| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2007 : 09:00:55
|
Poll Question:
Should a Rent-A-Player be prevented from going back to his former team?
|
|
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 09:05:28
|
| I think that the cap system has created this type of situation. The owners wanted the cap, so the GMs are working with it. If they can use it to their own advantage, then I am all for it. |
 |
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 09:09:01
|
| I think they should be allowed to sign back with their team, why not. I like the whole rental system because it allows the weaker teams to receive good compensation for their player being "loaned" so that they can be competitive in the future. Just like the salary cap, this is a way of evening out the playing field across the league. |
Edited by - bablaboushka on 03/05/2007 09:09:35 |
|
|
|
PainTrain
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1393 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 09:48:48
|
As Don Cherry said ''That's Fraud''
GO Sabres Go!!!!! |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 10:01:49
|
Both GM's know what they are getting into, if they don't then they are in the wrong business, if you limit the players teams he can sign with as a free agent then I guess he is really not a free agent...reguardless if the player decides to go to another team via free agency in July the team that traded for him lost, does it really matter where he ends up?
Light travels faster than sound, this is why some people appear bright, until they speak... |
|
|
|
Saku Steen
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1102 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 12:17:59
|
| I dont think that the NHL can stop it but I would like it if they couldnt get them back. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 12:23:19
|
Right now the league allows for rental players, and even allows rental players to return to their original as long as there is ABSOLUTELY no prior arrangments to do so, If a player makes a deal to come back to their team in the offseason after a 'rental trade', the league is going to be on them fast and there will be "substantial fines and potential further action" according to the league. Be sure that any player going back to their original team will be very closely monitored. The player must investigate the open market appropriately and the original team must make the best all around offer that makes sense to the league.
Since this is in place, i don't mind the rental-player scenario as much as I did, although I still think it affects the integrity of the league significantly. |
|
|
|
Patchy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
529 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 14:39:57
|
I think players should be able to resign with their formal team for sure...it's all in the strategy of a GM, to make a move like that is risky but it could pay off.
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
|
|
|
Mikhailova
PickupHockey All-Star
USA
2918 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 15:07:06
|
They are free agents, they should be able to sign anywhere they please
That says it all right there |
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 15:16:59
|
I don't see anything wrong with them resigning with their former team. It would create alot of problems if they wouldnt be able to resign with their old team though.
Long Live Leafs Nation!! |
|
|
|
jbraiter
PickupHockey Pro
577 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 15:52:23
|
i agree it will help teams make a cup run
Go Canucks |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:02:26
|
I don't like the rental situation. I think a player should be restricted from going back to their former team until the next trade deadline.Having teams who are not mathematically out of the playoffs suddenly deal aways stars for draft picks at the deadline sends a bad message to the fans who have been doling out dollars all season hanging on to the hope that "this might be the year" is a black mark on the NHL in my opinion. Don't forget that many of these people have bought season tickets and expect to see these superstars for the season. Now for the last 2 months of the year they don't get to see them (chances are they even go to the other conference!!!) Not only that but it could have a damaging impact on ticket sales the next year. It's a very short sighted strategy for all parties! The reason we hold a draft is to balance the league; last place gets first pick and so on. The rent-a-player tips the balance, degrades the intent of the draft, and insults the fans. I understand the attracton to it for GM's but I think it is unfair. And the only way to police it is to not allow players to return for 1 year.
