How Teams Should Approach the NHL Trade Deadline
Every NHL season comes with the excitement of the NHL trade deadline, where teams are no longer able to make trades for the remainder of the season until the Stanley Cup is won, at least no significant trades. With the trade deadline comes the excitement of player speculation, typically of players who are on expiring contracts and will become unrestricted free agents at the end of the season. However, part of this excitement comes risk, and whether or not it is actually worth it for contending teams to give up future assets for current assets in order to make a strong push for the Stanley Cup.
The Dynamics of the Trade Deadline
The dynamics of the trade deadline is pretty simple; some teams buy and some teams sell, and a good portion of the players involved are on expiring contracts, although sometimes trades take place where a team intends to keep that player. When buying teams trade for a player on an expiring contract and have little intentions on re-signing that player, they are referred to as a “rental”. Buying teams are typically those who are most likely qualifying for the Stanley Cup Playoffs and are looking to strengthen their roster, gain depth in case of injury, or sometimes, more subtly, acquire players to prevent other contending teams from acquiring those players. Buyers can also be teams on the edge of the playoff line who want to make a push to secure a playoff spot and qualify for the playoffs. Sellers are the opposite, and typically consist of teams that are nowhere near a playoff spot and are looking to sell off current assets, usually players on expiring contracts, in exchange for future assets such as prospects and draft picks. Sometimes, teams that look like they may qualify for the playoffs still decide to sell if qualifying for the playoffs is not a priority for the general manager, and accumulating future assets is assumed to be better for the teams’ future. Other instances might even see playoff teams selling assets if there is a certain player on an expiring contract that they don’t believe they will re-sign, and also would prefer to receive a return for that player instead of keeping them for the playoffs. One example of this is Kevin Shattenkirk at the 2017 trade deadline, where the Blues traded Shattenkirk despite being a playoff team, as they didn’t want to lose him for nothing by letting him walk in free agency. A similar scenario is currently ongoing in Carolina with Mikko Rantanen, as the team would prefer to trade Rantanen if they don’t believe re-signing is a possibility. As of the writing of this article, Rantanen is still in Carolina, but trade rumours predict he will end up in Dallas.
Is Acquiring Players Worth the Price?
With the above explained, this leads to the ultimate question; is it actually worth paying up a hefty price, such as a high quality prospect or a first round draft pick, just for a player who might not even fit into the main core, and to be one of multiple teams trying to compete for a Stanley Cup? Unfortunately, there is no short answer, but we can see that in recent history, it does seem to be a risky approach to give up such significant future assets when there are alternative approaches available.
At the trade deadline, there is typically one or more “shiny toy” players, which are players that are seen to be the top prize of the trade deadline. For example, for the upcoming 2025 trade deadline, Mikko Rantanen would be seen as the top forward trade prospect, Seth Jones was seen as the top defencemen available before moving to Florida, and John Gibson is seen as the top goaltending option, although Gibson has been among trade rumours for many seasons now. However, “winning” the sweepstakes for these top trade prospects requires a significant sacrifice in return. For reference, below is a table outlining some of the top trade deadline rental options in recent years, and how successful those teams were.
Some of the largest trade deadline acquisitions in recent years of rental players who signed with a new team in the off-season
As seen, teams that acquire the top player available do not tend to win the Stanley Cup, or even go far in the playoffs. Although there have been teams who acquire significant players at one trade deadline and win a Stanley Cup in the near future with help from those players, when looking strictly at rentals, it is very rare to see a team benefit from giving up significant assets for the top rental player available.
When looking at the past five Stanley Cup Champions, all of them had a different approach, which was to add depth players that could also handle additional roles such as powerplay or penalty kill time, and could also fill in other roles in the case of injury. Additionally, these teams did not solely focus on rentals, and instead picked up players who either had multiple years left on their contract, or players where the team intended and was able to re-sign them.
Last five trade deadlines for the last five Stanley Cup Champions
As the NHL approaches the trade deadline on March 7, 2025, teams should be wise about how they spend their future assets. As mentioned previously, Mikko Rantanen is rumoured to be traded to Dallas, and is by far the “shiniest toy” available at this seasons’ trade deadline. If Rantanen becomes a “sign-and-trade”, where a long-term contract is signed right before the trade, then the “risky” trade deadline approach does not necessarily apply. However, as we have seen in recent history, acquiring Rantanen as a rental would likely be a costly mistake that would result in numerous future assets given up. Instead, the optimal approach tends to be a focus on depth players, such as third line players who can play on the penalty kill, or depth defencemen who can play a top six role or even top four in the event of injury.