2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[stemit14]

These experiences with players leaving the flames have made me wonder what adjustments need to be made by by the league to fix this issue. One of the trademarks of the days of the pre-salary cap era was that Detroit and New York just got all the good players… they could pay them whatever they want and all the players wanted to go there because they paid so much and (in the case of Detroit at least) they were always challenging for a cup.

That’s what this is reminding me of. Tarasenko has apparently told the Senators that he also prefers to be traded to Florida. Not sure exactly what the league needs to do but here are a few ideas:

1. Remove or limit NTCs. Will be tough to get the players to give up NTCs so it might just have to be that every team only gets 2-3 NTC contracts so you don’t have half your team dictating where they go.
2. Make it so contract extensions can be signed 2 years before they expire instead of 1 year. This would give the teams more time to gauge a players interest in re-signing and would allow for a potentially greater return in trade if they were trading a player (who won’t re-sign) with 2 years left on his deal instead of just one.
3. I know it’s unfair to players but maybe extend the RFA period by a year or two. Gives a team more control over a player till they are 27/28 and teams won’t have to buy as many UFA years.
4. Extend the max period of entry-level contracts to 5 years (instead of 3).
5. Strengthen the advantage in signing an extension with a team. Right now, signing an extension with a team lets them add an extra year to the deal. Make it so the max contract length a traded player or UFA player can be signed for is 6 years (instead of 7 years) but signing an extension with a team puts the maximum contract length to 8 years. This might help compensate for the money issue with players going to tax haven states like Florida to make more money.

Obviously doing all of these things is unrealistic but trying to implement a few of them might be possible. I’m not even sure if they will help much. If the league tried to make all these changes at once, there would definitely be another lockout. The hope would be these changes have two effects:

1. Smaller markets and Canadian markets don’t keep losing their talented players to teams in the US.
2. When they do have players that want to leave, the team will have more leverage in trading them if they don’t have a NTC and the team will be able to use the sign-and-trade more effectively by adding 2 full years to a contract signing. If the player that wants out chooses not to agree to a sign-and-trade, they will be denying themselves the financial security of two extra years on their contract. Having more leverage should net greater returns in trades so small market teams aren’t losing good players for pennies on the dollar.

[Flames67]

Originally Posted by stemit14

These experiences with players leaving the flames have made me wonder what adjustments need to be made by by the league to fix this issue. One of the trademarks of the days of the pre-salary cap era was that Detroit and New York just got all the good players… they could pay them whatever they want and all the players wanted to go there because they paid so much and (in the case of Detroit at least) they were always challenging for a cup.

That’s what this is reminding me of. Tarasenko has apparently told the Senators that he also prefers to be traded to Florida. Not sure exactly what the league needs to do but here are a few ideas:

1. Remove or limit NTCs. Will be tough to get the players to give up NTCs so it might just have to be that every team only gets 2-3 NTC contracts so you don’t have half your team dictating where they go.
2. Make it so contract extensions can be signed 2 years before they expire instead of 1 year. This would give the teams more time to gauge a players interest in re-signing and would allow for a potentially greater return in trade if they were trading a player (who won’t re-sign) with 2 years left on his deal instead of just one.
3. I know it’s unfair to players but maybe extend the RFA period by a year or two. Gives a team more control over a player till they are 27/28 and teams won’t have to buy as many UFA years.
4. Extend the max period of entry-level contracts to 5 years (instead of 3).
5. Strengthen the advantage in signing an extension with a team. Right now, signing an extension with a team lets them add an extra year to the deal. Make it so the max contract length a traded player or UFA player can be signed for is 6 years (instead of 7 years) but signing an extension with a team puts the maximum contract length to 8 years. This might help compensate for the money issue with players going to tax haven states like Florida to make more money.

