An interesting point was raised this past Saturday on Hockey Night in Canada's intermission segment "Satellite Hotstove" that a new trend of "trade and re-sign" could become prevalent in the NHL.
The panel noted that last season around this time the Pittsburgh Penguins and St. Louis Blues dealt forward Mark Recchi and Doug Weight respectively to the Carolina Hurricanes. Recchi and Weight were eligible for unrestricted free agency following the season and so conventional wisdom was that they were unlikely to re-sign with their former clubs, who thus dealt them rather than lose them for nothing.
But after helping the Hurricanes win the 2006 Stanley Cup, Recchi and Weight did indeed re-sign with their former teams, rather than testing the UFA market for more lucrative contracts.
This season, a rumour has risen suggesting the woeful Philadelphia Flyers might trade team captain Peter Forsberg (providing he agrees to waive his no-trade clause) to a playoff contender but then re-sign him this summer as an unrestricted free agent.
It's also been speculated that Keith Tkachuk and Bill Guerin might go the same route with the rebuilding St. Louis Blues, accepting trades to potential Cup contenders but then re-signing with the Blues this summer.
Could this be the start of a trend? Possibly but it may not be a widespread one. It seems that this could likely be used with veteran players whose best days are behind them, but still carry enough value to be of interest to potential Cup contenders seeking to bolster their rosters for the playoffs.
Still, it should be something to keep an eye on as the trade deadline approaches.
well, that is just they way things go right now. I really dont see a problem with it or how to stop it, what are they going to make a rule that if traded, you cannot go back and sign with that team again?
I don't see it happeneing very often.
OH ####, wait, if that rule were in place, then we would NOT have Roenick, wait, it could be a great rule then! Can we include it in baseball also, cause somehow the gods turned on us here in phoenix and Roenick and Randy Johnson back in town........hmmmm can we retro active that rule?
If this becomes widespread then I do think that the league will try to do something to discourage it, but I think it will be a few years until any such decision is made. One easy solution is to move the trade deadline back so that its not as late in the season. That won't completely eliminate the rental players, but it will definately reduce the frequency of seeing this happen. I know - Doug Weight was traded in January, and still went back to StL. But how often do you see a player who is traded in Jan end up re-signing w/ his old team? Not often. Its mainly the deadline-day deals that end up being nothing more than rentals.
1) Not sure if it'll become wide spread, but we don't see there being anything wrong with it. Its a win-win situation.
2) Its more likely to occur now than before for some simple reasons a) in years past it took a team many more years to rebuild than it does now. b)with the salary cap older vets aren't as expensive as in the past. So resigning the vet player is more likely/makes more sense
3) The league doesn't need MORE rules to restrict player movement. Seems it near impossible to prove an agreement was made prior to a trade that the player would retrurn after the season is over.
most teams knows the price of a rental player and are not complaining if they don't resign with their team at the end of the season...but if the teams beleive they are potential cup contanders then they would definatly try too add missing pieces to their teams..its not too often u see the same teams compete for the cup every yr....u got one shot at it so do whatever it takes too get there and win the cup
fauxrumors - Surely you know that there have been many fans/analysts who have in the past suggested that the league make the deadline earlier (and have made this suggestion even prior to the current CBA)... [COUGH... Barry Melrose, John Buccigross, COUGH...]
1) The deadline IS earlier than it has been in years past. Can't recall the last time it was in February
2) We haven't heard a lot of complaining from many league officials about the current placement of the deadline. Can't see them going to an NFL-like deadline which would be about ThanksGiving here in the U.S.
3) Play Devil's advocate and ask: Why have a deadline at all? Until the regular season is over why should a team be prevented from making a trade?
