Toggle sidebar

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

Big McLargehuge

Big McLargehuge

Fragile Traveler
May 9, 2002
72,188
7,742
S. Pasadena, CA
I love how easy you make it to trade a player with a full NMC who has repeatedly stated no intention of leaving.

Even if the Penguins were to move Malkin it'd be to a hand-picked destination that would have absolutely no reason to pay a fair price. I'd much rather see Malkin, who has earned the right to choose how he exits Pittsburgh, decide how things end, than force a divorce for a scratch-off lottery ticket. This isn't a video game, the Penguins don't jumpstart a rebuild by 5 years by trading someone who, realistically, has little trade value in this environment and has repeatedly and recently stated his desire to stay.

Post a picture of Gretzky in a different jersey if you want, it won't change who owns the Penguins nor change Malkin's personality. Those are the two who wield the power here, and neither wants to move on. Malkin's contract is up after next season, if he wants to move on that's the opportunity. That's that.

I'm not insane enough to expect a Cup run every year. Penguins fans long ago accepted the impending darkness with glee because of the heights achieved. I want to see my organization treat legends like, well, the legends they are and not just another line on a spreadsheet. Malkin earned that right. Crosby earned that right. Ovechkin earned that right.

cowboy82nd said:
Man, how can you post this? It's just wrong!!! Johnny U should never have left.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, the Colts weren't even Johnny U's first NFL team.

GOilers88 said:
The f*** did I just read?!?

That would be a terrible league.
Click to expand...

Also wondering who these mystery teams are that's buying all of these older guys on huge contracts in a flat cap scenario in which everyone is trying to get younger.

Critical thought is important, people. Guys like Ovechkin make their employers more than they earn even before we get to the on-ice part of the conversation. This is not a scenario in which these guys are unjustly leeching off of an unassuming host...
 
Last edited:

heysmilinstrange

Registered User
Nov 10, 2016
3,321
4,765
I can't believe teams don't simply put their franchise players out to sea on an ice floe once they turn 30. Sure, some posters here will argue that this might upset fans, but organizations can build excitement for a rebuild by simply having their players take pre-game naps in a coffin once they turn 28 or so.
 

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
Its those mid prime deals that seem to be the poison,take a player like Hyman... Good all around player but as a UFA at 29 and wanting term ,Toronto needs to not be the team that gives him a massive deal here
 
Mickey Marner

Mickey Marner

Registered User
Jul 9, 2014
19,442
21,034
Dystopia
And replace them with what, worse players? Last season Malkin had 74 points in 55 games, Ovechkin won the rocket, Toews led the Hawks in playoff scoring and Stamkos is still a PPG center at an affordable cap hit.

It isn't clear when a player is going to fall off and most of these guys have trade protection anyhow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: txpd

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
Korg said:
And replace them with what, worse players? Last season Malkin had 74 points in 55 games, Ovechkin won the rocket, Toews led the Hawks in playoff scoring and Stamkos is still a PPG center at an affordable cap hit.

It isn't clear when a player is going to fall off and most of these guys have trade protection anyhow.
Click to expand...
Yeah this makes sense,when u are dealing with top end players that you have listed...Making the playoffs makes the teams they play for money,but its a hard decision at times with certain players
 
82Ninety42011

82Ninety42011

Registered User
Jul 2, 2011
7,585
5,538
Abbotsford BC
Said players are usually worth more to the team there than anywhere else. These aging stars also sell tickets and give the team a marketing tool. Not to mention NTC, NMC, etc. Besides who wants an aging star on a bloated contract and give assets to acquire?
 

DeysArena

Registered User
Oct 5, 2020
804
907
When a franchise player declines, nobody blames management. They blame time or the player.

If you trade a franchise player and his career revives, everyone blames management.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mouser
Devil Dancer

Devil Dancer

Registered User
Jan 21, 2006
18,460
5,447
I suspect the Caps will hold onto Ovie for a least a few more years for marketing purposes alone. The core is getting really old, but they can rebuilt or retool and still sell tickets while Ovie chases the record.

And that's ignoring his production, which is still pretty good. He was over .5gpg and almost PPG this year.
 
DFC

DFC

Registered User
Sep 26, 2013
47,116
23,146
NB
User9992 said:
Why NHL almost never make 'Business decision' trading their post prime franchise players?

For example:
1) Penguins could have traded Malkin years ago when he started to decline but they didn't.
2) Capitals could have traded Ovi years ago when team struggled to get past 2'd round of Playoffs.
3) Few years ago Blackhawks could have kept Panarin trading away declining Toews or Keith. Creating a cap space for 'Bread Man' who had special connection with Kane.
4) Lightning could have traded Stamkos many years ago when he started to decline after injuries he had.
etc.
Click to expand...

Speaking for Stamkos, there's a lot of context needed. I think a lot of people like to see a snapshot of the situation and think they know the whole story.

1. After the broken leg, he had a few REALLY bad years, and it looked like the team was ready to let him walk when he became a UFA. Yzerman made ONE offer, in January, and Stamkos wound up taking it in June.

2. Stamkos actually got his game back and became a more well-rounded player who could still pot 40+ goals. Overall, he might have played his best ever hockey right around when he turned 30. Or at least his most complete, and consistent hockey. But...

3. ...Unfortunately, he's yet to translate that regular season effectiveness into playoff effectiveness. I have a hard time saying he's "declined." But he's never been a great playoff performer, and unfortunately that trend is continuing. He's fine in fast-paced games, but when they get rough and ugly, he goes invisible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: User9992
Lolonegoal

Lolonegoal

Registered User
Jan 25, 2012
2,340
3,103
User9992 said:
Why NHL almost never make 'Business decision' trading their post prime franchise players?

For example:
1) Penguins could have traded Malkin years ago when he started to decline but they didn't.
2) Capitals could have traded Ovi years ago when team struggled to get past 2'd round of Playoffs.
3) Few years ago Blackhawks could have kept Panarin trading away declining Toews or Keith. Creating a cap space for 'Bread Man' who had special connection with Kane.
4) Lightning could have traded Stamkos many years ago when he started to decline after injuries he had.
etc.
Click to expand...
A large part of business is being viewed positively by your employees and customers. Keeping those veterans IS a business move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big McLargehuge
SomeDude

SomeDude

Registered User
Mar 6, 2006
17,200
28,116
Pittsburghish
decaguard said:
short term gain , long term pain
Click to expand...

The damage done to your fanbase and brand by shipping off franchise icons is not short term.

No team is going to give much more than a late first for most of these past-their-prime stars. With that you have approximately 15% chance of that pick turning into an impact player in 4 or 5 years. Casual fans don’t care about that, they want to see “their guys” retire in their city.

It’s one thing if the player has never one a Cup and it can be spun as the team "owing" the player a chance before they retire. The players listed have nothing to prove or add to their legacy by adding another ring as a mercenary.

It's funny the OP says that teams not trading aging stars is bad business. They keep them solely for business purposes. Players get to the point that their name/legacy is worth more to the franchise than what they can bring in return if traded.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Big McLargehuge
DingDongCharlie

DingDongCharlie

Registered User
Sep 12, 2010
11,362
9,328
mouser said:
Contract dispute and holdout. Not comparable to anything discussed here so far.
Click to expand...

Lots of players hold out only to sign with their respective teams.

Even if you want to say the teams hand was forced this still traded a star player in his prime/close to exit and got an even better one in return in time. Kind wonder if teams moving their exiting prime guys could get a comparable find
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom