Sunday, March 2, 2008

Good-Bad-Ugly of The Trade Deadline?

1) With the aftermath of the deadline behind us we decided to take a look at the idea of this 'deadline' as well as the merits or the 'rental'. Firstly, why even have a trade deadline? Well, proponents will tell you that every major sports league has one to ensure roster stability in the last part of the seasons. To lessen a major sell off of teams that are soon to miss the post season for teams that will make the playoffs. The NHL has recently moved its deadline to an earlier point, yet it still is much later than the other major sports.

2) The earlier date along with the salary cap and, OT loss points- induced parity, have created fewer teams that are true sellers. Add to that the enormous number of players with no trade clauses(1 in 6 players has one, and about half of the top players do!) and it makes the deadline less of an issue than it used to be. No longer are there 10 teams willing to sell off a quarter of their rosters to start a 'rebuild'. Back then there was a veritable cacophony of indignation against both the late trade line and the rental concept.

3) As for our take on teams being able to 'rent' a player for a playoff run. We have NO problem with it at all. Its a team's and players option to do. If a team believes it benefits them to mortgage the future to 'go for it' its their choice. As some have pointed out in recent weeks, the last 10 or so Cup winners have NOT been teams that have made big deadline day splashes. However that has not stopped teams from trying to add that proverbial 'missing link' they feel they are in need of to take their squad to the next level

4) We also don't believe there should be any prohibition from teams resigning players they have traded at the deadline. Unless there is direct evidence of collusion of a deal in place before they were traded, the player should have every right to play where he chooses once he become a UFA, and not be penalized because his team felt the need to trade him.

5) As to the deadline itself, we also have no issue with its current placement. Ideally we liked it where it was. Usually by mid March many more teams knew where they stood with respect to post season chances/the need to look towards the next season. However, we feel it better to keep the deadline where it is now then to move it where many have suggested, after the X-mas holiday trade freeze/the New Year. At the very least it creates/generates excitement/positive press coverage for the league, as well as excites almost all but the most curmudgeony fans.
6) Ed Note: FR2 tells us that their post deadline Power rankings will be out this week. probably the last prior to the post season. Look for it!


amber mac said...

As always interesting post guys. I agree that the trade deadline makes for tons of interest so why get rid of a good thing?

Lyle said...

Certainly one can understand the need to restrain trades at the last day of the season?
I wouldn't be opposed to disallowing the rental. To say not allow a team to resign the same player its traded for 1 calendar year. In my opinion it makes a mockery of the league, and in some ways undermines any sense of fair play

Jibblescribbits said...

I'm gonna agree with Lyle.

Even if there is no collusion (I sincerely doubt there was between St. Louis and Weight) it's the old: The perception of shenanigans is more damaging than shenanigans itself.

Not having the rule makes it win-win for player and organization. I mean Hockey guys are "team" guys, and what better way to help out the "team" than to get traded away, bringing in talent for next season, then resigning with the team the next season.

The Hurricanes should have had the advantage in resigning Weight, they were paying him, however St. Louis did because of Weight's emotional ties to the city. even if there wasn't collusion there it still gace one team an unfair advantage.


I think the whole concept is over hyped. The deadline is fine where it is. I think what faux says is about right, if a player and a team agree to part ways its their choice. How many times does a big star get traded then go back to the original team and make a big impact? I say its marginal
Now how about we start talking about stopping teams from getting players who have either retired or gone back to Europe to play from returning until a calendar year goes by! Now that I'll support!

Jibblescribbits said...

Not suggesting it's a common practice, but it looks bad.

Also if a free agent isn't signed by, say December 15th or so, then he shouldn't be allowed to play that season.

Bubba said...

I agree, I don't like this playing for a half-season, or less crap either.


1) Amber: Thanks for the kinds words.
2) Lyle/Jibble: Your opinion is shared by a sizable minority of folks we've talked with. We'd say its still probably 60-40 for the current system, but many site your concerns as why they'd like the stop the 'rental'
3) Vlad: It would be interesting to see exactly how many of the so called rental players actually re-sign with their original teams the following summer. If its a large/increasing number we might be swayed to some extent. But even then our libertarian instincts still have a hard time disallowing a player the right to go where he wants to play.
4) As to your other issues we might agree on those. The whole Niedermayer/Selanne/Forsberg nonsense needs to be addressed once and for all

Contact the Media