Obviously doing all of these things is unrealistic but trying to implement a few of them might be possible. I’m not even sure if they will help much. If the league tried to make all these changes at once, there would definitely be another lockout. The hope would be these changes have two effects:

1. Smaller markets and Canadian markets don’t keep losing their talented players to teams in the US.
2. When they do have players that want to leave, the team will have more leverage in trading them if they don’t have a NTC and the team will be able to use the sign-and-trade more effectively by adding 2 full years to a contract signing. If the player that wants out chooses not to agree to a sign-and-trade, they will be denying themselves the financial security of two extra years on their contract. Having more leverage should net greater returns in trades so small market teams aren’t losing good players for pennies on the dollar.

Not much you can do to sidestep the tax imbalances, but I would suggest that players in no-low tax states/provinces pay more in dues to the NHLPA than players in high taxed markets.

[Flames67]

^ Not sure if it's just the NHLPA that they pay into, but some method that is actually within the NHL's control

[traptor]

Originally Posted by stemit14

These experiences with players leaving the flames have made me wonder what adjustments need to be made by by the league to fix this issue. One of the trademarks of the days of the pre-salary cap era was that Detroit and New York just got all the good players… they could pay them whatever they want and all the players wanted to go there because they paid so much and (in the case of Detroit at least) they were always challenging for a cup.

That’s what this is reminding me of. Tarasenko has apparently told the Senators that he also prefers to be traded to Florida. Not sure exactly what the league needs to do but here are a few ideas:

1. Remove or limit NTCs. Will be tough to get the players to give up NTCs so it might just have to be that every team only gets 2-3 NTC contracts so you don’t have half your team dictating where they go.
2. Make it so contract extensions can be signed 2 years before they expire instead of 1 year. This would give the teams more time to gauge a players interest in re-signing and would allow for a potentially greater return in trade if they were trading a player (who won’t re-sign) with 2 years left on his deal instead of just one.
3. I know it’s unfair to players but maybe extend the RFA period by a year or two. Gives a team more control over a player till they are 27/28 and teams won’t have to buy as many UFA years.
4. Extend the max period of entry-level contracts to 5 years (instead of 3).
5. Strengthen the advantage in signing an extension with a team. Right now, signing an extension with a team lets them add an extra year to the deal. Make it so the max contract length a traded player or UFA player can be signed for is 6 years (instead of 7 years) but signing an extension with a team puts the maximum contract length to 8 years. This might help compensate for the money issue with players going to tax haven states like Florida to make more money.

Obviously doing all of these things is unrealistic but trying to implement a few of them might be possible. I’m not even sure if they will help much. If the league tried to make all these changes at once, there would definitely be another lockout. The hope would be these changes have two effects:

1. Smaller markets and Canadian markets don’t keep losing their talented players to teams in the US.
2. When they do have players that want to leave, the team will have more leverage in trading them if they don’t have a NTC and the team will be able to use the sign-and-trade more effectively by adding 2 full years to a contract signing. If the player that wants out chooses not to agree to a sign-and-trade, they will be denying themselves the financial security of two extra years on their contract. Having more leverage should net greater returns in trades so small market teams aren’t losing good players for pennies on the dollar.

I definitely agree that something needs to be done.

With the PA it's going ti have to be more carrot and less stick related solutions.
I dont think the PA will ever let 1, 3 and 4 happen.

I think 5 is definitely something to look into. There needs to be more incentive for a player to re-sign with their current team.

I also think the NHL needs to explore a dynamic handicapped salary cap with different markets having different caps based on variables like tax.

[Icon]

I just want a trade so we can start talking about something new instead of talking ourselves in circles.

Plus I don't want to work, gimme a trade!

[Monahammer]

I think it should be even more dramatic. 5 year max contracts for free agents, 7 year if you have been with the team since the trade deadline, and 10 year if you were drafted by the team (with a limit that a team can only have 2 of these "franchise" contracts at a time).

Teams need to receive more benefit for controlling player rights.

[Yeah_Baby]

Any discussion with the league and PA about removing or limiting stats with the NHL getting rid of the escrow and I can't see the League wanting that.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think it's going to go the other way. Players are going to demand more say in where they live/play. Earlier free agency and if they can't get that you will see more players basically be very transparent about their intentions to force it.

