Why NHL teams don't trade their post prime franchise players?

[Garbageyuk]

There have been a few instances when teams did trade off their post prime players, as when the NY Rangers and Sens traded off their stars to jumpstart their rebuild. NYR traded off its 1D in McDonaugh and few roster players, and Ott traded away its 1W and 1D in Stone and Karlsson. I have to admit these players aren't franchise level players AKA Malkin/ Stamkos.

Cheapskate owners behind virtually every example of this. NYR being one of the only exceptions.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Ah late stage capitalism infecting sports.

Because humans are complex and sometimes the bean counters get it wrong.

Using the Sedins as examples, you could argue that the Canucks would be 'better off' if they had dealt the twins for a 1st, a 2nd, and a prospect in 2016 or so. But what about loyalty? What about the human aspect?

Let's not forget, we as fans aren't going to get a million dollars if our team makes the playoffs or wins the cup.

There's something to be said for star players developing a relationship with their city. I'm glad the Sedins retired as Canucks, I think they earned that much.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Who the hell wants a post prime franchise player? The team giving them up likely wants too much in return, because they were franchise players after all. The team getting them likely doesn't want to give up too much, because they're franchise players on the downswing. You have to try and fit what is likely a large contract into your payroll structure. You can't give up the young pieces you need to negate that stupid contract.

If a guy has a year left on a contract, sure, maybe they can be dealt. If they have a NMC, and he already has a Cup, then you're stuck. If you're inching into your early to mid 30's, and you've got half a decade on your contract, you're just not worth anything. Not in a trade. You're not bringing back the 20 year old version of what you used to be. Not in a hard cap league anyway.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Because aging stars still put butts in seats?? And generate merch sales.

 

[TopShelfYzerman]

bc hockey culture fetishizes "loyalty"

Why did you have to use the word "fetishizes"

 

[ScaredStreit]

If the Caps trade Ovi are they really doing what's best for business? Ovechkin puts butts into seats, eyes on the television, and sells merch. There's maybe 2-3 current NHL players that random sports fans could name and he's one of them.

The NHL is absolutely a business and the truth is most teams in most sports let their stars play with them during their twilight because they still make the team money.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

bc hockey culture fetishizes "loyalty"

100% this.
The sooner more GM see players are properties and assets and are cutthroat, the better off the NHL will be.
Loyalty is irrelevant. You are paying millions for production; if that production decreases, then see ya and we'll replace ya with someone younger.

The ideal NHL would have no one over 28-30, basically.

 

[Conbon]

Flames are terrible for this. Held on to Iginla for too long and now it's Giordano. We would be in a way better spot right now if we didn't hold our guys way past their prime until they lose a ton of value.

 

[robsenz]

Malkin and Stamkos declined a few years ago? I think their PPG states otherwise.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Would you want to work for a company that dumped every employee they had at 35 years old for younger/cheaper ones?

 

[boredmale]

Malkin and Stamkos declined a few years ago? I think their PPG states otherwise.

When guys are consistently in the top 5 for scoring but later on aren't even top 20, even if they are scoring at a good pace, you can argue they declined

 

[Samsquanch]

Because when teams like Ottawa trade their stars like Karlsson and Stone - guys that technically never won anything, and were a part of an epic collapse as they were turning into UFAs (but still scheduled to get paid 10m + per year long term) - will nearly cause an implosion with the fan base. And management people will be sacrificed like lambs at a pagan dance party.

Now add in some cups and trophies, and your in a situation that you now must sign these players and hope for the best in the long term. And sometimes it works out (like with the Pens), and sometimes it does not (like with Chicago).

At least speaking as a fan of a team that did not get baited into signing their star UFAs to stupid contracts prior to winning or proving anything - I do believe that most teams in a similar spot would be wise to sell high while they are able to.