I guess there is a change of moods on this topic from a couple weeks ago when most were against it....I wonder how much influence a certain somebody (ahem...admin...cough!) had on the results of this poll.
http://www.pickuphockey.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1471&SearchTerms=rental,player |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:13:31
|
| By the way, restricting them to going back to 1 team doesn't really affect their "unrestricted" free agency. There is too much "I am rich & famous so therefore I get to have my cake and eat it too" attitude out there. Like TcTitans said, there may be fines and penalties for returning to your team but I think the only true way to stop it from happening is to block the return. |
|
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:22:50
|
Well I didn't post any real opinion concerning the subject in there but in response to Leigh:
I don't understand either why teams who still have a shot (as little as it may be) deal their guns away for picks. I don't understand why Edmonton gave up so early and wasn't buying instead of selling, but anyways... What I do like about this concept in response to your concern is that teams who, in all likelihood, won't make the playoffs get a chance to rebuild. Now teams like Columbus who seem to be perennial losers don't have to rebuild EVERY year but they need to. Which do you think is more fair to the fans: Keeping one or two superstars in your city and missing the playoffs year after year (kind of like Columbus or St. Louis) or dealing those players to have a chance to consistently make the playoffs in the future? You have to give a little to get a little.
I just want to bring up the Raptors for a second because they are a perfect example of this. They had to get rid of Carter because they were going nowhere fast. They have been rebuilding for a while now and still are. But their future is SO bright...
Look at teams who have always done well (in recent years): Detroit, New Jersey, Ottawa, Dallas, and for the next long stretch SJ, etc. They all had to undergo rebuilding phases at some point. Ottawa never had an Yzerman to lead them to Cups or a Brodeur to steal games but they had to get rid of Yashin because he wasn't getting them anywhere, and look they got Chara and Spezza out of it. If you do have that special player, like a Brodeur, then good for you. But he had to start somewhere right? Tkachuk and Guerin weren't getting St. Louis anywhere, they had to go. Weight wasn't last year either, he had to go (even though he came back). St. Louis has plenty of draft picks and young guys now that with the proper coaching (which Andy Murray should provide them with) they will blossom. I mean do I need to get into San Jose's success? Before they got Guerin and Rivet, they had the youngest team in the league because they spent the last few years rebuilding and already they have developed into an elite force. Look what's happening to a team like Columbus that isn't rebuilding... I have a feeling Atlanta is going to go through these problems soon too because they don't have much of a future other than 3-4 players. |
Edited by - bablaboushka on 03/05/2007 16:25:00 |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:33:58
|
| Good points babs. So what's wrong with restricting the player from returning for a parital season? (ie:the next trade deadline) You still get to do essentially everything that you said above but the price is higher. Besides, SJS and Nashville are excellent examples of teams that have built using the draft and good "regular" trades. Right now, the GM's are saying "No that wasn't a rental player situation" to protect their asses both financially and from fan backlash, when in actual fact "most" of the time they have every intention of bringing the player back. It's insulting to the league and the fans. Simply stop the return for short time so the the price is a little higher making everyone think twice. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:41:42
|
I'm still with you Leigh, and I havent been converted. ;)
I may hate it for different reasons, but budget rent-a-player to me is a black mark on the league. It's bush.
Teams going into the playoffs should live and die based on the overall quality of their team management, GMs trading ability (NHL, not bush league), scouting/drafting, development, and coaching. Not by something the team did on Feb 27th that will falsly boost their team for the playoff run - which when over, they will be back at the same place until next February's deals.
Yes, deadline deals are exciting and fun.. but they were that way years ago too when real deals were being made.
It bugs me a lot less since i found out the league does take this seriously and will investigate any instances of true rent-a-players (players who go back to their orginal teams by default) - this at least takes some of the 'bushiness'  out of it, but not all of it.
