Why do teams always feel the need for "rental players" at the trade deadline?

[matter2003]

I've never quite understood this. What is the huge deal with acquiring "rental players" at the deadline? If you have a good team why isnt it simply enough to play with the team you have been winning with throughout the season already? How often do these rental players actually work out and is the cost of acquiring them even worth it??

I'm willing to bet the analytics on this is favors it being in the "not worth it" category if anyone has ever done the research. 

It looks good on paper to add a better player or an upgrade but I'm willing to bet the cost-reward ratio is skewed heavily in the cost's favor. Also willing to bet if a team ends up winning a cup with no real deadline moves other GMs will start taking notice.

Edited February 22, 2019 by matter2003

[#freejame]

It’s more or less an arms race. Teams are looking to compete with Tampa, Calgary, and Winnipeg so they add parts to their roster. The top teams are looking to add so those other teams can’t compete. Every team can always get better and at some point you need to risk it to get the biscuit.  

[PerreaultForever]

Easy answer.

$$$

Each round of playoff tickets adds millions of dollars of revenue in tickets and merchandise and sometimes future season ticket sales. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

6 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Easy answer.

$$$

Each round of playoff tickets adds millions of dollars of revenue in tickets and merchandise and sometimes future season ticket sales. 

The root of all evil.

[French Collection]

My earliest recollection of success in this manner was the Islanders getting Butch Goring from the Kings. They got a 2C and went on to win 4 straight Cups. He wasn't a rental but it was that type of move.

This was pre cap and rental era but it was a deadline move.

I have seen many of these not work because of the chemistry in the room being upset. An outgoing guy may have been very popular, or an incoming guy is taking someone's job. Good players sometimes just don't click on a new team for that short of a period.

[mjd1001]

I don't like most of the 'rental players' added. To bring a brand new guy onto the team who is a slight to moderate improvement may not help much.

On the other hand, if you have a GAPING hole or flaw on your team, then I'm all for it.  A contending team with one of the leagues worst powerplays?  Get a guy who is a power-play specialist.  Have one of the worst penalty kills?  Get a guy who excels at that. For those situations, it is easy to get a veteran up to speed.

Other than that, I agree most 'rentals' don't work out.

 

On the other hand, maybe the rentals make the team better...but that team wasn't going to get that far in the playoffs with or without them?

 

If I'm the Sabres, no way I get a 'rental', especially if you are going to give up anyting more than a late round pick. On the Sabres, a rental probably doesn't get them into the playoff to begin with..and even if they did....they aren't likely to get too far with the #8 seed playing Tampa in a 7 game series.

Edited February 22, 2019 by mjd1001

[DarthEbriate]

If you've got a window, sometimes it is worth renting the view.

The Jackets are 2 points out of 3rd in their division. The Penguins aren't wowing anyone this year, the Hurricanes have been really good lately but aren't world-beaters. If the Jackets believe they can beat those two teams...  The Isles don't scare anyone, and the Jackets have matched up pretty well against the Caps. They wouldn't have to worry about TB until the ECF. That's when you go for it. Heck, maybe TB loses 4/6 of their blue line by the time the ECF rolls around... (too soon).

Think back to 1999 (I'm not sure Warrener was a UFA at the end of the year...)  But the Sabres knew they had a window, they'd been to the ECF the season before. They'd gotten Barnes a couple weeks before as well as a true rental in Juneau. The final piece... give up a young prospect (1st-rounder in Mike Wilson) for slightly older, grittier guy with good playoff experience in Rhett W. Next thing you know our blue line is really solid.

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

There was an article in the Athletic a week or so ago discussing the effectiveness of rentals, especially since only one teams wins it all.  However teams try to enhance their teams for different reasons as discussed in the article.  Teams sometimes are just trying to make the playoffs to give a young team playoff experience or to excite their fan base.  Other times teams are trying to get a team stalled with 1st rd losses to get deeper in the playoffs.  Also the NHL is a bit of a crapshoot in the playoffs.  The President’s Trophyteam rarely wins it all.  If you aren’t in the playoffs you can’t win the Cup.

Edited February 22, 2019 by GASabresIUFAN

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

The root of all evil.

In our situation, maybe not. Things were soooo much better when we had owners who felt their team HAD to make the playoffs. It was fun. But, no, now we can't dirty our hands with the idea of JUST making the playoffs. We seek to be an elite franchise that contends every year and wins many Cups. Starting in 202x (insert new, made-up launch date)...

