NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers

[Dfence033]

Some of the suggestions here would create nightmares for teams and players. Having a no trade list also apply to waivers means any player with a partial list would need to be asked to provide that list any time they need to be waived. Given cap accrues daily, they would need to provide that list in a matter of a few hours, or would have to give up the “provide at time of request,” and provide it at the beginning of the season and could not then be modified. Administrative nightmares for both teams and players.

Additionally, waivers is partially meant to give fringe and marginal players an NHL playing option while providing the worst teams the ability to get access to those players. This scenario removes the “competitive balance” aspects of the waiver system, as well as eliminating options from fringe players to remain in the NHL.

Taken together, there are many reasons both the players’ union and the owners would quickly say “no” to any such proposal.

 

[Voight]

Simple solution.

Fight for a partial NTC+NMC.

NMC also I believe protects you from expansion. I don't know if a full NTC does

Take less money and get a NMC for the duration of the deal. There's lots of players who take less money in exchange for either a NMC or partial NTC, David Kampf is one example. Good player but not a guy you'd expect to have a LNTC, given his teams cap situation it's likely they conceded on that if he took a smaller number.

Trouba might've been able to secure a NMC for the whole contract had he signed for less. Or one of the best ways not to get traded - play well.

 

[shello]

Didn’t Trouba force his way out of Winnipeg? Also, I players don’t have an issue with what Fox did to Carolina/Calgary, right? So if players can exercise their rights, so can teams

 

[Vukotal Recall]

*Trouba ruins multiple NHLers' lives with vicious illegal elbows*
Players: This is fine

*Trouba gets traded legally*
Players: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

 

[Voight]

The NBA has trade kickers. It's essentially where players who have this clause get an increase in salary if they get traded. Would that work in the NHL?

No because the NHL has a hard cap unlike the NBA.

 

[Epictetus]

He could have just....played better?

 

[dgibb10]

Take less money and get a NMC for the duration of the deal. There's lots of players who take less money in exchange for either a NMC or partial NTC, David Kampf is one example. Good player but not a guy you'd expect to have a LNTC, given his teams cap situation it's likely they concede don that if he took a smaller number.

The only thing I can think of maybe being changed to the CBA is figuring out/modifying how protections apply in regards to expansion teams.

 

[Yepthatsme]

Because it's not a real problem and 99.9% of us would straight up WALK to Anaheim if it meant 3 lifetimes of financial stability for our entire families.

Your comment is almost as tone-deaf as Marie Antoinette. Let them eat pucks.

Tone deaf: having or showing an obtuse insensitivity or lack of perception in matters of public perception, opinion, or taste.

Oh the irony, not caring about problems that effect people because they don’t effect us is the definition of tone deaf. 99.9% of us didn’t put in 1/10th of the work an NHL player put in to get to that point. Just because we’d gladly get paid millions to play hockey doesn’t mean the people who do can’t have problems, just like how you can have problems despite their being rampant homelessness.

Everyone here would be irate if their employer found a loop hole to breach their contract, its tone deaf to say it’s not a problem because it happened to someone more successful than you.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The NBA has trade kickers. It's essentially where players who have this clause get an increase in salary if they get traded. Would that work in the NHL?

I know the cap isn't the same in the NBA but does that kicker count against the cap?

 

[Goose]

When you have a history of playing hardball in negotiations and you underperform your contract at $8/mil a year when you're only 30, I don't have a problem with what NYR did here.

I believe in being human where you can, and not unnecessarily screwing with players (see Babcock benching Spezza), but this is just pure business and if Drury could move all of that $8 mil, he absolutely has to do it.

 

[Tawnos]

Some of the suggestions here would create nightmares for teams and players. Having a no trade list also apply to waivers means any player with a partial list would need to be asked to provide that list any time they need to be waived. Given cap accrues daily, they would need to provide that list in a matter of a few hours, or would have to give up the “provide at time of request,” and provide it at the beginning of the season and could not then be modified. Administrative nightmares for both teams and players.

Additionally, waivers is partially meant to give fringe and marginal players an NHL playing option while providing the worst teams the ability to get access to those players. This scenario removes the “competitive balance” aspects of the waiver system, as well as eliminating options from fringe players to remain in the NHL.

Taken together, there are many reasons both the players’ union and the owners would quickly say “no” to any such proposal.

Players submit their no trade lists on a specific date, usually July 1, and they’re valid for a full season. They’re not an “as needed” situation.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I actually do agree that players should be able to negotiate waiver-pickup protection like they do trade protection

It sounds nice in theory, and I’m far from a CBA/Rulebook expert but seems like it might be complex and convoluted in practice.

And then what’s next? Players want protection from buyouts and healthy scratches? Because teams have other recourse in these situations.

 

[Barrie22]

Some of the suggestions here would create nightmares for teams and players. Having a no trade list also apply to waivers means any player with a partial list would need to be asked to provide that list any time they need to be waived. Given cap accrues daily, they would need to provide that list in a matter of a few hours, or would have to give up the “provide at time of request,” and provide it at the beginning of the season and could not then be modified. Administrative nightmares for both teams and players.

Additionally, waivers is partially meant to give fringe and marginal players an NHL playing option while providing the worst teams the ability to get access to those players. This scenario removes the “competitive balance” aspects of the waiver system, as well as eliminating options from fringe players to remain in the NHL.

Taken together, there are many reasons both the players’ union and the owners would quickly say “no” to any such proposal.

