Why Aren’t There Many NHL Trades Anymore?
- Thread starter LastWordArmy
- Start date
Juicy Pop
Tank Commander Fedotov
Richiebottles
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Jul 26, 2010
- 16,371
- 1,250
uncleben
Global Moderator
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
Parity is not from the salary cap. It's from an increase in the talent pool. The KHL/SEL are providing other areas for player growth and Bettman started the whole USHL or was at least very influential in its growth the past 2 or so decades. Before there was very little to help kids in the US to succeed, which is why only once in a while you'd get a Lafontaine, Roenick, Modano etc. Now American players are coming from everywhere.
The salary cap issue is creating other friction which is exacerbated by the increased talent pool.
There is so much talent out there, we should just get rid of the cap all together or loosen the grip a bit. This part of the game needs to be re-evaluated and updated to meet the requirements of todays league.
The salary cap issue is creating other friction which is exacerbated by the increased talent pool.
There is so much talent out there, we should just get rid of the cap all together or loosen the grip a bit. This part of the game needs to be re-evaluated and updated to meet the requirements of todays league.
paulhiggins
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2006
- 2,807
- 827
GMs who blow all their money long before the season starts and have nothing left. Some years before, like Dave Nonis when he was GM. Like spending the welfare cheque on cigarettes and having no money for food the next week.
IslesNorway
Registered User
Good point. GMs throw millions of dollars at mediocre players in the summer and when the season starts their hands are tied. In addition there's the expansion draft looming further barring trades as GMs will not like to give up assets to aquire a player they might lose after the season.
Also, when players are signed to lengthy deals it makes them harder to trade.
ponder719
M-M-M-Matvei and the Jett
-Changing of the guard with a lot of teams of old school smashmouth hockey vs analytics and possession hockey. Now a lot of teams dive into analytics and fancy stats of players and if they dont like the underlying numbers they dont pull the trigger
-Parity
-Salary cap
-Expansion draft
-Canadian dollar still struggling/budget conscious teams
-Teams less willing to blow draft picks anymore and most try to build through draft
-Parity
-Salary cap
-Expansion draft
-Canadian dollar still struggling/budget conscious teams
-Teams less willing to blow draft picks anymore and most try to build through draft
Jerzey Devil
Jerzey-Duz-It
I never understood the term "Hockey Trade/NHL Trade" and I'm left wondering where all of the "Hockey Trades" are in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. I'm guessing they just call them trades.
go4hockey
Registered User
Without a cap we would go back to the same junk we had for years before the cap was put in. You would have 6-8 teams spending 90+ mill and the rest of the league spending 30-60 mill per and the league would be junk again there would only be a few teams to going for cups. With the cap in you need to Run your organization right or your going to stink, you can't just go out and toss big $$$ around to win. The Redwings did this for years and won lots of cups spending double what most teams spend.
hockeyheadlines
Registered User
What one team wants, another had the most difficult time getting. Hard to make trades that even out.
LastWordArmy
Registered User
Final four teams 2000-2004
2004) Philly, Tampa, Calgary, San Jose
2003) New Jersey, Ottawa, Minnesota, Anaheim
2002) Detroit, Colorado, Carolina, Toronto
2001) Colorado, St.Louis, Jersey, Pittsburgh
4 years.... 14 different final four teams (max possible is 16)... only 2 teams went twice.
Last four years
2016) Pittsburgh, Tampa, San Jose, St. Louis
2015) Tampa, Rangers, Anaheim, Chicago
2014) Rangers, Montreal, Los Angeles, Chicago
2013) Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Pittsburgh
Rangers goes 2x
Pittsburgh goes 2x
Los Angeles goes 2x
Tampa goes 2x
Chicago goes 3x
Only 10 different teams now...
Wait a second.... the idea that there is more parity now than there was pre-cap doesn't really hold water.
The fact is the cap wasn't needed for parity... it was all about salary control and cost control. The idea that it was needed so small markets could compete, thats the big lie that Bettman told the fans so that they would come back after the work stoppage.
Trapper
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 24,658
- 12,824
Parity isn't for your final 4 teams though. It's for the teams they believe would be out of the playoff race by January. Parity is so you believe your team can make the playoffs until they don't. It just extends the don't. Hence the reason the NHL won't go to a 3-2-1 point total. Everyone gets a participation point.
Prairie Habs
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 12,269
- 13,420
If you only look at the final four maybe. Its almost as if you purposefully picked a single stat over a very specific period of time where your argument held up.
CrypTic
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2013
- 5,069
- 81
I don't understand how the salary cap is hurting young talent. As you said, that comes from increasing the number of young players. If there were many top players leaving the NHL for Europe, I'd understand your argument. But by far the vast majority (i.e., almost all) of yp[ North American players stay in the NHL and the NHL still attracts many top European players. So how does the salary cap affect the amount of young talent?
IMO the salary cap (along with revenue sharing) is good for young talent bc it attracts more fans in new areas. e.g, LV, AZ, Carolina, FL. Some young fans will want to play and some small fraction of them will be good enough to play in the NHL. Until the European leages are bleeding talent from the NHL, I think the salary cap increases the young talent available, not decreases it, which IMO is good for the game.
1) Salary Cap: Teams have to think harder about is this a player we can really afford
2) Drafting and development importance: When so many Championship teams have gotten many of their key guys via drafting and developing, other teams tend to eventually become reluctant to trade future assets
3) Team financial constraints: Budget teams
2) Drafting and development importance: When so many Championship teams have gotten many of their key guys via drafting and developing, other teams tend to eventually become reluctant to trade future assets
3) Team financial constraints: Budget teams
KingsFan7824
Registered User
As is usually the case with stats, you can pick which ones you want to use to make your point.
