2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It's probably because fans want their teams to get better. To the extent that some locations are disadvantaged (in my opinion to an increasing degree the more of these that are signed), it makes sense to try and consider some caps or restrictions around them.

Similar idea to why they try and balance a schedule or create the same type of rules for all teams; to try and create fairness for the league. Should Calgary never be able to compete because 30% of players don't want to play there? Further, if you're Edwards, you think he's just good with that?

But those locations will always be disadvantaged. Players are not going to want to sign there nor will they want to re-sign there, so while you could certainly trade a player there, you’d probably see a lot more of the Jeff Carter in Columbus situation play out.

I think they have less of an effect than people assume they do, and I think the concessions for giving them up would hurt small market teams more (because there’s literally zero chance players give it up without getting another form of location security back).

But again, if GMs had an issue they could just not give them out.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Shorter terms will allow them to make more money and go to their teams earlier.

Give them 1 year of RFA so now 6 years of service in the NHL. That's a ELC and bridge deal and off to UFA you go or you can stay 4 year term.

All you see now in the NHL is a bunch of rumours and no movement, and you can attribute those long deals, capped out league, and NTC.

Wait so you want the players to give up NTC/NMC plus have to accept shorter term deals? That’s not going to happen. The teams aren’t going to want them to get to UFA earlier either. If anything teams are going to fight against players working the system to leave as early as they can. That’s a bigger issue to the owners than NTC/NMC, if the teams cared about NTC/NMC they wouldn’t give them out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Really?

I am sure GM’s and owners have a problem with them but it has become so commonplace in negotiations there is little choice but to include them as part of the negotiation. I am sure owners and GM’s love to lose leverage in trade negotiations when a player blocks a move that would result in a better return for the whole team.

Stating they should just adopt a philosophy they won’t give those out will hinder their ability to sign their own players in the future and any free agents they want to chase.

You are not sure why fans are bothered their team struggles to make moves because they are on everyone’s no trade list or their own players refuse to waive. The Flames fortunes would likely be vastly different had Kadri not blocked a trade here in 2019.

It is beyond ridiculous that someone like Hamonic gets a full NMC in his mid 30’s where he is a fringe player at best. There would likely be double the trades at the draft if 90% of these clauses were removed.

The Hamonic example is good. A NMC helps a small market team sign a player they want to sign for a price that is likely cheaper than without the NMC. Why does management hate this? They are agreeing to sacrifice trade flexibility to get the player they want at the price they want to pay. The alternative is they don’t have that tool so they don’t get the player or pay more. How does that help them?

(without debating whether Hamonic is even worth having)

[PepsiFree]

I also don’t really understand how “build through the draft,” which is an oft-repeated sentiment here, jives with “make it easier for small market teams to acquire aging veterans that don’t want to be here.”

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But again, if GMs had an issue they could just not give them out.

This was the same thing the NHLPA argued when the league wanted the salary cap. If teams wanted to cap their spending, they could do it themselves without a formal salary cap in place. Most of these CBA issues are designed to prevent owners from doing things detrimental to other teams or that may affect competitive balance.

[klikitiklik]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Only 10 no trade clauses have been handed out in the NBA.

8 of those said "Edmonton. In case they are awarded a franchise."

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Hamonic example is good. A NMC helps a small market team sign a player they want to sign for a price that is likely cheaper than without the NMC. Why does management hate this? They are agreeing to sacrifice trade flexibility to get the player they want at the price they want to pay. The alternative is they don’t have that tool so they don’t get the player or pay more. How does that help them?

(without debating whether Hamonic is even worth having)

That is somewhat the problem though. This move in isolation is relatively harmless other than the fact the Sens need to keep Hamonic on the roster next year at minimum (he would be a cheap buyout next summer). This clause shouldn’t even be in question for a player like this but it has become so common that it does exist for guys at the bottom of the roster.

We have seen big market teams fleece small market teams when players demand a trade and only give a list of 1 team they will play for. Boston got Hall for less than the Flames paid to get Jarnkrok. Same with Kane and the Rangers these clauses still give the big market teams leverage.

Personally I am a fan of player movement and trades and feel if they got rid of these clauses (or limited them significantly) coupled with shorter term deals (5/6 years instead or 7/8) we would see a lot more player movement and less regrettable contracts signed.

[MrMike]

Yea but right there why would the players want any part of less term, more movement and less regrettable contracts?

[Jiri Hrdina]

The other thing we have to keep in mind is that the flat cap, largely due to COVID, is a big driver of some of the issues in moving players. I don't know if the owners will attribute the issues to NTCs v. some temporary dynamics that will self correct as the cap starts to behave more normally.

[FlamesAddiction]

If it was all about stability and simply not wanting to uproot your family, then every NMC would have 31 teams on it.

Another way to work around the issue might be to just make every NMC a true NMC. Every team is on there, so every team is equally as affected. If the player wants to be traded or agrees to be traded, then no short lists. They can be traded anywhere or nowhere. Players will get stability if that is what they really want, but teams will also have to really consider whether the player is worth giving the clause to. Players may also give more of a discount to actually get one as well because it will be much more valuable.

The NHL must realize that NMCs can be detrimental for the league as a whole, because they do have a few restrictions on them. If they weren't an issue at all, then every player would be eligible from day 1. The restrictions are not nearly as stringent as other leagues though and I don't think they envisioned 25 years ago that they would be as common in the NHL as they have become.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

If a player requests a trade out, they should be removed in their entirety.

Then a player would never "request a trade out".

They would simply say "I would potentially be open to moving, if the place is somewhere I would like".

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The upcoming CBA.

Term limits and no trade clauses need to be fixed.

The league is gridlocked.

Again, you can't just say no. The players need to agree to it, and they never will.

