[Trade] Jets trade Rutger McGroarty to Pens for Brayden Yager

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Have the owners bargain for holding a players rights for a longer period of time to the point it is punitive for contract hold outs.

Want to screw over the team that has invested draft capital, time and money into your development? Feel free to sit on the sidelines until you’re 25 if a trade can’t be reached.

That would only happen if this was the top issue that owners cared about.
And I'm pretty sure it isn't.

[Vinny01]

Curious how CP would have felt if there was a McGroaty for Honzek trade? I assume mixed because some think Honzek is already a bust and he there would be pissed we traded for a guy who seemingly is demanding to be gifted a spot and we gave up too soon on Honzek when the team needs to be patient.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Curious how CP would have felt if there was a McGroaty for Honzek trade? I assume mixed because some think Honzek is already a bust and he there would be pissed we traded for a guy who seemingly is demanding to be gifted a spot and we gave up too soon on Honzek when the team needs to be patient.

Would anyone really not trade Honzek for McGroarty? That seems like a huge steal for the Flames.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Yager is a centre and 1 year younger, for that I see this as a win for Winnipeg.

Those stats don't matter unless he is at least an equal player though

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

How do you solve it? You can't make someone sign. Athletes already have very few rights.

I think a good solution is to have college guys who don’t sign with the team that drafts them get put on the waiver wire to be claimed first and then, if unclaimed, they become UFAs.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Would anyone really not trade Honzek for McGroarty? That seems like a huge steal for the Flames.

I would in a minute, however, I think Pittsburgh lost this one, things could change but Yager looks better.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I think a good solution is to have college guys who don’t sign with the team that drafts them get put on the waiver wire to be claimed first and then, if unclaimed, they become UFAs.

How would that solve anything though? Take Fox, for example. He wanted to sign with the Rangers, so all his agent has to do is tell teams he won't sign with them, and then they get what they want anyway.

[Parallex]

Good swap for both sides.

As an aside Yager was the guy I wanted the Flames to draft last year.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

That would only happen if this was the top issue that owners cared about.
And I'm pretty sure it isn't.

Agreed there, for every team that gets screwed over is another team benefitting from it.

And scroopy it benefits the team by making it less likely that players will pull a Tom Erixon / Adam Fox / Cutter Gauthier / Rutger McGroarty. This in turn gives the team control of their RFAs for a longer period. The option for a player to be a prick like Adam Fox is still there, it’s just going to be financially and developmentally punitive to stab your drafting team in the back.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I would in a minute, however, I think Pittsburgh lost this one, things could change but Yager looks better.

I dunno... the Pens will be "going for it" until Sidney Crosby retires so getting a touted prospect 1 year closer to maturity for another touted prospect makes perfect sense to me.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I think a good solution is to have college guys who don’t sign with the team that drafts them get put on the waiver wire to be claimed first and then, if unclaimed, they become UFAs.

What does that solve? If they don't like the team that claims them, they continue to refuse to sign.
And what does the team that drafted him get? They lose the player for nothing?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Have the owners bargain for holding a players rights for a longer period of time to the point it is punitive for contract hold outs.

Want to screw over the team that has invested draft capital, time and money into your development? Feel free to sit on the sidelines until you’re 25 if a trade can’t be reached.

...

...

That seems kind of crass. I mean really your talking about screwing over some young man for the high crime of not really wanting to work for someone who once said their name into a microphone several year earlier.

[Lewis_D]

Time will tell how this one plays out, but if the objective was to ensure you don't lose a cool name in your roster both teams win.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

...

...

That seems kind of crass. I mean really your talking about screwing over some young man for the high crime of not really wanting to work for someone who once said their name into a microphone several year earlier.

To each their own, playing and being paid an NHL salary is a privilege and not a right, no one’s forcing these guys to play hockey.

[Eric Vail]

This is another reason not to draft American College players. It comes with a real risk. Winnipeg looks like they did okay in what could have been a disaster.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Agreed there, for every team that gets screwed over is another team benefitting from it.

And scroopy it benefits the team by making it less likely that players will pull a Tom Erixon / Adam Fox / Cutter Gauthier / Rutger McGroarty. This in turn gives the team control of their RFAs for a longer period. The option for a player to be a prick like Adam Fox is still there, it’s just going to be financially and developmentally punitive to stab your drafting team in the back.

How is it stabbing them in the back? They said his name and gave him a jersey and a hat. If they attend any team development sessions they have to pay their own way outside the first 48 hours. So maybe the team put in 96 hours of expense and effort. Maybe just have the player pay back the $5,357 dollars in expenses for those 96 hours if you want it to be fair.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

How is it stabbing them in the back? They said his name and gave him a jersey and a hat. If they attend any team development sessions they have to pay their own way outside the first 48 hours. So maybe the team put in 96 hours of expense and effort. Maybe just have the player pay back the $5,357 dollars in expenses for those 96 hours if you want it to be fair.

Yeah, really the team basically loses nothing except the draft pick they used... and like 75% of that is on them for either not making a compelling enough case to sign or not doing their due diligence.

If the team losing some draft capital is the primary concern then the solution is easy... a compensatory draft pick regime.

[Owen15]

Maybe all picks in the first two rounds get boilerplate deals they sign when they enter the draft. Automatically signed. Helps level the playing field for all non sought after destinations.

[sureLoss]

Going to be the trend now after Cutter Gauthier. Not going to even give a reason why they want out.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1826717607254474878

https://twitter.com/user/status/1826718220495323436

https://twitter.com/user/status/1826718222072381812

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What does that solve? If they don't like the team that claims them, they continue to refuse to sign.
And what does the team that drafted him get? They lose the player for nothing?

You can give the team that claims the player a year of control of the rights. If the player doesn’t sign, they lose a year of development/NHL salary and will go back into the waiver system next year. If the player clearly indicates a preference for signing with a specific team, their rivals can scoop up their rights for at least a year.

The goal is to deter players from going this route.

Teams who currently lose NCAA players to free agency get no compensation. You could bring in compensatory picks like in baseball if that was something that league wanted to be addressed.