Maybe the league changes the rules to disallow any player being traded that isnt under contract for the following year. ;) this would certainly stir the pot a lot, but there are obvious flaws with this that would need to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:43:52
|
| I just don't see what the point of holding them back is. If they become UFA's after the season and the team they left gives them the best deal then who cares? I won't lie, I don't have any truly baffling reasons why they should or shouldn't let them go back, but I honestly don't see what the big deal is. If Bourque wanted to return to Boston after he won his Cup, would you tell him "No you gotta wait."? |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:45:59
|
| yup |
|
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:48:58
|
| You guys would have hated the QMJHL then. Until the league stepped in last year (I think), Halifax and Cape Breton redefined "rental players". Each year for four years I think it is, they stacked one of the teams with all of the other's best and their best. They sent crappy guys the other way. So one year Halifax was tops in the league and CB was basement. The next year it was the opposite. Like I said I think this went on for four years. Halifax came within one game of going to the Memorial Cup but I think that's as close as either team got. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 16:52:04
|
| I think the risk of a player getting injured or going to a different team will keep this balanced. Since it is against the rules to negotiate with a player under contract to a different team and/or negotiation prior to a contract expiring it is fair. If a GM wants to send a player to another team and take his "word" that is a risk in itself. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 17:06:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by bablaboushka
I just don't see what the point of holding them back is. If they become UFA's after the season and the team they left gives them the best deal then who cares? I won't lie, I don't have any truly baffling reasons why they should or shouldn't let them go back, but I honestly don't see what the big deal is. If Bourque wanted to return to Boston after he won his Cup, would you tell him "No you gotta wait."?
YES. I would. And for the record, I thought it quite a farce that he has his name on the cup. Don't get me wrong, I completely and utterly respect the guy, but he didnt earn it. Maybe we should just allow all the 'great players' in the game to dress for a single cup game so they can get their names on the cup as well. There are many many great lifetime players that dont have their names on a cup... That's life. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 17:10:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by bablaboushka
I just don't see what the point of holding them back is. If they become UFA's after the season and the team they left gives them the best deal then who cares? I won't lie, I don't have any truly baffling reasons why they should or shouldn't let them go back, but I honestly don't see what the big deal is. If Bourque wanted to return to Boston after he won his Cup, would you tell him "No you gotta wait."?
BTW.. it should never be 'you gotta wait', as a trade should never be assumed 'temporary'. If in your example above, Bourque intended to go back to Boston the following year, then he should not be traded!!
C'mon.. man... this is so obvious.. why do so many fail to see all the problems.
Maybe we just randomly pick a city each year, and they automatically get the best 3-4 UFAs from non-playoff teams for the cup run, and then the players all go back to their respective teams the following year. We could then start marking on our calendar when 'our' year is and anticipate the cup run.
|
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 17:39:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by bablaboushka
I just don't see what the point of holding them back is. If they become UFA's after the season and the team they left gives them the best deal then who cares? I won't lie, I don't have any truly baffling reasons why they should or shouldn't let them go back, but I honestly don't see what the big deal is. If Bourque wanted to return to Boston after he won his Cup, would you tell him "No you gotta wait."?
YES. I would. And for the record, I thought it quite a farce that he has his name on the cup. Don't get me wrong, I completely and utterly respect the guy, but he didnt earn it. Maybe we should just allow all the 'great players' in the game to dress for a single cup game so they can get their names on the cup as well. There are many many great lifetime players that dont have their names on a cup... That's life.
I hear what you're saying TCT, on that point only i disagree, I have no problem with Weight being on the cup and he was a pretty strong contributor to the team from the time he arrived at the trade deadline right into the playoffs (13pts in 23 games in reg season & 16pts in 23 games in playoffs) Good trades happen. My problem is not that a guy gets traded, it's that the intent is to have them go right back. Weight is a perfect example of how the system was abused.
On your other point you're absolutely right. They should not be traded in the first place Without a doubt they can make it look like the intent to return wasn't there. Look at the Smyth deal. Throw in some angry words, some looks of dismay, some tears and a private hand shake, and we all believe that Smyth will not be returning to the Oilers. It's almost that easy. I'm not convinced either way about that deal yet, but if he returns I won't be convinced that it wasn't the plan all along. With a one year probationary period if a team is willing to take that risk then that's fine with me. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 17:42:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
Maybe we just randomly pick a city each year, and they automatically get the best 3-4 UFAs from non-playoff teams for the cup run, and then the players all go back to their respective teams the following year. We could then start marking on our calendar when 'our' year is and anticipate the cup run.
Precisely! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Rent-A-Player 
