Which team(s) in this year's playoffs will blow it up/make big changes?

[avocadosmoothie]

If the Avs were in any other division they would still be in the playoffs.

I'd they had gotten out of the Central they would have ended up winning the SC. If just happens that this year's SCC was decided in the first round.

Oilers are on a different level than the Avs this year

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

Not Washington. I expect they’ll try to make a move for another center (Eller has sucked and Lapierre ain’t it, at least not in DC) and maybe another top 6LW as well to alleviate Ovechkin’s minutes but other than that, they’re looking like rinse and repeat for next season.

 

[2023FriendshipTour]

The obvious choice is LA/Toronto. This might not be the thread, but the Wild are looking to cook next year with all that cap and young talent coming up.

 

[Summer Rose]

The obvious choice is LA/Toronto. This might not be the thread, but the Wild are looking to cook next year with all that cap and young talent coming up.

Yeah, the Wild are going to be looking to make some big additions with their newfound cap space, but it'll be more adding to what they have already than shaking up their core, which is my opinion of what "blowing it up" means.

 

[Strangle]

Likely none of them

It’s nearly impossible to make real hockey trades in the modern NHL.

You see stuff like the Colorado/carolina trades maybe once or twice a decade

The NHL has totally f***ed up player movement and teams ability to make changes. You’re pretty much locked into your draft picks and UFA signings.

The players have all the power in where they play and the teams have almost none.

It’s bad

 

[Bruce Granville]

Why should the Leafs blow it up?
This is their best playoff performance for decades…so far.
6 wins!
They can still go all the way.

 

[atlanticobserver]

Likely none of them

It’s nearly impossible to make real hockey trades in the modern NHL.

You see stuff like the Colorado/carolina trades maybe once or twice a decade

The NHL has totally f***ed up player movement and teams ability to make changes. You’re pretty much locked into your draft picks and UFA signings.

The players have all the power in where they play and the teams have almost none.

It’s bad

Teams don’t have to give players NMCs.

 

[Captain Controversy]

Brisebois already said Cooper is back for next year and doesnt see anyone else as coach going forward. Cooper said the org is the best run in the league, Tampa is the only place his kids know, he doesn’t want to go anywhere. Im not really sure where the smoke around Cooper even came from but doesn’t seem like there’s anything to it. Frankly it’s tough to put that series on him. He had a bad challenge in game 1 but otherwise not much he could have done

Cooper would he promoted I would think.

 

[BurnabyJoe7]

It was a 7 game series with two of Dallas wins being in overtime? Getting smoked is getting swept or eliminated in 5. Colorado was two bounces away from sweeping Dallas yet besides the point anyone who wasn’t a complete casual knew that series was gonna go to the wire and if anything is likely the real WCF

Dallas was missing their best d and second best f and the Avs still couldn't get in done. They didn't get smoked but your comment before of them making it out of any other division and that first round being the SCFs doesn't hold weight. Avs have won only one series since 2022

 

[jackjohnson]

No, it's because 95% of the fan base doesn't live on HF analyzing every move and they still need to sell tickets to keep their job.

Blowing up a team needs to be a mandate from ownership.

If some of these HFboard posters were the GMs they would blow the team up every year and trade for picks until they had no roster players and just picks then they would trade those prospects after 3 years since they are considered too old and busts and rinse and repeat

 

[jackjohnson]

Despite getting a new GM, I don't expect the Kings to look much different next season. Hiller is still the coach and won't be fired.

Hiller being the coach again would just mean another 1st round exit against the Oilers in playoffs next year.

 

[Nikishin al Gaib]

Teams don’t have to give players NMCs.

If you want to sign any UFA you kind of do because of you don't, someone else will. Especially for top end players

 

[Strangle]

Teams don’t have to give players NMCs.

Theoretically, by the rules they don’t.

Practically, they absolutely do because the players hold all the negotiating power and hold all the power in where they play.

Which stars and super stars in the league do not have some form on trade protection?

 

[MoneyManny]

Teams don’t have to give players NMCs.

If they want to ever compete they absolutely do.

 

[atlanticobserver]

Cooper would he promoted I would think.

Promoted to what though? I don't think he wants to be a GM and I don't think he will have any more of an expanded role than he already has considering he basically has carte blanche to do whatever he wants with the team in Tampa. Doubt he would have a better relationship with another GM than he does with Brisebois. And it's not like there are really that many more appealing jobs even if he had his pick of the other 31 teams.

 

[atlanticobserver]

If they want to ever compete they absolutely do.

Right, but my point was in response to the previous poster saying that players have too much control over where they play, and the GMs/owners have no say. That's just not true. If you give NMCs and NTCs out like candy to try to get guys at a better cap hit or a different term length, then that might come back to bite you down the road. As a GM, you're the one drawing the contracts up. You have every right not to give an NTC out to any potential signees. The whole job is deciding who is going to be a positive asset for my hockey team and determining what price and how many years that player is worth to you.