So unless the NHL gives us something significant to the PA, I don't see how they get any restrictions into the CBA.

[Muta]

I actually do find the 'smaller market, NTCs/NMCs, better weather in other places, more tax, etc.' conversation that we have here in Canada quite exhausting, if not insufferable, and has been for many years. We definitely hear it all the time in Calgary. In many ways, it's one of the things that really turns me off from the league, and that has increased recently.

A competitive, even playing field between all markets would be nice. Not sure how that is accomplished though.

[MissTeeks]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1765415448634343627

[joejoe3]

Originally Posted by Icon

I just want a trade so we can start talking about something new instead of talking ourselves in circles.

Plus I don't want to work, gimme a trade!

Then we’ll be complaining about the return instead

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by jessnuts

It’s 3/6 and my 36th birthday. No game score to affect with birthday magic, so what does the DaVinci code tell us this means?

A $6M player under contract for three more potential playoffs will be traded today.

Happy birthday!

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think it's going to go the other way. Players are going to demand more say in where they live/play. Earlier free agency and if they can't get that you will see more players basically be very transparent about their intentions to force it.

So unless the NHL gives us something significant to the PA, I don't see how they get any restrictions into the CBA.

Best case scenario, if the players want to demand more say lets shorten the contract lengths to 4 years. 7 and 8 is way too long.

No more anxiety about handing out 8 year deals to 29 year old players.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by stemit14

These experiences with players leaving the flames have made me wonder what adjustments need to be made by by the league to fix this issue. One of the trademarks of the days of the pre-salary cap era was that Detroit and New York just got all the good players… they could pay them whatever they want and all the players wanted to go there because they paid so much and (in the case of Detroit at least) they were always challenging for a cup.

That’s what this is reminding me of. Tarasenko has apparently told the Senators that he also prefers to be traded to Florida. Not sure exactly what the league needs to do but here are a few ideas:

1. Remove or limit NTCs. Will be tough to get the players to give up NTCs so it might just have to be that every team only gets 2-3 NTC contracts so you don’t have half your team dictating where they go.
2. Make it so contract extensions can be signed 2 years before they expire instead of 1 year. This would give the teams more time to gauge a players interest in re-signing and would allow for a potentially greater return in trade if they were trading a player (who won’t re-sign) with 2 years left on his deal instead of just one.
3. I know it’s unfair to players but maybe extend the RFA period by a year or two. Gives a team more control over a player till they are 27/28 and teams won’t have to buy as many UFA years.
4. Extend the max period of entry-level contracts to 5 years (instead of 3).
5. Strengthen the advantage in signing an extension with a team. Right now, signing an extension with a team lets them add an extra year to the deal. Make it so the max contract length a traded player or UFA player can be signed for is 6 years (instead of 7 years) but signing an extension with a team puts the maximum contract length to 8 years. This might help compensate for the money issue with players going to tax haven states like Florida to make more money.

Obviously doing all of these things is unrealistic but trying to implement a few of them might be possible. I’m not even sure if they will help much. If the league tried to make all these changes at once, there would definitely be another lockout. The hope would be these changes have two effects:

1. Smaller markets and Canadian markets don’t keep losing their talented players to teams in the US.
2. When they do have players that want to leave, the team will have more leverage in trading them if they don’t have a NTC and the team will be able to use the sign-and-trade more effectively by adding 2 full years to a contract signing. If the player that wants out chooses not to agree to a sign-and-trade, they will be denying themselves the financial security of two extra years on their contract. Having more leverage should net greater returns in trades so small market teams aren’t losing good players for pennies on the dollar.

FWIW - giving Tarasenko some call in where he gets traded was allegedly part of the deal with him signing in Ottawa.

Edit: Tarasenko actually has a no trade clause - so it was negotiated in his contract that he'd be able to pick where he's traded.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Muta

I actually do find the 'smaller market, NTCs/NMCs, better weather in other places, more tax, etc.' conversation that we have here in Canada quite exhausting, if not insufferable, and has been for many years. We definitely hear it all the time in Calgary. In many ways, it's one of the things that really turns me off from the league, and that has increased recently.