1997) NYR, Phi, Det, Col
1998) Buf, Was, Det, Dal
1999) Buf, Tor, Col, Dal
2000) NJ, Phi, Dal, Col
Could throw 1996 in there for the West, and that was Col and Det.
Go back to the 80's, with no cap, and little free agency, certainly not to the extent that we know today, and Edmonton dominated most of the decade.
But yeah, the cap was not about parity. It was about that cost control. As we can see, even with the cap, Chicago has won 3 Cups between 2010 and 2015. Which is the most in such a short amount of time since the 80's.
The one thing the cap has done is it's made GM's have to be more like Sather in Edmonton with no cap, and not Sather in NY with no cap. Same guy, but he was two different GM's depending on what context he was in. Had to be smart in Edmonton, gave Holik $1 billion in NY. The Rangers didn't even win for all that money they spent(didn't even make the playoffs), and all they did was drive up salaries. They could afford that, but a growing number of franchises at the time couldn't. Then you get into the discussion of what the NHL is; is it a partnership between the owners working under the same umbrella, or is it every franchise for itself trying to put each other out of business in order to increase market share?
Snatcher Demko
High-End Intangibles
- Oct 8, 2006
- 6,041
- 1,495
Trade deadline is also earlier than it used to be.
Move it later a couple of weeks and a lot more teams could be sellers.
Move it later a couple of weeks and a lot more teams could be sellers.
CodeE
step on snek
Most teams use the advances in technology to draft better, develop better, have better understanding of their development and how far along they are.
This allows GMs to, in a sense, act not so differently from fanbases on hfboards. We think this prospect has a shot to be a top-pairing defenseman. If you look at these cherry-picked advanced stats our 2nd line center is one of the best in the league. This veteran isn't impossible to acquire but you're going to have to impress us with an offer. An inherent bias develops - try playing fantasy hockey/football/whatever - you run into tons upon tons of players who only want to trade if you overvalue their assets and undervalue yours.
So, that leads to players only getting traded when external circumstances force the move. Look at all the major trades - anyone half-knowledgeable about the sport can understand the motivations. Edmonton traded Hall for Larsson because they badly needed RHD. Montreal traded Subban because he fell out of favor with management. Johansen also fell out favor with management. Colorado traded O'Reilly because he wanted too much money.
Too often the logic behind trade proposals on this forum isn't based on "what trade would help both teams", but rather "what would I give up to get this other player on my team". All that does is lead to Hamonic-for-Eberle and Plekanec, Beaulieu, 1st for Tavares type of deals where the logic behind the proposal is one-sided. Like the guy from Pawn Stars - this is the best offer I can give you. Everyone wants to be the guy standing behind the counter, deciding exactly what this player's value is and finding it completely irrelevant if the other team values their assets highly because they want to set the price.
On hfboards, it turns into "let me tell you exactly how great my guys are and exactly how badly yours suck". In real life, it's probably more of a polite "no thanks, I like my own guys" and that's that. NHL 17 is actually pretty accurate in this aspect - it's easy as hell to get Roberto Luongo or a 4th line grinder, but when you start trying to get Doughty or Tarasenko, the game will essentially tell you "make it worth my while or don't bother". But very few blockbuster trades come as a complete surprise these days.
This allows GMs to, in a sense, act not so differently from fanbases on hfboards. We think this prospect has a shot to be a top-pairing defenseman. If you look at these cherry-picked advanced stats our 2nd line center is one of the best in the league. This veteran isn't impossible to acquire but you're going to have to impress us with an offer. An inherent bias develops - try playing fantasy hockey/football/whatever - you run into tons upon tons of players who only want to trade if you overvalue their assets and undervalue yours.
So, that leads to players only getting traded when external circumstances force the move. Look at all the major trades - anyone half-knowledgeable about the sport can understand the motivations. Edmonton traded Hall for Larsson because they badly needed RHD. Montreal traded Subban because he fell out of favor with management. Johansen also fell out favor with management. Colorado traded O'Reilly because he wanted too much money.
Too often the logic behind trade proposals on this forum isn't based on "what trade would help both teams", but rather "what would I give up to get this other player on my team". All that does is lead to Hamonic-for-Eberle and Plekanec, Beaulieu, 1st for Tavares type of deals where the logic behind the proposal is one-sided. Like the guy from Pawn Stars - this is the best offer I can give you. Everyone wants to be the guy standing behind the counter, deciding exactly what this player's value is and finding it completely irrelevant if the other team values their assets highly because they want to set the price.
On hfboards, it turns into "let me tell you exactly how great my guys are and exactly how badly yours suck". In real life, it's probably more of a polite "no thanks, I like my own guys" and that's that. NHL 17 is actually pretty accurate in this aspect - it's easy as hell to get Roberto Luongo or a 4th line grinder, but when you start trying to get Doughty or Tarasenko, the game will essentially tell you "make it worth my while or don't bother". But very few blockbuster trades come as a complete surprise these days.
TrillMike
Registered User
Along with parity and all the other previously stated topics, I wonder if demand is an issue. Off the top of my head, it seems like every team wants the same type of defender or scoring forward. (Maybe that's just HF). If GMs are in fact calling on the same exact guy's, I'd imagine that costs are soaring.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,336
- 33,965
General Fanager
Registered User
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
GDT: Sat Nov 16th, 7pm Oilers at your Toronto Maple Leafs.- Latest: The Hanging Jowl
-