Just a little rule clarification, the lists need to be handed to the team sometime during the offseason before the season starts. It's not a list that gets updated daily or even at the time of request.

 

[dgibb10]

It sounds nice in theory, and I’m far from a CBA/Rulebook expert but seems like it might be complex and convoluted in practice.

And then what’s next? Players want protection from buyouts and healthy scratches? Because teams have other recourse in these situations.

As a GM I would negotiate waiver protection into every single one of my contracts to specifically apply to rival teams.

Every single player NJD signs would have a 1 team waiver protection clause saying the Rangers can't claim them on waivers.

 

[Barrie22]

Tone deaf: having or showing an obtuse insensitivity or lack of perception in matters of public perception, opinion, or taste.

Oh the irony, not caring about problems that effect people because they don’t effect us is the definition of tone deaf. 99.9% of us didn’t put in 1/10th of the work an NHL player put in to get to that point. Just because we’d gladly get paid millions to play hockey doesn’t mean the people who do can’t have problems, just like how you can have problems despite their being rampant homelessness.

Everyone here would be irate if their employer found a loop hole to breach their contract, its tone deaf to say it’s not a problem because it happened to someone more successful than you.

It's not a loophole to breach there contract though, every player and at the least agent should know that no trade clauses come with this exact uncertainty about there careers.

 

[dgibb10]

I actually do agree that players should be able to negotiate waiver-pickup protection like they do trade protection

And I would then as a GM immediately give full waiver protection to all of my depth signings preventing them from being taken from waivers

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

GMs represent the ownership group, didn't think I had to spell that out. A move like this is cleared through ownership.

Oh please. The GM’s job is to build a winning team. This isn’t a cost cutting measure to save the owner a few bucks.

 

[DearDiary]

 

[Yepthatsme]

It's not a loophole to breach there contract though, every player and at the least agent should know that no trade clauses come with this exact uncertainty about there careers.

Placing a player on waivers for the purpose of being sent down (or having the flexibility to do so), and other teams having the chance to claim them to keep them in the NHL is the purpose of that mechanic. The mechanic was not made so that a team can negotiate with another team to ensure they take said player and receive back picks and players (basically a trade, while avoiding the clause once again), and then use this as a threat to force a player to forego a stipulation in their contract that both parties agreed to. Abusing a system and using it for reasons it was not intended is the definition of a loop hole.

Anyone who is ok with this should also be ok with Vegas circumventing the cap with “injured” players for the playoffs. You can’t get mad at one team for abusing a system and not the other.

 

[Barrie22]

Placing a player on waivers for the purpose of being sent down (or having the flexibility to do so), and other teams having the chance to claim them to keep them in the NHL is the purpose of that mechanic. The mechanic was not made so that a team can negotiate with another team to ensure they take said player and receive back picks and players (basically a trade, while avoiding the clause once again), and then use this as a threat to force a player to forego a stipulation in their contract that both parties agreed to. Abusing a system and using it for reasons it was not intended is the definition of a loop hole.

Anyone who is ok with this should also be ok with Vegas circumventing the cap with “injured” players for the playoffs. You can’t get mad at one team for abusing a system and not the other.

Nobody forced Trouba to waive his contract.

 

[FissionFire]

Between the way the Rangers handled Goodrow and Trouba, I have to think players will think long and hard before signing any deals with Drury. I think you already saw some of this with Igor’s full NMC for the entire contract.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

*Trouba ruins multiple NHLers' lives with vicious illegal elbows*
Players: This is fine

*Trouba gets traded legally*
Players: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

I’m sure there are plenty of players who are pissed about the way he plays, not really thread worthy tho

Between the way the Rangers handled Goodrow and Trouba, I have to think players will think long and hard before signing any deals with Drury. I think you already saw some of this with Igor’s full NMC for the entire contract.

I had a feeling NMC protection was part of why he shot down the earlier deal.

Especially with multiple expansion drafts expected towards the tail end of his contract, he wasn’t trying to get Fleury’d

 

[BLNY]

Don't want to be put on waivers, negotiate a NMC. Trouba may not like what the Rangers did, but it was well within their right under the terms of the contract.

I expect you'll see more players trying to get NMCs. Waivers is a legitimate tool for teams and if the number of NMCs goes up it should come at the cost of cap hit.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Some of the suggestions here would create nightmares for teams and players. Having a no trade list also apply to waivers means any player with a partial list would need to be asked to provide that list any time they need to be waived. Given cap accrues daily, they would need to provide that list in a matter of a few hours, or would have to give up the “provide at time of request,” and provide it at the beginning of the season and could not then be modified. Administrative nightmares for both teams and players.

Additionally, waivers is partially meant to give fringe and marginal players an NHL playing option while providing the worst teams the ability to get access to those players. This scenario removes the “competitive balance” aspects of the waiver system, as well as eliminating options from fringe players to remain in the NHL.

Taken together, there are many reasons both the players’ union and the owners would quickly say “no” to any such proposal.

This is not a nightmare at all. Submit the no trade list on July 1st. If player is waived and claimants include teams on no trade list, they have option to waive no trade/not. If not, and if no non-no trade list team claimed, player clears.

 

[Tawnos]

Between the way the Rangers handled Goodrow and Trouba, I have to think players will think long and hard before signing any deals with Drury. I think you already saw some of this with Igor’s full NMC for the entire contract.

People have been saying this kind of stuff about the Rangers GMs for 20 years.