Karlsson is a shadow of his former self, and Mark Stone is still a friggin beauty - but the reality is that he has two (4) game pointless streaks in the playoffs this year, and 3 of those games were elimination games for his team. And 8pts in 16gp isnt good enough for a 10m/yr player thats 28yrs old and has 6 years left on his contract.

When its a cup winning player, the answer is not nearly as cut and dry though for the team letting them go.

 

[King 88]

Hard to get good price for past prime players with big contracts. They are more useful for their own team than sell for low.

 

[ijuka]

I honestly don't know. I would do it. There's no way paying the big bucks for some 8 years for these players well past their prime is the best thing to do.

 

[cowboy82nd]

This is easy. Why would you trade a guy that has won 4 of the last 5 Rocket Richard Trophies? You also understand that Ovechkin is a cash cow. He makes so much money for the team from licensing that there is no way the Caps could legally pay him what he is worth to them.

Remember. These are businesses. This is just wrong.

Man, how can you post this? It's just wrong!!! Johnny U should never have left.

 

[Reality Czech]

bc hockey culture fetishizes "loyalty"

You say that as if "loyalty" is a bad thing. Most hockey fans aren't stat nerds that play fantasy hockey, and teams benefit greatly from having popular stars to use as the face of their franchise from a marketing perspective. Not only that, these players develop a relationship with the community and often they don't even want to move on and start over in a different city. When a players gives so much to a franchise, why not stay loyal to him?

Also, just because a player is past his prime doesn't mean he can't greatly help a hockey team. Two key players of the Blues championship team were Steen and Bouwmeester, two players that many Blues fans had given up on. Experience matters a lot

 

[txpd]

Man, how can you post this? It's just wrong!!! Johnny U should never have left.

That was my point

 

[DJB]

While it’s the worst regular jersey on Blues history, it’s hilarious how badly people want to denigrate the Blues around here.

That post had NOTHING to do with the Blues lol.

 

[SoupNazi]

Long term contracts with NMC and NTC, and also marketing appeal. The average fan cares more about the big name and is likely to be turned off by the trade of a big name star that they remember for winning the team a Cup than about how the player has performed recently.

 

[Pens x]

Because at some point their value to the team/community transcends their on ice value. Crosby and Malkin ushered in the most successful era in Penguins history, won 3 cups and countless awards. They deserve to retire as Penguins. Fans would revolt if they were traded.

Fans would revolt if Sid was traded but not Letang or Malkin. You could argue Fleury was more popular than Geno or Letang. The whole “lazy Russian” narrative is still a thing. Plus, Geno is always hurt; I think you could trade him and there would be little unrest. I’m a big Geno fan, for the record.

I still think he could sign somewhere else if he really wants to chase his fourth cup. He won’t be able to achieve that in Pittsburgh with our current coach and management.

 

[txpd]

Ah late stage capitalism infecting sports.

Late stage eh?

 

[txpd]

The research is pretty conclusive. Fans of pro sports don't like consistent and significant turnover in the rosters of their favorite teams. Being able to keep a core of players together that fans get to know and become attached to over the years has proven to be successful.

 

[ClydeLee]

I assume you think they should in the context of it will get them assessts to win sooner? But does it really work that way? Who has had that kinda successful path when they didn't already have the new stars around yet.

Teams that try to do that to do a tear down heavy rebuild dont see success in 5 years. So I wouldn't call it a greater path to success

 

[ChuckLefley]

That post had NOTHING to do with the Blues lol.

Based on the usual stuff posted on this forum and the picture he selected I would say it wasn’t a stretch to think it was an anti-Blues post, but thanks for jumping in and to be a tool…after he already cleared that up.

 

[GOilers88]

100% this.
The sooner more GM see players are properties and assets and are cutthroat, the better off the NHL will be.
Loyalty is irrelevant. You are paying millions for production; if that production decreases, then see ya and we'll replace ya with someone younger.

The ideal NHL would have no one over 28-30, basically.

The f*** did I just read?!?

That would be a terrible league.