You'll never get the players to agree to something that the majority of teams don't care about.

[Mr.Coffee]

another thing is that, and this can be handled on a contract by contract basis too and not in CBA negotiations, is that if a player requests a trade their NMC or NTC should be voided. I'm not sure why teams wouldn't have that language in there and maybe they already do but that should absolutely be part of a contract.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

another thing is that, and this can be handled on a contract by contract basis too and not in CBA negotiations, is that if a player requests a trade their NMC or NTC should be voided. I'm not sure why teams wouldn't have that language in there and maybe they already do but that should absolutely be part of a contract.

It's not in there because it's completely ineffective, and even if it was, no one would agree to it..

No player would ever say "I want to be traded".

They would simply say "If you decided to move me, I'd be inclined to accept if I was happy with the destination". They sent the same message but without your intended consequences.

Remember, saying "I want out" has no legal consequences, teams are not obligated to move you. Since it creates no legal obligation on the team to trade you, why would you expect that the NTC should or would get expired?

[Strange Brew]

I’m curious about a model where contract AAV’s equal a percentage of the cap and not fixed dollar amount. It eliminates predicting the salary cap as a competitive differentiator amongst clubs. Set the minimum at 90% every year.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’m curious about a model where contract AAV’s equal a percentage of the cap and not fixed dollar amount. It eliminates predicting the salary cap as a competitive differentiator amongst clubs. Set the minimum at 90% every year.

I’ve also been thinking this is the way.

However, the PA is too dumb to understand escrow so I doubt they’d be able to figure out how essentially a revenue sharing model would work for their pay. I would keep it simple, pay for the 2023-24 season is based on the revenue from 2022-2023, etc. This way at least everyone knows what they’re getting paid for the services they’re about to perform in the upcoming season. The owners get to sit on their profits for a bit until they pay it back out. In the case of going into a massive loss of revenue again, it doesn’t hurt the players paychecks until the following year.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

I’ve also been thinking this is the way.

However, the PA is too dumb to understand escrow so I doubt they’d be able to figure out how essentially a revenue sharing model would work for their pay. I would keep it simple, pay for the 2023-24 season is based on the revenue from 2022-2023, etc. This way at least everyone knows what they’re getting paid for the services they’re about to perform in the upcoming season. The owners get to sit on their profits for a bit until they pay it back out. In the case of going into a massive loss of revenue again, it doesn’t hurt the players paychecks until the following year.

There would still be an escrow in that system.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

I’ve also been thinking this is the way.

However, the PA is too dumb to understand escrow so I doubt they’d be able to figure out how essentially a revenue sharing model would work for their pay. I would keep it simple, pay for the 2023-24 season is based on the revenue from 2022-2023, etc. This way at least everyone knows what they’re getting paid for the services they’re about to perform in the upcoming season. The owners get to sit on their profits for a bit until they pay it back out. In the case of going into a massive loss of revenue again, it doesn’t hurt the players paychecks until the following year.

If the NHLPA really cared about the business, they would discourage their members from refusing to play in some markets. It hurts the product and creates negative press for the league as a whole when it happens.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

There would still be an escrow in that system.

There wouldn’t be. Escrow exists because the players are supposed to be paid based on the expected earnings of the league for the current year. The league holds back some pay (escrow) in order to make sure that they don’t overpay the players relative to the forecasted league income for the current year. At the end of the year, they pay back the difference.

Of course, my understanding could be off but that’s how I think it’s currently working. Right now the players are still paying off the debt from the lower revenue years of covid, but that should be over soon.

In my system, the pay for the current year is based on the revenue from the past year. So on July 1st, 2023 (or whatever), the league can tell the PA “total hockey related revenue last season was 3.2 billion dollars, so 50% of that will be the player’s share to pay out this upcoming year” and would then set the salary cap of each team to 50 million dollars (3.2 billion divided by 32 teams times 50%) and the players that signed for their percentages would get paid for 2023-2024 as their percent times that 50 million number. Of course, all the numbers are selected here for ease of math.

One problem now would be that all 32 teams aren’t spending 100% of the salary cap, but players still need to get 50% of the revenue. So, to fix that let’s give them a bonus at the end of the year that makes the players whole.

After all that is done, the players get their 50% and are guaranteed to take home their money as of July 1st (or whatever the date is) plus a bonus, the owners get their cost certainty, the GMs don’t have to predict a fluctuating salary cap, which will make salary cap management easier allowing them to focus more on building a team instead of managing money, which allows hopefully a better product for the fans.

Of course there will be a lot of details to iron out (what is this bonus going to look like, how do tweeners affect the cap, what do they get paid in the AHL) but that is what people at the NHL and PA get paid for.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

I’ve also been thinking this is the way.

However, the PA is too dumb to understand escrow so I doubt they’d be able to figure out how essentially a revenue sharing model would work for their pay. I would keep it simple, pay for the 2023-24 season is based on the revenue from 2022-2023, etc. This way at least everyone knows what they’re getting paid for the services they’re about to perform in the upcoming season. The owners get to sit on their profits for a bit until they pay it back out. In the case of going into a massive loss of revenue again, it doesn’t hurt the players paychecks until the following year.

I don’t think that either side would agree to something like this for a number of reasons. For the PA it would likely decrease their share of revenues since aside from during the pandemic the league generally sees increases in revenues year over year. From the league’s perspective they would be assuming a huge risk if there was another pandemic. Imagine if they would have had to pay salaries based on 2019/20 revenues during the 2020/21 season without escrow, and then imagine the players whose contracts expired at the end of 2021 and would have to re-sign for the following season based on 2021 revenues. I imagine that some players would have probably gone to the KHL or sat out the year until the revenues bounced back.