Value of: Question: When Can Recently Signed UFAs Be Traded?

[Neutrinos]

I didn't have much luck with a Google search, so I'm still unsure if there's a time period teams must wait before they're allowed to trade a player they've just signed in the off-season

For example, could the Blackhawks trade Domi right now? And if so, are there any restrictions with Chicago retaining salary?

I use Domi as an example because he only signed a 1 year deal, and given Chicago isn't expected to be competitive this season, I assume he joined the Blackhawks knowing full well the team's plan is to give him a significant role for the first half of the season in the hopes he'll have considerable value come the trade deadline

 

[Fledgemyhedge]

I’m not positive they can but it would turn off future UFAs from signing with the team

 

[Peter Griffin]

I’m not positive they can but it would turn off future UFAs from signing with the team

This. I don’t think there’s anything preventing it, but it would certainly piss off that player and his agent and likely not help negotiations down the line.

 

[Curufinwe]

I don't think are any restrictions unless the player has a NTC or NMC.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Pretty sure there is no formal restriction, but if a team signed a guy and immediately retained on him to another team, there would be an investigation.

If a guy signs a contract, gets arrested, and then gets flipped with retention... it might fly.

If a guy signs a contract and is flipped with retention despite nothing occurring to reasonably cause that "change of heart", I suspect the transaction would be voided and there could be serious punishment.

 

[Altimus]

restrictions like that would be contract based, so case per case basis.

 

[ACC1224]

Don't most UFA's get partial or full NTC/NMC anyway?

 

[Qwijibo]

I think the only time you’d potentially run into trouble is if you signed a player that just went UFA then traded him with retention to the team he played for immediately before hitting free agency. I think there would be a clear case of collusion.

 

[playasRus]

I can't see a scenario where it would happen.

Team A: Hey Player, want to sign with us?
Player: No

Team A: Hey Team B, can you sign this player for us and we'll give you FC?
Team B: Sure

Team B: Hey Player, want to sign with us?
Player: Okay

Team B trades Player to Team A.

Otherwise, cap troubles/regrets after signing said UFA?

 

[The Nuge]

Pretty sure there is no formal restriction, but if a team signed a guy and immediately retained on him to another team, there would be an investigation.

If a guy signs a contract, gets arrested, and then gets flipped with retention... it might fly.

If a guy signs a contract and is flipped with retention despite nothing occurring to reasonably cause that "change of heart", I suspect the transaction would be voided and there could be serious punishment.

We actually nearly saw that happen this summer. Holland reportedly nearly had Hughes sign Klingberg and retain salary to fit Klingberg under our cap

 

[Rec T]

As others have mentioned, I don't think there's a defined time frame. However if it's really soon (say within a month or two of acquisition) it's going to piss off the player (especially if he just moved his family to town & then has to immediately uproot them again), agent, etc.

It may not matter too much in the long run to the traded player, but for the team that did it, it might make free agents/players with NMCs shy away from that particular team in the future. It's just not a good look*

At least hold off on trading them until the All Star break/Trade Deadline as is the case with many trades.

*of course if an insane overpayment was offered for the player, one where pretty much everyone would say the team would be really dumb not to take it, that might go over a little bit better (when even the player involved would be saying "Yeah, they had to take that offer" (I can't think of any examples though))

 

[DomBarr]

Pretty sure there is no formal restriction, but if a team signed a guy and immediately retained on him to another team, there would be an investigation.

If a guy signs a contract, gets arrested, and then gets flipped with retention... it might fly.

If a guy signs a contract and is flipped with retention despite nothing occurring to reasonably cause that "change of heart", I suspect the transaction would be voided and there could be serious punishment.

for sure unless the return is easily seen as an overpay
IE Calgary signs Kadri and then trades him at 50% retained to Colorado for Byrum and 2 1sts (this is totally fictional and in no way is meant to constitute a proposal). Would the league actually think it was collusion and circumvention considering what Calgary got in return?

 

[Neutrinos]

I’m not positive they can but it would turn off future UFAs from signing with the team

This. I don’t think there’s anything preventing it, but it would certainly piss off that player and his agent and likely not help negotiations down the line.

I can't see a scenario where it would happen.

Team A: Hey Player, want to sign with us?
Player: No

Team A: Hey Team B, can you sign this player for us and we'll give you FC?
Team B: Sure

Team B: Hey Player, want to sign with us?
Player: Okay

Team B trades Player to Team A.

Otherwise, cap troubles/regrets after signing said UFA?

