Is there an argument against Rental players in the NHL?

Question

OK, so I love Hossa. He's one of my favorite players. However, I hate that he is on the Penguins...and that he may not be in October.

Regardless, my question, and issue is with rental players.

Gone are the days where a team was truly a team. Guys knew each other inside and out...not only would they battle together for an entire season, but often season after season together.

I remember (in the 70s) how insulted we (Boston fans) would get when a guy went to another team. Those days are gone too, eh?

So, although I am happy for my boy Marian, I am somewhat pissed that teams can pad their rosters just a month before playoffs begin. I know this isn't new- but I was reminded of the reality yesterday when the Penguins slapped the Flyers.

Thoughts? I also wonder- how is it that a player (Hossa) can truly celebrate a Cup with people he just met ?

Answer 1

History has shown that the rental player has failed far more than it has helped.  The teams gamble when they make these moves because they often give up prospects and/or draft picks in order to obtain the players.  I have no problem with the rental player at all.  It is the nature of beast in all of sports these days with free agency, salary caps and the amount of money the players earn.

TomJC: You made one of the points I was trying to make much better than I did.  There is always another side to rental player trades.  Philly is better for it dealing a player, the Islanders got worse for the Ryan Smyth trade last season and obviously Hossa is currently paying dividends.

Answer 2

Well as you point out, the good old days must be the 70's and beyond because I recall the trade deadline was in full bloom as early as 1980.

More often than not, trade deadline deals are nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul... the Ducks didn't make any moves last year and won, and Detroit only tinkered this year... meanwhile teams like San Jose (Bernier and a 1st), Colorado (1st, 3rd, and 4th), and Pittsburgh (Christensen, Armstrong, Esposito, and a 1st) certainly gave up a little of their future this past February.

In the salary cap era (a rather young era right now), I think we'll see that teams who have padded at the deadline will pay a price down the line. San Jose might be a good example... giving up picks and prospects for Guerin, Ryder, and Campbell at the deadline over the last two years could mean trouble down the line, and if Pittsburgh fails to win it all this year... the same might be said of them.

Answer 3

There is no reason to argue over rental players. You win some  lose some. But the NHL needs to quit changing the game.

Answer 4

I've never like it either...but its now a part of the game that is not going anywhere

one of my Favorite's Jeremy Roenick career is almost a rental

but If Hossa does not return next year that is the true meaning of rental. that said if it gets them the cup its worth it to both involved.

Answer 5

With the salary cap and free agency at an early age there is going to be more of this. A team picking up a "rental player" pays a pretty high price for the short term of service Pittsburgh gave up three young players and a first round draft pick for Hossa. If they are unable to sign him long term with a home town discount it may be for naught.

Some rentals don't work out. Think back a year ago when Nashville traded for Forsberg. Philadelphia is still reaping the benefits.

Answer 6

Just part of the sports world today.  It is one of those things that one can complain about, but can't really change.  Almost every year your will find a few rentals that maid a big impact to the eventual champs.  

So if the Wings win will Brad Stuart fit in the same category since he is not a big name, but has only been there for the short haul?

Answer 7

I can't say I love the use of rental players but I'm certainly not against it, I don't think the NHL players are against it either.  Most teams that are willing to take the risk have to think that they have the ability to keep these player on their teams for the next season or more or they wouldn't give away precious draft picks and/or players to get these guys.  This is especially true today with the cap.  It's why we are seeing so many long term contracts so that teams can figure out what they can afford ahead of time.  If you think you can afford to let these guys go for the next season for a shot at the cup then that is also a choice that you should be willing to take if you have a youngster that can help take up the slack.

As far as being able to celebrate with your new teammates, I think that there are no problems there, no matter how you win your cup it's sweet and the fact that you were on the team and contributed is more than enough to feel at home in the celebration.

Answer 8

I like the concept of the rental player. In other sports, the trade deadlines are usually very boring and star players rarely change teams. The NHL "rental player" adds excitement at the deadline and even builds the fans excitement about the upcoming playoff run. Everyone watches anxiously at the trade deadline hoping that their team will get "THAT GUY." Hossa was an effort by the Penguins to win the cup, it is that last statement in the season that "this can be our year" and it looks like it might work. Although, it should be noted that a team who picks up that key player at the deadline rarely actually wins the cup. The last team to do it was Colorado with Blake (i think). Usually the team that wins the cup only adds to their team slightly at the deadline.

Answer 9

The argument. You morguage your future on one player. If he fails you lose young talent. If OPittsburgh had lost they give up Christensen, Armstrong, Esposito a top prospet and a 1st rder. It only works if you win it all

Answer 10

Do you think the city of Pittsburgh is upset at the rent a player now?One thing about the rent-a-player you never know,they might throw off the chemistry of a team or bring with them some baggage that carries over to the locker room.

Answer 11

The only thing that makes someone a "rental" is if they don't sign with the team they are traded to.  Hossa loves playing in Pittsburgh and may give them a "discount" on his asking price to stay, especially if they win the cup.

Answer 12

There's arguments for and against. In the Hossa case the Penguins were lucky, but often the newly aquired player feels uncomfortable and out of place and doesn't play their normal style of hockey.

Answer 13

I dont like it.If you are gonna win a cup it should be because of the team who played well all season.Not because of the GM getting a couple good guys right at the trade deadline and them watching them walk away at the end of the season.Guys like Colby Armstong were pivotal to Pitts success and this is the thanks he gets?Im also sick and tired of seeing Doug Weight in a new uniform every other month!Rental players help a lot of teams,but to me the GM should do his job in he beginning of the season and put a good team together then.Isnt that what they are payed to do.

Answer 14

rent a player is the only reason Buffalo made it to the cup in 99 and lost to a goal which Brett Hulls skate was in the crease.

Answer 15

Im a Pens fan, and have always loved Hossa. But, i don't like the idea of rental players, either.

Regardless though, it will keep happening as long as it works. That being said, i *really* hope they can find a way to re-sign him.