This whole "rental" thing thats coming in is complete bogus. What has this sport evolved to? Your team is sitting between 4th and 5th in the standings, you go out and rent a player from another team to get that extra boost. That's not what I remembered hockey to be. Take Forsberg for example...that guy is a captain for his club..the leader..and theres a chance that some team is going to pick him up but just for the playoffs. Thats a disgrace to hockey and sports in general. You know pretty well he's going to play a lot harder because there's that slim chance or hoisting another cup. So he wins another cup and then he goes back to Philly. Come on. He signed a contract for with a team and therefore he should stick it out better or for worst instead of hopping on the Stanley Cup bandwagon. If a player is willing to do such an act, then all the hard work they've done in their current team and all the drills and what not are worthless; then he goes to a team thats already in good playoff position and just walks in and continues to win. Thats what i call Silver Spoon fed. If any vetern had class they'd stay with their club and work that extra bit harder, instead of looking for a quick fix. I'm sure hoisting the stanley cup after a move that like doesn't taste half as sweet as it does when you win with your own team
I believe that the NHL should treat these situations exactly like thier buy out rule. Where any player traded at the deadline would be unable to return to thier original team for one calander year. This seems fair to me as it would allow the renting team a chance to sign the player. Possibly allowing for a trade at the next years deadline to minimize thier loses.
I think that until there are rules in place to stop it (or a change in the trade deadline), this will become more prevalent. Although "player rentals" have taken place for years, this is magnified by the salary cap. Think of all of the big city teams (Detroit, New York, etc.) that would have made trades already this season if it weren't for the cap. The rental player tactic allows these GMs to wait until a player is at the end of their annual salary payout and cheaply ride that horse into Stanley Cup contention.
My two thoughts on rental players are:
(1) Most "rentals" are coming from teams that are strugling and therefore at or near the basement of the standings. The rental phenomenon gives fans from these teams at least the hope that their team next season could retain some of the players lost. Hope for next season means everything for a fan on a miserable team. (I can speak from experience on this one.)
(2) I agree with the concensus that the easiest way to curtail some of the player rentals is to move the trade deadline even earlier in the season.
Last edited by BlackGoldPenguin21 on January 22nd at 6:09 PM.
LGB: I'm suprised you don't like this. I think it's great for really crappy hockey teams who're trying to re-build. If teams treat their players well and show them apreciation through rebuilding years then they can count on their players to come back to them when they use them as a rental. A team would have a choice of
1. Treating their players in a manner that had them unhappy with the team. Team trades them and then player looks elsewhere for work.
2. Treating their players well and showing them apprectiation for their willingness to play on a team. In return they get rented out, get a shop at the cup. And then the team reaks the rewards.
If this rental thing gets popular teams will get really parinoid about trading their draft picks, but that's what it'll come down to and you'd end up finding it really balancing itself out. It's great for hockey. Like look at the St. Lous Blues. If they play this rental game out properly they might get Keith and Bill back at seasons end... and for what? Draft picks, shots at getting more prospects. Something that isn't going to put anything towards next year's cap. It'll give crappy teams a chance to build up like Buffalo did, but just much faster. Then you wont have teams with low attendance rates thinking of moving because they've been blowing chunks for so long. Well... just not as often.
Sean - Teams always have looked to get that extra boost to their roster to push through the playoffs. If they stay or not is really not as important than what they bring to the table at the time of the pick up. The team wants to win the cup regardless of wheather or not the "rental player" is around for the next season. Late season pick ups have been happening for a long time and have helped put teams over the top and win the cup. This new trend of them going back to their prior teams shouldn't be alarming when you consider families and community ties. There is no disgrace in that. (see below)
LGB - I'm sure Ray Bourque, Luc Robitaille, Doug Weight, etc. don't think their cup wins were lame. It is what they played their whole careers to accomplish, winning it with a different team than they started the season with doesn't taint it in the slightest bit. If the Sabres had the cap space, you'd better believe they too would be looking to add some boost to the roster to help make their push for the cup stronger. By the way, I don't recall them drafting Briere, Drury, Spacek, Numminen, Mair, Lydman, Hecht or them comming up through their system. Will it still be special if they win?
Gregsky- How do Luc Robitaille and Ray Bourque fit in this? They weren't "rental" players.
As for my Sabres those guys you named weren't "rental" players either. True they weren't brought through the Sabre system but they were brought in to contribute for a long time, not just three months.
And as for your comment if the Sabres had the cap room they would be doing the same thing, well the thing is that they had the cap room last year, even more so than Carolina, and they didn't do it.
