What mechanisms (if any) exist to prevent direct sabotaging of a roster by a gm/owner?

[bobholly39]

GM of Edmonton gets pissed off (at his boss, at the NHL, at life - something) and trades Connor McDavid to NJ for a 6th round pick.

Or - owner of Pittsburgh gets upset in similar fashion and decides to trade Crosby to Toronto for a 4th round pick.

Are there any safeguards in place to prevent such trades?

If a GM does a trade that his owner doesn't agree with - is there some sort of "quality check" where owner can intervene and cancel, saying his GM went crazy and they don't want to go with it?
What about if the owner himself is the one out to sabotage a team and so fully commits to doing a garbage trade - are there any type of "quality check" around the league to prevent that? Does the NHL have to approve/disapprove of every trade - and if so do we know what the criteria is for such an approval?

Can the league block a McDavid to NJ for a 6th pick simply because the value seems unfair, even if Edmonton were fully wanting to do so?


Kind of extreme examples i know - but I'd love to understand the various mechanisms in play in this regard.

Bonus question - has such a move/trade ever happened in NHL history where it was an obvious example of sabotage?

Click to read more...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I believe in the bylaws, there is a Commissioner override for conduct that is clearly and overtly detrimental to the league.

 

[BlueBaron]

Yeah anything blatantly stupid would not get put through and would probably see a call to that team's President.

Of course you overlook the obvious mechanism. Wanting future employment and not being a disgrace that gets humiliated all over the media for being a petty little dick.

 

[Canada4Gold]

If they really wanted to screw over their team, might as well go full stop and trade for a bunch of cap dumps instead of a late pick.

But yeah, can't imagine this passes. League likely puts a stop to it.

 

[Mattb124]

Capitalism

 

[Michael Farkas]

I could have sworn in the late 1970's the Flyers made a deal that was so lopsided that the league halted it...but given that I can't find any evidence of that, I'll assume I made it up. But this kind of stuff, if not collectively bargained, is part of the league's rarely seen (by design) by-laws...

 

[Maukkis]

NHL has to approve every deal made by teams, so I'd imagine that any catastrophically bad deal would be vetoed by Bettman.

 

[Bandit]

NHL has to approve every deal made by teams, so I'd imagine that any catastrophically bad deal would be vetoed by Bettman.

It happens. Kings had a trade for Ziggy Palffy that was gonna send garbage to NYI. Bettman vetoed it and the Kings had to include Jokinen IIRC.

 

[bobholly39]

Yeah anything blatantly stupid would not get put through and would probably see a call to that team's President.

Of course you overlook the obvious mechanism. Wanting future employment and not being a disgrace that gets humiliated all over the media for being a petty little dick.

Second paragraph - of course. Im saying what if someone doesn't care? What if GM just doesn't care, or the team owner, etc. People go through crisis/crazy in life all the time and do crazy things. So outside of those obvious common sense reasons you're listing that would prevent this in most cases - i'm asking if the league has any actual power to cancel a trade.

NHL has to approve every deal made by teams, so I'd imagine that any catastrophically bad deal would be vetoed by Bettman.

Do we know if this is an actual thing and if so how it works? Or are we just assuming there is an approval process? (ie - is the approval process an actual quality check, or simply a confirmation that both teams signed the proper forms/confirmed the deal, etc).

So - does Bettman just unilaterally decide "well - McDavid is worth more than a 6th round pick so this is cancelled". Or are there actual metrics (ie it can't be for $$, it can't surpass a certain number of players involved etc - and if all criteria are met he can't just say it's a bad trade and deny).

Also. Edmonton trades McDavid not for a 6th round pick but a 1st round pick. Or - trades him for....Shae Weber. Or Phil Kessel. Not nearly as lopsided as trading for a 6th round pick - can commissioner still decide "yeah - not good enough cancelled".

 

[BlueBaron]

Second paragraph - of course. Im saying what if someone doesn't care? What if GM just doesn't care, or the team owner, etc. People go through crisis/crazy in life all the time and do crazy things. So outside of those obvious common sense reasons you're listing that would prevent this in most cases - i'm asking if the league has any actual power to cancel a trade.

Someone having a nervous breakdown is a legit concern but as already stated, anything crazy would not get passed the NHL office. You would need to be very subtle to actively seek to destroy a team. Sort of like that guy in Montreal.

McDavid is a bad example because he is so critical to the league's marketing plans so his name would get too much attention. Short of him demanding a trade the league would have to wonder why the Oil would do this and inquire about the GM's mental health.

A crazy owner though could be a bigger problem. Gary is such a dictator though that he would hit the "Detrimental to the League" button pretty fast if anything too bizarre was put forward.

I should also add that the NJ GM would almost certainly not try to do the deal and alert their team president. You aren't going to help yourself or your team's image by exploiting someone having a break down.

 

[Bandit]

Second paragraph - of course. Im saying what if someone doesn't care? What if GM just doesn't care, or the team owner, etc. People go through crisis/crazy in life all the time and do crazy things. So outside of those obvious common sense reasons you're listing that would prevent this in most cases - i'm asking if the league has any actual power to cancel a trade.



Do we know if this is an actual thing and if so how it works? Or are we just assuming there is an approval process? (ie - is the approval process an actual quality check, or simply a confirmation that both teams signed the proper forms/confirmed the deal, etc).

So - does Bettman just unilaterally decide "well - McDavid is worth more than a 6th round pick so this is cancelled". Or are there actual metrics (ie it can't be for $$, it can't surpass a certain number of players involved etc - and if all criteria are met he can't just say it's a bad trade and deny).

