The 1991 NHL entry draft was probably the most controversial in league history. The Quebec Nordiques, dead last for three seasons running, held the first overall pick. The consensus number one was "The Next One," 6'4" prototypical power forward Eric Lindros. A record-setting junior player, Lindros was expected to be a franchise saviour; the next Gretzky.
The match should have been perfect: a team desperate for a generational player and a generational player with the potential to change the team's future and become a legend. Or, it would have been if Lindros hadn't let it be known he would never play for the Nordiques. Quebec GM Marcel Aubut went ahead and drafted him anyway and the drama began.
Lindros went back to junior and the Olympic team instead of jumping into the NHL. A year later, his decision triggered one of the biggest and most convoluted trades in league history. It led to the Nordiques becoming the Avalanche and contending for a decade after. And it led to Lindros gaining a reputation as a disloyal malcontent. It delayed his ascent into the Hall of Fame for years, with critics arguing he shouldn't be in there at all. What he did at the beginning of his career was considered scandalous.
🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒
Boy, have things changed! Darnell Nurse. Brady Tkachuk. Connor Hellebuyck. Dylan Larkin. And now, the biggest name of them all, reigning league MVP Nikita Kucherov wants out. They are all players who signed long-term contracts worth multi-millions of dollars per year. And they all had no-trade clauses in those big, fat deals.
They're leveraging the clauses that were meant to protect star players from being traded against their wills or best interests to force their current teams to move them to a preferred destination. Some players, like Brad Marchand, support their colleagues' right to control their own futures. Others, according to Elliotte Friedman, are quietly condemning those who publicly demand a move.
Both sides are understandable. Back in 1957, NHL stars like Montreal's Doug Harvey and Detroit's Ted Lindsay tried to start a player union. They felt the guys who actually put their bodies on the line every game should have more clarity about league finances, better pay and more equitable treatment by management. The team owners retaliated by trading the union leaders away and smothering the effort to organize.
Eventually, the league player's union was revived and provided some protection of members' rights.
On the other hand, when teams commit huge parts of their futures to star players, they expect the player to fulfill his part of the agreement. When they plan their cap structure and try to build around a long-term contract, that work is all wasted when the player decides he doesn't want to uphold his end of the bargain and uses his NTC to hold the team hostage.
🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒
Right now, the Montreal Canadiens have a young core of players signed long-term for good money. Nick Suzuki, Cole Caufield, Ivan Demidov, Juraj Slavkovsky and Lane Hutson all have some form of no-trade clause that kicks in part way through their contracts. And right now, everyone seems to be happy to play in Montreal. The team is on the upswing, the players are tight and there's a culture of hard work and camaraderie they enjoy.
But, what happens if that's no longer true? What if, in four or five years' time, if the Canadiens don't manage to win a Cup or two, the players become disillusioned and want out?
Kent Hughes has carefully crafted his roster and its pay structure in an effort to build a perennial winner. For that to happen, not only do the players need to accept less money than they might get on the open market, they also have to honour their commitments to the long-term contracts they sign. Imagine if, in three years, Caufield, Suzuki and Hutson decide they want out and demand trades.
Because they all have no-trade clauses, those kinds of demands would limit Hughes' options for replacing them. It would also blow up the deliberately-built team structure if he had to not only get comparable return for them, but then sign the new players who have no reason to accept less money to go to Montreal.
If this phenomenon continues under the new collective agreement, every team, including the Habs, is at risk of losing their long-term star players for less return. The league and its player association need to negotiate a solution to what could become a serious issue. Perhaps that means if a player demands a trade, his NTC is void. That would give the player an out, but also give the team more options for a good exchange. Or maybe there needs to be a shorter contract limit of four or five years and a removal of no-trade clauses.
It could also help if both sides set up a tribunal panel to which a player could apply if he wants to break his commitment to his team. That would give him a chance to make a case for why he wants a trade and the team a chance to rebut, sort of like an arbitration hearing. If a player has a legitimate reason to opt out...bullying, abuse, family upset, a desire to play on a contender, mental health issues...whatever his reason, if the panel sides with him, he should be traded without penalty.
Whatever happens, the current method of benching players who demand trades isn't working.
🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒🏒
In the meantime, every player who demands a trade is immediately rumoured to be headed to Montreal. This is not a new thing. For decades, players have used the Canadiens as a bargaining chip. Rumours start about what the Habs are allegedly offering and players have used that to pressure the team to which they really want to go.
That doesn't really work with the current management. The Canadiens have a plan and it starts with player commitment. It would follow that Hughes would steer clear of disgruntled guys influencing the culture in the room.
The salary cap explosion is also a problem. Hughes has done a masterful job in managing his money, but that would be upended by bringing in a star player who wants market value and asks for 20-million a year.
And the team trying to move a star player with several contract years remaining is hardly going to let the guy go for nothing. If Hughes wanted an unhappy player with a huge contract and gave up valuable assets to get him, it would be completely removed from everything else he's done in Montreal.
Take Kucherov for example. He's a great player, no doubt about it. But he's 33 years old and will likely want term of 5-6 years and around 20-million per. Hughes would have to find that money in his cap, with no guarantee Kucherov will be the same player in two years' time. He'd also have to give up high picks, a top prospect like Michael Hage and/or a valuable roster player.
Unless we're talking about acquiring a young Mario Lemieux, it's hard to imagine Hughes offering so much for a single player.
Whatever the league decides to do about the current power struggle between players and managers, one thing is clear. We're no longer in 1991 and Eric Lindros is no longer the poster boy for screwing over his team.
No comments:
Post a Comment