Thadd- To be honest, I'm just bitter. I hate to say it but I am. I didn't like the fact the Sabres were so injured in last years playoffs and the Canes who had, not as many but, some injuries and they still had quite a bit of depth because of the trades they made.
I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, I'd be praising this thing.
When it comes down to it, if a team is stupid enough to give a lot away just for a shot at the Cup for a rental player then that is the teams decision. Not all work out like it did for Carolina.
LGB - Fair enough on Luc and Ray, I misunderstood your comment. But as for the comments on the Sabres players I mentioned, it was in reference to your comments of a team building through the draft and the minors not about "rental" players. I hope you realize the mistake they made last year in not adding to their roster like the Canes did. I'm sure they wont make the same mistake this year having learned that lesson and add some depth on the blueline and some needed grit for the postseason. The only way they are going to get that done is giving up on some of those guys they did draft and bring up through their system due to their lack of cap space and the desire to keep both Drury and Briere.
Foresburg is much like E. Lindros, great talent but bruised up. He needs to take a different role in the game to be succesful at this point in his career. I would trade for him, needless to say.
How about moving Forsberg from 1st line center to 2nd line RW/LW to protect him a bit more & limit his minutes? Less skating might benefit him. Other great/aging centers who have had injury problems have benefitted from such moves in the past (i.e. Yzerman, Lemieux, Lindros).
GM's have a great job with great responsibilities. While thinking of "This Season," they're also tasked with thinking years into the future. It's great when you can draft well, and have a core team of great athletes for the next four or five years. But at the same time, depth is just as important as core talent. Four or five guys can't make up the entire club. Part of the rent-a-player push is depth. What if one of your core guys gets hurt? Just look at Buffalo last season. Four of their six blueliners weren't part of the regular-season roster. They did an amazing job, but I'd bet the entire Sabres staff would tell you they'd have traded for a name-defenseman at the deadline had they known injuries were in the cards.
I guess the moral of the story is, I have nothing against building a better club for the short-term, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the long-term.
ok, i hear ya and everything you said, but it doesn't necessarily mean its right. Thats the same as you saying "Ok guys, were not winning, so i'm going to play with these guys for awhile"
If Forsberg or any player for that matter bails on their teammates like that...you can almost guarentee the rest of players on the team will lose respect for him.
Also I would like to add, what happens when a team brings in a new guy....somebody gotta sit out...do you think thats far cause i certainally don't
I think we are getting away from the point here. The rent a player thing has been around for years and probably isn't going anywhere for years to come. The real point is "trade and resign" as the title suggests. Trading for a player that you know is going right back to the team you just gave picks or prospects. This league has gone haywire! Lets worry about how to get more goals instead of teams alienating their fan base by selling away their future. Rant complete.
If only this were true for the Leafs...their lineup is paper thin (and the injuries didn't help). If they're scraping by just to get the 7th or 8th seed, with a very good chance of missing for the second year in the row, why not deal Sundin and Tucker. Obviously leafs nation won't accept the "seller" position, but both players are worth decent returns (good young players and high draft picks), and are hopefully loyal to the organization. JFJ has been the architect of a highly dissappointing team; shrewd moves now may restore hope in the future of the Leafs Organization. JFJ's opportunity is now...
LGB: You know I really liked Buffalo's team last year, but I knew that they were not going to beat Caronlina. Buffalo was fast, they could score, they're defensemen played pretty responsible, and they had great goaltending. The one thing that they didn't have was expereince and that's something that Carolina had more of. When the semi-finals hit I knew it was going to be Caronlina and Edmonton, but I wanted to see Edmonton up agaist Buffalo because I thought they had a better chance against them.
I'm Lyle Richardson, also known as Spector, Foxsports.com 's "Prince of Pucks".,which is based on the fact I live in Prince Edward Island, Canada and I couldn't think of a better byline. I've been an NHL hockey commentator since 1998 on my website, Spector's Hockey, and I'm a contributing writer for Foxsports.com , The Hockey News and Eishockey News. I'm also a regular on The Faceoff Hockey Show and a frequent guest on "The Late Crew" on The Team 1200 Ottawa.