[R_Dudley]

By this point in the season the rental players $$ cost is prorated and/or negotiated in the trade and IMHO not a significant factor.

Now what you have to give up in trade is where the real cost lies. I agree with all here who said it is situational based on teams needs. Lets face it playoff hockey changes where a lot more is let go and tight checking, pics, interference is the new norm although that has also crept a bit too much into the regular season for my liking as well. 

The fancy stats guys could if data is available run these trends for us but i'm pretty sure special teams, face offs, goal tending and and 2ndary scoring(3rd and 4th lines) are often the difference in many games.

So for all the reasons already said in the thread around, 1 more better player than the other team, covering gaps/deficiencies or getting that first taste of experience is why teams do it hoping for that lighting in the bottle. Oh and one last thought on that new guy upsetting the chemistry, what about that new guy messing up the analytics and scouting all teams do about tendencies and changing the chemistry in a positive way...       

[LikeEich]

I think it basically boils down to, would you trade our first for a Stanley Cup? If buffalo was a contender down the road, added a guy at the deadline and won a Cup, we could crap the bed on deadline deals for the next decade and if still say it was worth it.

Injuries play a big part too can never be too prepared. 

I big part I don't understand is why teams don't do it sooner in the season? Ya alot of teams want to know where they stand at the deadline I get that. But take a look at clb, are they first in metro if they acquired duchene and dzingel in December?

Edited February 25, 2019 by LikeEich

[Drunkard]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 8:58 PM, LikeEich said:

I think it basically boils down to, would you trade our first for a Stanley Cup? If buffalo was a contender down the road, added a guy at the deadline and won a Cup, we could crap the bed on deadline deals for the next decade and if still say it was worth it.

Injuries play a big part too can never be too prepared. 

I big part I don't understand is why teams don't do it sooner in the season? Ya alot of teams want to know where they stand at the deadline I get that. But take a look at clb, are they first in metro if they acquired duchene and dzingel in December?

It takes two teams to make a deal so I imagine most of the deadline sellers still want to be competitive or still believe they have a chance at the playoffs earlier in the year. Another factor is the cap implications that R-Dudley alluded to a few posts up. Adding a $8 million player with half the season to go requires you to have $4 million in cap space but if you push it off until the trade deadline you don't have to free up nearly as much money since the trade deadline comes so late in the NHL season. That's why buyers can get away with mostly giving up futures (picks and prospects that have no impact on their cap now) for rental players with larger salaries.

[Skibum]

Depth helps, too. If bringing in one or two guys with legitimate NHL experience means one or two fewer AHL call-ups in critical playoff games, it's probably worth it. 

[inkman]

On 2/22/2019 at 2:56 PM, matter2003 said:

I've never quite understood this. What is the huge deal with acquiring "rental players" at the deadline? If you have a good team why isnt it simply enough to play with the team you have been winning with throughout the season already? How often do these rental players actually work out and is the cost of acquiring them even worth it??

I'm willing to bet the analytics on this is favors it being in the "not worth it" category if anyone has ever done the research. 

It looks good on paper to add a better player or an upgrade but I'm willing to bet the cost-reward ratio is skewed heavily in the cost's favor. Also willing to bet if a team ends up winning a cup with no real deadline moves other GMs will start taking notice.

Listen to the instigators from yesterday.  They had Gionta on from 11-12. He spoke to this point exactly. He said getting the boost from a good player(s) was truly invigorating to the locker room. He also spoke to being a team that didn't get any at the deadline and how deflating it was. 

[sabills]

31 minutes ago, inkman said:

Listen to the instigators from yesterday.  They had Gionta on from 11-12. He spoke to this point exactly. He said getting the boost from a good player(s) was truly invigorating to the locker room. He also spoke to being a team that didn't get any at the deadline and how deflating it was. 

Botts said something about this yesterday too. He said he underestimated how much of an impact acquiring Skinner was for the morale of the team before he even skated with any of them. Not a deadline move, but it does say something to your team if you're willing to go get assets to help them.

[Taro T]

And interestingly, at least per the TSN guys, 3 of the 4 division leaders (all but Nashville presumably) were unable to find a trading partner willing to give up an asset for the price they'd offer.

So, no deadline rentals for them.  Though in fairness, the BJs did more or less corner the market on short term gratification.