Also. Edmonton trades McDavid not for a 6th round pick but a 1st round pick. Or - trades him for....Shae Weber. Or Phil Kessel. Not nearly as lopsided as trading for a 6th round pick - can commissioner still decide "yeah - not good enough cancelled".

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/21/sports/sp-48759

Old, but I'm sure it's basically the same now: at his discretion.

 

[Tom Collins]

Of course you overlook the obvious mechanism. Wanting future employment and not being a disgrace that gets humiliated all over the media for being a petty little dick.

All of this.

The scenarios OP posted aren't even burning bridges, that's torching the bridge and the surrounding 3 counties.

 

[The Macho King]

GM of Edmonton gets pissed off (at his boss, at the NHL, at life - something) and trades Connor McDavid to NJ for a 6th round pick.

Or - owner of Pittsburgh gets upset in similar fashion and decides to trade Crosby to Toronto for a 4th round pick.

Are there any safeguards in place to prevent such trades?

If a GM does a trade that his owner doesn't agree with - is there some sort of "quality check" where owner can intervene and cancel, saying his GM went crazy and they don't want to go with it?
What about if the owner himself is the one out to sabotage a team and so fully commits to doing a garbage trade - are there any type of "quality check" around the league to prevent that? Does the NHL have to approve/disapprove of every trade - and if so do we know what the criteria is for such an approval?

Can the league block a McDavid to NJ for a 6th pick simply because the value seems unfair, even if Edmonton were fully wanting to do so?


Kind of extreme examples i know - but I'd love to understand the various mechanisms in play in this regard.

Bonus question - has such a move/trade ever happened in NHL history where it was an obvious example of sabotage?

They also (probably) have a fiduciary duty based on their contracts to not act in bad faith.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

If a rogue GM tried to trade McDavid for a 6th round pick without the consent or against the wishes of the owner, that would be blocked. No doubt. I don't even think that's possible as I'm pretty sure all potential deals have to be signed off with the owners anyway.

If an owner tried to trade a player for something silly, that's much different. I don't know if the League could or would block that. Generally the League wants to give the impression to prospective and current owners of being able to do whatever you want with your toy once you've bought your way into the club.

 

[member 105785]

I believe all trades have to be signed off on by ownership.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Capitalism

Caps lost a few defenseman in the offseason but come on.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So - does Bettman just unilaterally decide

No. Bettman is a spokesman for the owners.

 

[Oilers Propagandist]

Id seriously seppuku myself if McDavid got traded for a 6th round pick.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

If a rogue GM tried to trade McDavid for a 6th round pick without the consent or against the wishes of the owner, that would be blocked. No doubt. I don't even think that's possible as I'm pretty sure all potential deals have to be signed off with the owners anyway.

If an owner tried to trade a player for something silly, that's much different. I don't know if the League could or would block that. Generally the League wants to give the impression to prospective and current owners of being able to do whatever you want with your toy once you've bought your way into the club.

I don’t know any better than you do. But my impression I s that in theory the league has a lot of power over what the teams can and can’t do, and have a final say over basically any transaction — something ownership signs into when investing in a franchise.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the league could veto any deal like that and then force a sale of the team on the basis that the ownership is not acting in good faith.

 

[RealityBytes]

Any heavy lopsided trade could be possible collusion to make a team better and would be blocked by the league.

 

[rent free]

why would the gm do something cynical like this? they would lose their job over something stupid

 

[OnceWasNot]

Marc Bergevin has proven that no such mechanism exists.

 

[Irishguy42]

Do we know if this is an actual thing and if so how it works? Or are we just assuming there is an approval process? (ie - is the approval process an actual quality check, or simply a confirmation that both teams signed the proper forms/confirmed the deal, etc).

So - does Bettman just unilaterally decide "well - McDavid is worth more than a 6th round pick so this is cancelled". Or are there actual metrics (ie it can't be for $$, it can't surpass a certain number of players involved etc - and if all criteria are met he can't just say it's a bad trade and deny).

Also. Edmonton trades McDavid not for a 6th round pick but a 1st round pick. Or - trades him for....Shae Weber. Or Phil Kessel. Not nearly as lopsided as trading for a 6th round pick - can commissioner still decide "yeah - not good enough cancelled".

Yes-ish. The teams in the league do not make trades without the NHL being a third party, so to speak.

Insiders like McKenzie, Friedman, Lebrun, etc always talk about "blah blah trade will happen pending trade call."

I imagine the NHL handles all the paperwork as well, so they see everything. In terms of approval and whatnot to prevent say...McDavid for a 6th round pick, I imagine the NHL "vets" the trade before making the official trade call, just to make sure no outlandish business happens. But I imagine they might be more hands off on that. Unclear how hands-on they would be, since we don't see everything.

Part of me thinks they don't give two shits and just laugh about how lopsided some trades are internally.

 

[rojac]

To be honest, I think the main reason for the trade call is to make sure that the trade doesn’t result in cap violations, any NMC/NTCs involved have properly waived, and that it doesn’t violate any other league rules.

 

[dechire]

It depends on who is doing it. If it were a GM acting on their own then I'm sure the League would step in. But Gary Bettman's job is to represent the interests of the owners. And if an owner wants to throw his team in the garbage I'm not sure that Bettman would prevent it. There have been many shitty owners that drove their franchises into the ground over the years and Bettman didn't do much if anything to prevent it because his job is just to do whatever the owners want and the way he keeps his job is by allowing them to make stupid choices if they want