 

[atlanticobserver]

If you want to sign any UFA you kind of do because of you don't, someone else will. Especially for top end players

I meant in the cases of certain players, not making a blanket statement that a GM is going to have 20+ guys under contract without an NTC/NMC. Obviously it is kind of a necessity/inevitability. But the context I was referring to was that GMs don't have adequate ability to choose where players play, but that really just seems like copium for a bad GM. Good GMs structure contracts so that they can move a contract if needed, even with the various clauses attached.

 

[atlanticobserver]

Theoretically, by the rules they don’t.

Practically, they absolutely do because the players hold all the negotiating power and hold all the power in where they play.

Which stars and super stars in the league do not have some form on trade protection?

You're absolutely right, but you can't just throw your hands up and say the GMs and owners have no say in where a player plays as you kind of implied.

What I meant was that nobody forced Toronto, per se, to give Marner a full NMC that prevented his going to Carolina. Maybe you pay him an extra [insert dollar figure here] a year and make it a 24 team NTC.

Point is, that is part of the job of being a GM--deciding who is worth that kind of contract. The best GMs create flexibility by having the clause kick in in X year or end in Y year or change to a lower level of trade protection in Z year. All I'm trying to say is that you can't blame a player who earned their contract for not waiving the trade protection that their GM afforded them and act like the GM had no agency in the matter.

 

[TheGroceryStick]

Look at the top 5 (or so) threads All about the leafs.

You guys really love us eh

 

[drktmplr12]

Look at the top 5 (or so) threads All about the leafs.

You guys really love us eh

Just because when you read a thread talking about terrible contracts by GMs, doesn't mean it's about TOR. People used to think the sun went around the earth, too.

 

[behemolari]

are we already in this phase of Torontos schedule?

- This is the year
- Choke
- Break the core
- Nothing happens
- repeat

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Kings have most of their current roster re-signed for next year but I feel like it might be them after yet another first round exit and a new GM.

Ken Holland is infamous for running it back. I don’t think he’ll break up the team. I expect a big free agent addition but that’s it.

 

[Strangle]

You're absolutely right, but you can't just throw your hands up and say the GMs and owners have no say in where a player plays as you kind of implied.

What I meant was that nobody forced Toronto, per se, to give Marner a full NMC that prevented his going to Carolina. Maybe you pay him an extra [insert dollar figure here] a year and make it a 24 team NTC.

Point is, that is part of the job of being a GM--deciding who is worth that kind of contract. The best GMs create flexibility by having the clause kick in in X year or end in Y year or change to a lower level of trade protection in Z year. All I'm trying to say is that you can't blame a player who earned their contract for not waiving the trade protection that their GM afforded them and act like the GM had no agency in the matter.

How do you know no one forced the GM to give the NMC to Marner? You don’t know what happened or was said in negotiation.

You think player agents aren’t demanding these or their client won’t sign a deal?

Players get top money and NMC. Every player you’d want to trade to make a hockey trade is like this. It’s not just Mitch Marner.

I agree that GM’s should band together and stop this but obviously they can’t because the next GM will give it out and they’ll lose the player for nothing to FA

I don’t believe GM’s are just giving out trade protection because they’re nice guys

 

[atlanticobserver]

How do you know no one forced the GM to give the NMC to Marner? You don’t know what happened or was said in negotiation.

You think player agents aren’t demanding these or their client won’t sign a deal?

Players get top money and NMC. Every player you’d want to trade to make a hockey trade is like this. It’s not just Mitch Marner.

I agree that GM’s should band together and stop this but obviously they can’t because the next GM will give it out and they’ll lose the player for nothing to FA

I don’t believe GM’s are just giving out trade protection because they’re nice guys

But think about it for a second.

99 times out of 100, a team gives a player an NMC/NTC essentially in exchange for a bit of a lower AAV on their contract. The player gets added security to their life by avoiding being uprooted from their home and family in a way that is beyond their control, and they are usually happy to shave a little off the top in exchange for that. In the interest of cap space, the GM is usually pretty happy to oblige in most cases.

Agents make their money by taking a cut of the contract they helped to secure for their clients. NMCs and NTCs typically drive contract value down from a monetary standpoint. It's pretty unlikely that the push for one of those clauses is being driven by an agent. I'm not 100% certain, but it stands to reason that that kind of request would come from the player. Also, I just don't think the agents have as much power as you might. Most contract negotiations do not stall out, meaning that both sides are typically getting what they want in terms of a signing. The conversation of "my guy wants this clause in his contract or we walk" is probably not one that most players are in a position to have, especially if a team has their signing rights. Also, if a player is that happy to walk (i.e., over a discrepancy in the contract clauses), I would think a GM would be okay trading the rights of that player or executing a sign-and-trade.

But I won't pretend to be an expert on this. I am not. This is just my $0.02. Worth even less

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Colorado is done if Landeskog doesn't end up permanently on LTIR