|
Don't presume NHLers with no-trade clauses won't wind up in Las Vegas |
|
|
|
|
|
Although the reveal of Las Vegas’ expansion team name this week didn’t go quite so smoothly, the newly-christened Golden Knights are going to have a relatively easier time putting together a playoff-capable squad, at least, compared to most of the 24 teams that preceded them in the NHL’s growth process. They’ll almost certainly come away from the expansion draft employing a veteran goaltender with post-season experience on his resume; they’ll very likely have three or four players who’ve enjoyed a prolonged stretch of success in hockey’s best league; and there’s a solid shot they’ll have at least one NHLer who currently has a no-movement clause in his contract that many people presume will keep them with their current organization.
That last part bears repeating, because I think some people get too caught up in the seeming finality of a no-movement or no-trade clause. Those people envision players with their arms folded across their chest and a pout pressed onto their face. They hear the “no”, and completely discount the hyphenated word that follows.
And that’s where we need to remind ourselves of the reality of those clauses. Yes, there are instances in which NHLers dig in and insist on staying put. (And although that type of action can prove calamitous for a franchise’s competitive capabilities, Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau’s performances in San Jose last season certainly showed a frustrating ending doesn’t always follow.) But, just as an NMC or NTC hasn’t stopped a player from moving on from the team who under no duress agreed to include it in their contract, so too will they fail to stop Vegas from bringing aboard the bearer of one.
As always, these clauses are meant to give players leverage and a fair degree of control over their future, not an impenetrable underground bunker which is vacated only on game and practice days. If the expansion situation in Nevada is to a player’s liking – personally, professionally or both – and Vegas GM George McPhee is of the opinion a new coach and system will reinvigorate that player, it’s entirely possible he works with that player’s agent and makes a deal with one of his 30 colleagues to acquire him via trade.
And under the right circumstances, why wouldn’t a player consider that franchise and that city? Sticking around a place they’re not wanted is anathema to their nature as athletes in a team sport, and an opportunity to start fresh – with a Golden Knights group that’ll have every motivation to deliver impressive results in short order – isn’t necessarily going to be unappealing.
Here’s an example: Dion Phaneuf has four more years remaining on his contract at a per-season cap hit of $7 million. If the Ottawa Senators, a budget team that needs desperately to go on a deep playoff run sooner than later, decide his acquisition was a gamble that didn’t pay off as they’d hoped, maybe McPhee collaborates with Sens GM Pierre Dorion (who would either have to assume some of Phaneuf’s cap hit) to bring in the 31-year-old to help steer the Golden Knights through the tough years. Maybe that makes sense to Phaneuf because it gives him a breather from the constant spotlight that comes with playing in a Canadian market – and maybe it’s all the more enticing because his wife, actress Elisha Cuthbert, would only be a short trip from the mecca of her profession in Los Angeles.
Or maybe the Columbus Blue Jackets, who need cap relief in the worst way next year, figure that, at age 35 at the start of next season, winger Scott Hartnell’s $4.75-million cap hit that runs through the end of the 2018-19 campaign is a luxury they can no longer afford. Would McPhee see him as someone who could contribute 20 goals a year for another couple years? And would Hartnell be willing to leave an up-and-coming squad if he saw his role in Columbus diminishing? I don’t think you can say a definitive “no” to either question, and the clear deciding variable in the possibility of Las Vegas landing Hartnell is what the Jackets would want in return. Same goes for Phaneuf.
There are obvious risks to trading for veterans teams would be prepared to give up on in the expansion process, but if you leave aside the individual for the moment, you can at least see circumstances that might lead to a deal being consummated for a player with an NTC or NMC. Some contracts may appear to be unmovable, but the NHL has seen many unmovable deals suddenly and shockingly become movable in recent years. All it takes is the three parties – each team involved, and the player himself – being convinced of why a trade has an upside for them.
And with this Vegas expansion team, there’s all sorts of different types of potential out there. Very few, if any NHLers will ever regard the entertainment capital of the planet as some backwater outpost. If the players are single, it may well look like paradise on earth to them. And if the hockey opportunity is sufficiently attractive, I have no doubt whatsoever they’d waive their NTC or NMC to go there. As I’ve noted for years, NTCs and NMCs are commonly designed to give players a group of a certain number of cities to which they’d agree to go to in a deal, and it probably wouldn’t take too much convincing on McPhee’s behalf to persuade them of the Golden Knights’ potential.
So don’t look at any list of players with NTCs or NMCs and presume they’re completely out of the question when it comes to living and working in Nevada. They're not. Far stranger things have happened and will continue to happen.
Blogger •NHL Columnist • 
Join the Discussion:
»