Is players scuttling trade deals going to be a regular thing now?... Even with teams not on their NMC list?

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Businesses love to complain about workers being cutthroat mercenaries with no loyalty but the second they start laying people off, weakening benefits or lowering pay "at the end of the day it's a business".

Two way street.

 

[TheBeard]

So do you think more players are going to do what Hanifin did in the trade?
...ie. You can trade for me but when my contract is up I won't re-sign with you.

I think players will and thus players with term are suddenly going to be the players traded more than rentals.

This isn’t new, however players are undoubtedly getting increasingly more vocal about specific locations they want to go instead of merely remaining with the team they play for out of loyalty.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

NTC are killing the smaller market, and cold market teams. NHL would be smart to negotiate them out of the next CBA, would probably help grow the game, too.

I'll play along.

The NHL is going to ask players to give up all NTC rights in the next CBA. That's a major thing for the players.

What major thing are the owners giving up in return? The right to buyouts? Linkage to HRR? The cap, for a luxury tax? Cause if the players are giving NTCs up, they're not doing that without a massive similar giveback by the owners, and I don't see the owners giving anything on that order up in return.

 

[Curufinwe]

This is a non-issue. Teams have been trading for pure rentals for 50 years.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

GM's care about no trade or movement clauses. Owner's care about money. They aren't taking away something the players want that costs them zero dollars.

 

[Voight]

They've been doing this for a few years now, especially out of Calgary.

Only Tkachuk and Hanifin have done so.

I can't blame Tkachuk. The team had just lost its best/second best player and was going nowhere. Why would he waste his prime years there?

 

[crackdown44]

Hopefully it becomes a thing. More power to the players

 

[Melrose Munch]

Canadian teams need better management but hard to feel sorry for them.

Cap will be 20 years old next year and they have to show for it is one top team in the league (Vancouver) being favoured over the American team in the final.

 

[Romang67]

I'll play along.

The NHL is going to ask players to give up all NTC rights in the next CBA. That's a major thing for the players.

What major thing are the owners giving up in return? The right to buyouts? Linkage to HRR? The cap, for a luxury tax? Cause if the players are giving NTCs up, they're not doing that without a massive similar giveback by the owners, and I don't see the owners giving anything on that order up in return.

Players will be allowed to wear the numbers 0 and 00 on their jerseys. Take it or leave it.

 

[I am Canadian]

I'd argue the fault is on Calgary for not dealing this guys in the summer. They dragged their feet and now aren't getting as much value for all these guys.

It's pretty clear that they weren't going to be a contender, but management probably wants some playoff revenue.

 

[Peltz]

Free agents should like... have the agency to be free.

I mean... would you prefer the player's agent lie and say they are considering signing when not interested?

There's no winning in either situation unless you're actually suggesting that players not have a right to determine where they spend the next few years of their lives when they become free agents.

 

[Rubi]

I agree with a lot of people here but clubs are going to look for a solution.
Perhaps clubs will start trying to sign, more often than happens now, their high end players to 7 or 8 year contracts when players are 23 or 24 years of age? Clubs will try to maximize their investment return on a player and it might be easier to accept a lower return on a leaving player who's 30-31 than 27-28.
Of course that means clubs will have to pony up a lot more initial money to the players than they do now and they won't like that.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I hate the way that the author tries to word this. It implies Hanifin was doing something unethical, being difficult and not a hashtag GOOD GUY

Noah Hanifin completely and totally hijacked that trade process. Basically any team that had called… and I’m told the Flames had two to three different trades that were nearing the finish line that were scuttled by Hanifin’s camp because invariably the team makes a call to the agent and says ‘Hey we’re thinking about trading for this guy, what are the chances we could get him to sign a contract extension?’ And the answer was always, ‘No, no, he’s not re-signing with you.’

bolding is mine.

