but they did on this topic.

Nothing will come of it, but it's easy to believe a lot of them aren't thrilled with what happened.

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

The Flyers treated Vinny Lecavalier like shit on their shoe when they wanted to get rid of him and his contract. The only reason he wasn't waived or threatened with waivers is that he had a NMC.

 

[Score08]

That hardly qualifies as a clarification or even a rationale. He was evidently up to moving to other places as need be once the residency was completed; the plan had been built into his contract. I can easily see him perceiving that as a "I tried to give my team flexibility when I could afford it and got burned for it" situation and he would arguably not be wrong to see it that way. If renegotiations were an option, I'd imagine he'd have pursued that.

I mean, after what he pulled with the Jets I'm not exactly overflowing with sympathy for him either, but this "well gosh then he shoulda" line is just completely nonsensical.

Or he could’ve played better and not forced his team to dump him. I’m sure the rags don’t care about his wife’s residency. Had he been even close to his living up to his end of the contract he wouldn’t have been in this position.

 

[Casper The Soy Ghost]

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

Just like Vegas eh?

It's also been heavily rumored that Trouba and his agent threatened to refuse showing up if he was traded. Even though those teams weren't on Trouba's NTC.

 

[Breakers]

Maxiumum 3 NTC per team

 

[surixon]

"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.

Agents already do all that. Agents are already using whatever mechanism possible to get players where they want. Trouba already did this with Winnipeg, he held out and went public demanding out. Then limited himself to only signing with one team to impact his marketability.

Look at college kids in Gauthier and McGroarty refusing to sign to get dealt to where they want.

Players have long been exploiting every "loophole" in the CBA.

They just don't like it when a team does it to them. Imo there is nothing to see here, if the players want this sorted out then they will have to give up something for it in the next CBA.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Play up to your contract and it probably doesn’t become an issue.

If it means that much to you then give up dollars for a full NMC and to make you less of a target cap wise.

 

[nucks88]

Well I'm bothered by players not playing up to the level their contracts seem to justify....

 

[Tawnos]

Agents already do all that. Agents are already using whatever mechanism possible to get players where they want. Trouba already did this with Winnipeg, he held out and went public demanding out. Then limited himself to only signing with one team to impact his marketability.

Look at college kids in Gauthier and McGroarty refusing to sign to get dealt to where they want.

Players have long been exploiting every "loophole" in the CBA.

They just don't like it when a team does it to them. Imo there is nothing to see here, if the players want this sorted out then they will have to give up something for it in the next CBA.

If the owners and executives don't like that players do those things, they're also welcome to try to make some changes in the next CBA negotiation. And they've done so in the past already. That's how this all works. Both sides exploit every "loophole" they can until there are changes. A lot of the things fans complain about (like those college players wanting to choose where they play) aren't things that either side is interested in changing.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I’m probably in the minority but the NHLPA has too much power

The owners get to draft a player and keep him under team control for 7-8 years, notably their PRIME years.
The owners can buy out a player if they so choose.
The owners can trade or waive a player (provided he doesn't have a NMC).

I don't think the NHLPA has as much power as you think.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Well I'm bothered by players not playing up to the level their contracts seem to justify....

Many of these GMs sign players to long term contracts that they KNOW will not age well and the player won't be able to live up to long term. When they sign a guy to a contract that extends into their 30s, especially a guy that plays physically and has more wear and tear on their body, you know that they won't be playing to the level of their contract near the end.

Rangers fans and management knew Trouba's deal wouldn't age well when he signed it. Can't blame the players for that.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Many of these GMs sign players to long term contracts that they KNOW will not age well and the player won't be able to live up to long term. When they sign a guy to a contract that extends into their 30s, especially a guy that plays physically and has more wear and tear on their body, you know that they won't be playing to the level of their contract near the end.

Rangers fans and management knew Trouba's deal wouldn't age well when he signed it. Can't blame the players for that.

Most gm's won't even be around for year 5-6-7-8 of the contracts they sign

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Most gm's won't even be around for year 5-6-7-8 of the contracts they sign

Good point, which even further's what I was trying to say. GMs sign these deals knowing they won't age well, and in many cases not caring as it will be someone else's problem.