Trade Deadline Thoughts: Exploring the no-trade clause conundrum

The NHL’s trade deadline day has become such a complicated endeavour for teams — thanks in part to the flat salary cap and the emergence of now-regular concepts like double salary retention — that it has pushed back through the calendar walls a day, making it a two-day, or three-day, or even weeklong affair. There’s simply too much to iron out for teams trying to execute multiple trades under the cap all on the final day.

And so, as we get close to the final buzzer, I’m left with a pile of thoughts, which I thought would be worth considering as deals trickle in from here until Friday at 3 p.m. ET / noon PT.

What should teams do with no-trade clause players like Vladimir Tarasenko when the offered return isn’t great?

There’s no doubt Senators fans expected more in return for Vladimir Tarasenko, particularly at 50 per cent retained. But the guy had a no-trade clause, and by all accounts wanted to go to Florida, which may have been the only team (or one of a couple) with genuine interest in acquiring him at the deadline. At that point, the Sens have very little leverage — they can take what they can get from Florida, underwhelming or not, or they can dig in and say they aren’t trading the player unless certain demands are met.

How would Sens fans have reacted if GM Steve Staios failed to get anything for Taransenko, and he just played out the losing season in Ottawa before leaving for nothing?

I do think there’s a point where you want to show you mean business, and that if you’re not offered fair compensation for a player, you’d rather let him walk then get taken advantage of by a rival GM.

But a third-rounder and a fourth-rounder (which could turn into a third) isn’t nothing for a temporary player, so you might as well take the assets. If what’s offered is a fourth- and a fifth-rounder, of course, keep the player. But you’ve got a couple assets here you can trade and turn into real players during your own window to contend, which the Sens presumably think they’re entering.

Stable players can thrive on good teams

Analytics are useful only when viewed with context. Which is why, when Ilya Lyubushkin was traded by Anaheim to Toronto, I didn’t care much for the way those wielding analytics discussed the player (multiple people called him the worst D-man in the league). Anaheim has been wretched, and he’s been counted on to take D-zone starts and kill penalties, a combo that, on the worst few teams in the league — particularly for a guy who isn’t great at moving the puck — is an absolute nightmare.

But in a different spot, on a team that can move the puck so he doesn’t have to, he can suddenly be a very useful piece. He was good in his first go-round with the Maple Leafs and has had a good couple games to start his second stint with the team.

To summarize, when a team is considering acquiring a player off a bad team, it has to tease out his ability from his current situation. He might very well be part of the reason said team is bad, and so he may be someone worth staying away from. But for fans, too, that’s always the biggest question to consider after seeing your team got a new player: What was his previous opportunity, and what will it be here?

Will a few good teams admit defeat with 20 games to go?

Going into the season, you had to feel pretty good about the Pittsburgh Penguins' playoff odds (maybe 50/50?). And same goes for the Minnesota Wild, Seattle Kraken, St. Louis Blues and, of course, the New Jersey Devils (who were far better than 50/50). If any of those team admit defeat, some decent players will become available. These aren’t huge needle-movers, but I think could fit well on a team chasing a Cup:

Jordan Greenway, Brandon Duhaime, Kevin Hayes and, of course, the longer-odds guys such as Will Borgen and Adam Larsson on Seattle.

What about that other team?

That being the Philadelphia Flyers, who are solidly in a playoff spot. Thing is, they don’t believe they’re Cup contenders (rightly, as they’re not), and may be smart enough to recoup assets for players even while chasing the post-season. If they do that, it would mean a guy such as Scott Laughton would become more available. That’s a name to watch, as his contract has a couple more years on it at a fair price (three per season). The Flyers roster is worth a second and third glance for teams looking for parts, even though they’re in a playoff spot.

They’re handing out only one Stanley Cup, so is it even the REAL goal of GMs?

Brian Burke always pointed out that they just hand out one Cup a year, which makes it worth asking. As the league expands each season, it feels like, is it reasonable to think “Cup or bust?” Is it truly smart to bottom out, rise and bottom out again? There are about 12 teams this season that believe they have a shot at the Stanley Cup, which means about 11 teams are going to spend assets and wind up disappointed.

I wonder if any team would think more like Philly here (or even like the Blues have done in the past), and never let an asset leave for nothing. The Leafs have won a single playoff round with this core, yet let endless players walk for nothing: Zach Hyman, Michael Bunting, Ilya Mikheyev, Alex Kerfoot, and on and on, to say nothing of the rentals (like Ryan O’Reilly) they’ve spent assets on. I wonder if some owner out there wouldn’t say, “Amazing if it all works out one year, but we’re never doing the silly thing where we waste assets. I’d rather contend for playoffs each year and keep our fans engaged each season.” I’d imagine said team could put together a good long competitive window, and as the Blues did (after trading Paul Stastny and Kevin Shattenkirk), get in the dance enough times and from there … you never know.

Whatever the case, I root for action at the deadline, and with so much so far, we’re left hoping for surprises over the next couple days. Come on, GMs, here’s to acting like it’s the NBA, if only for a couple days.