As others have mentioned, I don't think there's a defined time frame. However if it's really soon (say within a month or two of acquisition) it's going to piss off the player (especially if he just moved his family to town & then has to immediately uproot them again), agent, etc.

It may not matter too much in the long run to the traded player, but for the team that did it, it might make free agents/players with NMCs shy away from that particular team in the future. It's just not a good look*

At least hold off on trading them until the All Star break/Trade Deadline as is the case with many trades.

*of course if an insane overpayment was offered for the player, one where pretty much everyone would say the team would be really dumb not to take it, that might go over a little bit better (when even the player involved would be saying "Yeah, they had to take that offer" (I can't think of any examples though))

I used Domi as an example in the OP because he only signed a 1 year deal, and given Chicago isn't expected to be competitive this season, I assume he joined the Blackhawks knowing full well the team's plan is to give him a significant role for the first half of the season in the hopes he'll have considerable value come the trade deadline

 

[Tobias Kahun]

for sure unless the return is easily seen as an overpay
IE Calgary signs Kadri and then trades him at 50% retained to Colorado for Byrum and 2 1sts (this is totally fictional and in no way is meant to constitute a proposal). Would the league actually think it was collusion and circumvention considering what Calgary got in return?

Calgary could sign kadri, retain 50% and trade him for futures and the NHL wouldn’t do anything.

 

[DomBarr]

Calgary could sign kadri, retain 50% and trade him for futures and the NHL wouldn’t do anything.

I think if Calgary signed him and traded him to the Avalanche at 50% retained for futures the league would say no...other teams they may say ok but not the Avalanche that would just be a glaring example of circumvention that would need to be stopped before Vegas got into the act.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

for sure unless the return is easily seen as an overpay
IE Calgary signs Kadri and then trades him at 50% retained to Colorado for Byrum and 2 1sts (this is totally fictional and in no way is meant to constitute a proposal). Would the league actually think it was collusion and circumvention considering what Calgary got in return?

They would definitely investigate... but if they could prove that it wasn't discussed before the signing, it might fly. Hard to say since there is no precedence. If it was discussed before the signing, they would absolutely reject the deal and punish both parties.

We actually nearly saw that happen this summer. Holland reportedly nearly had Hughes sign Klingberg and retain salary to fit Klingberg under our cap

Link? Not doubting, just the first I've heard of this.

 

[The Nuge]

They would definitely investigate... but if they could prove that it wasn't discussed before the signing, it might fly. Hard to say since there is no precedence. If it was discussed before the signing, they would absolutely reject the deal and punish both parties.

Link? Not doubting, just the first I've heard of this.

Friedman mentioned it on his podcast.

Oilers News & Rumors: McLeod, Gagner, Klingberg, Patrick Kane - The Hockey Writers Edmonton Oilers Latest News, Analysis & More

In an Edmonton Oilers news and rumors update, there is buzz surrounding Ryan McLeod, Sam Gagner, John Klingberg and Patrick Kane.

thehockeywriters.com

 

[Rec T]

I used Domi as an example in the OP because he only signed a 1 year deal, and given Chicago isn't expected to be competitive this season, I assume he joined the Blackhawks knowing full well the team's plan is to give him a significant role for the first half of the season in the hopes we'll have considerable value come the trade deadline

Well sure, players joining a lousy team on a one year deal pretty much know that they're going to be shopped around in the 2nd half of the season. Hopefully they factored that into the contract negotiations before going to that team.

'I guess I was thinking of in my reply, the team signing a UFA to a multi year contract & then almost immediately trading that player elsewhere. That's probably not going to sit very well with that player (especially older ones with families involved).

 

[Curufinwe]

Don't most UFA's get partial or full NTC/NMC anyway?

No, most don't.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

They would definitely investigate... but if they could prove that it wasn't discussed before the signing, it might fly. Hard to say since there is no precedence. If it was discussed before the signing, they would absolutely reject the deal and punish both parties.

Link? Not doubting, just the first I've heard of this.

Discussing it before the trade or signing isn’t against the cba

 

[belair]

Instantly. But if you do it your GM rating goes down and you lose a phone.

 

[Nico Cauzuki]

unless he has a full NMC they can trade him right away but that sends the wrong message to future UFAs

 

[Jumptheshark]

I personally think it is camp circumvention if said players signs with team B but knowing full he would get traded right away to Team A with team B retaining cap

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Discussing it before the trade or signing isn’t against the cba

Yeah... as I said. Doesn't mean it would be allowed.

 

[BurgoShark]

NHL wouldn’t stop it. They allowed the Orpik one, which was an obvious case of circumventing the cap.