A competitive, even playing field between all markets would be nice. Not sure how that is accomplished though.

Pick a city, build 16 arenas, move all the teams to that city. All teams are league owned and revenue is completely shared between all teams.

My idea is unrealistic but how can you accomplish a more fair playing field between markets? Both the NHLPA or the owners will object to many effective changes that the League can make. And you can't change weather, and other factors that come with location.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by stemit14

These experiences with players leaving the flames have made me wonder what adjustments need to be made by by the league to fix this issue. One of the trademarks of the days of the pre-salary cap era was that Detroit and New York just got all the good players… they could pay them whatever they want and all the players wanted to go there because they paid so much and (in the case of Detroit at least) they were always challenging for a cup.

That’s what this is reminding me of. Tarasenko has apparently told the Senators that he also prefers to be traded to Florida. Not sure exactly what the league needs to do but here are a few ideas:

1. Remove or limit NTCs. Will be tough to get the players to give up NTCs so it might just have to be that every team only gets 2-3 NTC contracts so you don’t have half your team dictating where they go.
2. Make it so contract extensions can be signed 2 years before they expire instead of 1 year. This would give the teams more time to gauge a players interest in re-signing and would allow for a potentially greater return in trade if they were trading a player (who won’t re-sign) with 2 years left on his deal instead of just one.
3. I know it’s unfair to players but maybe extend the RFA period by a year or two. Gives a team more control over a player till they are 27/28 and teams won’t have to buy as many UFA years.
4. Extend the max period of entry-level contracts to 5 years (instead of 3).
5. Strengthen the advantage in signing an extension with a team. Right now, signing an extension with a team lets them add an extra year to the deal. Make it so the max contract length a traded player or UFA player can be signed for is 6 years (instead of 7 years) but signing an extension with a team puts the maximum contract length to 8 years. This might help compensate for the money issue with players going to tax haven states like Florida to make more money.

Obviously doing all of these things is unrealistic but trying to implement a few of them might be possible. I’m not even sure if they will help much. If the league tried to make all these changes at once, there would definitely be another lockout. The hope would be these changes have two effects:

1. Smaller markets and Canadian markets don’t keep losing their talented players to teams in the US.
2. When they do have players that want to leave, the team will have more leverage in trading them if they don’t have a NTC and the team will be able to use the sign-and-trade more effectively by adding 2 full years to a contract signing. If the player that wants out chooses not to agree to a sign-and-trade, they will be denying themselves the financial security of two extra years on their contract. Having more leverage should net greater returns in trades so small market teams aren’t losing good players for pennies on the dollar.

Only so many players can demand a trade to team, that is why the cap helps.

If we reduce contract lengths to 4 years, keep the ELC and free agency after 8 years that gives team some control, and allows more player movement.

The NBA has way too many things that allow teams to just build super teams. They have a soft cap, with a luxury tax, but they also have the MLE, vet min, trade exceptions, and some other stuff that let them soar over the cap and build and keep teams.

[traptor]

Yeah the PA can fight for more player flexibility ut it's just going to ruin the party in the league and lessen the league itself.

[dammage79]

So any Flames rumors or we just sitting here contemplating Seppuku when the TB acquire Hanifin trade breaks.

[TheIronMaiden]

I all I think that a players choice in market goes

1. Salary
2. Can they win there
3. How much privacy can I enjoy in my day to day life
4. taxes


The fact that players who go through slumps have all kinds of disparaging things said about them is all the more reason to move to Florida.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think it's going to go the other way. Players are going to demand more say in where they live/play. Earlier free agency and if they can't get that you will see more players basically be very transparent about their intentions to force it.

So unless the NHL gives us something significant to the PA, I don't see how they get any restrictions into the CBA.

Totally agree with you. As long as the NHL gives each team at least one free buyout I am good with whatever they decide.