Standing Still is Another Option

The first volley of the NHL's impending trade deadline was fired this morning, as Keith Tkachuk was dealt from the Blues to the Thrashers for Glen Metropolit and a whole mess of potentiality.

Atlanta, recently faltering in the Southeast Division, acquired yet another veteran war-horse with scoring pop to season its already spirited lineup while giving away nothing in return to a Blues team now officially conceding the season.

Does it really have to be this way? Does every team which deems itself a non-buyer at the trade deadline for any number of reasons, have to sell off its top talent in vague hopes to get draft picks to build a "future?" Of course not.

But, since NHL general managers are positively obsessed with getting "value" in every deal they make, the cycle is perpetuated. Even the Flyers, who are at the bottom of the league standings, felt pressured to be a "seller" even though they have been out of the playoff race since Christmas because the chance of "losing" Peter Forsberg (an unrestricted free agent in summer) without compensation is judged to be far too damaging to the success of future seasons without something in return.

Never mind the actual humans (Scottie Upshall and Ryan Parent), but isn't it bizarre that so many GM's are so willing to throw out warm bodies for the greatest of the Great Unknowns, the draft pick?

Sure, you can never have too many draft picks, and surely never too many picks high in either the first or second rounds, but at least half of these potentialities are dealt in turn - either for more picks, higher picks, or a throw-in forward or minor leaguer - without a real person at least donning a team jersey and posing for a picture on draft day.

Even under the new cap rules following the cancelled season, and despite the fact that a ton of these first-generation contracts with big names attached are about to end, the NHL is very much a "Future is Now" league. Although 16 teams ultimately make the postseason, no fewer than 22 teams have a shot to make the dance at this time of year. After 22 years of watching the NHL, I can't for the life of me understand why heads of these organizations are still willing to deal so willingly in the unknown - but a key to the answer does lay in a pastime of younger years.

Think of GM phone conversations at or near the deadline as trading baseball cards (we all did that in our youth, right?). If you solely judged a player based on stats on the back and the picture on the front, it's easier to fleece your trading partner based on a flimsy piece of cardboard plus your own skewed opinion. You haven't seen the player(s) or talked to him/them in person, so there's no concrete evidence to back up the claim. Still, if you're dangling three cards and professing your desire of just one (or the other way around) that the other person is holding, it's hard for the other person to pass it up, and it's hard for you to resist a snicker of satisfaction as you make the deal.

However, things really get murky when you deal with bodies, because the video evidence is splashed all over the satellite, every night from October to April. That's why, even now, there are precious few two-for-two or higher multiple deals any more. If you have a zombie in skates on your hands costing your team goals every night, you have to find another willing sucker to unload him. On the other hand, if you have a draft pick or even a prospect attached to a pick who has yet to set foot on an NHL rink, you can more easily manipulate someone's opinion by using their hope for the future as a bargaining chip.

So, to the point.

Why are teams so consistently divided into buyers or sellers, with nothing in between? Why can't doing nothing be a wise or viable option? Since there will be so much player movement due to the brevity of contracts under a moving cap in the new era, wouldn't a team that stands pat (out of playoffs or not at this point) stand as good a chance, or even better, to improve next season? Sure, sometimes low risk yields low reward, but what if the two players you traded at the deadline the previous season because the team was out of contention could have helped you this season?

Case in point: the New York Islanders. About to miss the playoffs for the ninth time in 11 seasons, the club dealt second-line scorer Mark Parrish and able defenseman Brent Sopel to the Kings for prospects Jeff Tambellini and Denis Grebeshkov at the deadline last year. Under that regime, the Isles were on a course to move towards a near-total youth movement, so the trade made sense. However, with the offseason shenanigans that stained New York this past summer, more veteran free agents were acquired, and the Islanders are playing well enough to sit on the cusp of the postseason in 2007.

You can't tell me that Parrish and Sopel couldn't have remained vital on a rebuilding team. You also can't say that Parrish and Sopel wouldn't be key positive veteran factors to push the club off the bubble this year. Instead, the remainder of this season will play out like Survivor: Eastern Conference, and the Islanders will have to scratch, claw, and fight to win an immunity challenge.

Case in point #2: The 1997 Stanley Cup Finals (Philadelphia and Detroit). In 1996, the Flyers made a flurry of at-or-near deadline deals to bolster their roster, bringing in Dan Quinn, Kerry Huffman, John Druce and Dale Hawerchuk, then bowed out in six games to Florida in the second round. The next season, they made no deals and with a solid, cohesive roster, reached the Finals. Detroit ripped the guts out of their roster early on, and the club meshed with that stability. The acquisition of Larry Murphy from Toronto for virtually nothing was the sole move for the eventual Cup winner.

Case in point #3: Every Western Conference club that didn't win the Cup from 1996 through 2002. Look back at Colorado, Detroit and Dallas, and you'll see the years they were the least active at gutting their minor-league system and wasting draft picks for veteran talent were the years they won their Cups.

With 48 hours to go before the 3 PM Tuesday deadline, you can be certain of more than a dozen smaller deals borne out of the frustration each general manager has with their counterparts who try to pry a blue chip prospect or a bona-fide scorer from each other's hands. One guarantee, though, is that any team which chooses to stay where they are and not deal in futures, will have the honor of being skewered thoroughly in the papers and on television for their indecision or lack of initiative.

Too bad nobody will see the wisdom when one or more of these clubs makes a deep playoff run.