Does anyone seriously think Hanifin owed it to Calgary to be completely on board to sign a 7 or 8 year contract extension with any team in the League just so that they could get a better trade return for him? Not even in a legal sense, but in a "if you're a good guy, you'll do us a solid here" sense? It's his career, his free agency... if he didn't want to sign with a particular team then what's so bad about that? That's quite literally how it works with a player that is a pending Unrestricted Free Agent. You either get the "rental value" for a guy that will only play about 20 regular season games and however deep they go in the postseason (risky to trade a ton of value if it's a quick exit), or they get can get a bit more value to the small number of teams that the player would be ready to sign an extension with on the spot.

Hanifin didn't "hijack" anything. He was just honest about his intentions.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It’s called negotiation. The players will get something in return in the next CBA.

I understand what a CBA negotiation is. What do you propose the players will get in return for giving up having any remote control over their careers along with their restricted salaries?

 

[ottawagm]

That's how we ended up with Brannstrom for Stone. It's the Vegas way.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I'll play along.

The NHL is going to ask players to give up all NTC rights in the next CBA. That's a major thing for the players.

What major thing are the owners giving up in return? The right to buyouts? Linkage to HRR? The cap, for a luxury tax? Cause if the players are giving NTCs up, they're not doing that without a massive similar giveback by the owners, and I don't see the owners giving anything on that order up in return.

Exactly this.

If GMs have a major problem with NTCs, they need to talk to the owners about serious concessions in the next CBA.

 

[Dabeast]

Feels like people are only mad about this now because the benefactors are southern teams like Vegas and Florida as much as the Rangers and Leafs are

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Feels like people are only mad about this now because the benefactors are southern teams like Vegas and Florida as much as the Rangers and Leafs are

People are mad about

* Players decide to go to "no income tax" cities, and that's "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that
* Players get huge signing bonuses from high-revenue teams that small-revenue teams can't fork out, and that's "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that
* Some teams can't spend more money on players, and that's "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that
* Players exercise their NTCs to go or not go to certain places, and that's "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that
* Guys decide to take less to go to certain teams, and that's "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that
* Teams that are really bad, or who are bad for more than a couple years, are "obviously tanking" and that's "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that
* GMs decide to sign players to long contracts and then players suck, and that's "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that
* Probably a dozen other things people can quickly list, that are "unfair" and rules "need to be fixed" for that

There's so much unfairness going on, I can't believe some people haven't locked themselves inside a closet and slid the key under the door.

 

[North Cole]

Solution: trade them with enough remaining term such that they are ineligible to negotiate with the new team. They then can't sink the deal by saying no.

If you trade someone close enough to UFA that they can talk to teams and you let them talk to teams for the express purpose of getting more value if they agree to a long term deal, you can't be mad when the value drops because they don't take a long term deal. Lmfao. You want your cake and eat it too?

 

[Melrose Munch]

Feels like people are only mad about this now because the benefactors are southern teams like Vegas and Florida as much as the Rangers and Leafs are

Please. Florida was getting FAs even when they sucked 15 years ago.

People are mad because they think the cap was supposed to even things out and it didn't, it just saved more money.

 

[madmike77]

That's going to suck for a lot of teams. There seems to be 4 or 5 teams that are a destination of choice. The rich get richer while the rest of the league fights for the leftovers.

Pretty much. Even though hockey is played on ice, players seem to want to play in the warm U.S. markets.

 

[Dabeast]

Please. Florida was getting FAs even when they sucked 15 years ago.

People are mad because they think the cap was supposed to even things out and it didn't, it just saved more money.

Everyone gets FAs all the time. What big time players sought out Florida until ~3 years ago? The cap was always designed to save owners money btw

 

[madmike77]

As for FA I don’t have an issue with the players going where they want to go. But I will say it has significantly reduced my interest in hockey in general.

I don’t care about individual players any more because they don’t stick around. And I don’t really care about the teams because they’re generally owned by rich jerks.

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

I've said for a long time that all NTC should be void for the week leading up to the trade deadline in the final year of a contract before UFA status.

 

[Maple Leaf]

I would be pissed if

Hopefully it becomes a thing. More power to the players

i was traded