This is a public service announcement, because maybe you don't know the new rule regarding No Trade Clauses involving players signed in UFA. Or ... OR ... maybe you just love looking at letters and combining them into words with your brain … blah blah blah … comprehension. Whatever your thing, I'm going to discuss this rule, with letters vis-a-vis words, since Free Agency opens tomorrow. I am also going to postulate a few theories that we may see transpire thanks to said rule change.

Ok, here goes. Previously, when you signed a FA, there was a blanket 30-day NTC (no-trade-clause) and depending on the contract AAV, a penalty that needed to be paid when trading said player.

The new rule, which has an enormous impact on the league moving forward states — if a player signed in UFA costs over $7m/year, there is now a 120-day NTC. Yes, FOUR MONTHS. That means you can’t move said player until the deadline.

Here's the rundown:

-       Players over $7m have a 120 NTC.

-       Players in the 6.99-$4m range have a 60-day NTC.

-       Players in the $3.99-$1.01m range have a 30-day NTC.

-       Players $1m and under have no movement restrictions.

This has a few potential major implications across the board. 

1.     Potential lower returns at deadline. With a ton of superstar forwards and defensemen up for grabs this season, the 20-ish rebuilding teams will be chomping at the bit to pay $15m+ for the likes of Patrice Bergeron, Brad Marchand, Geno Malkin, Milan Lucic and more in hopes of flipping them. But with a longer NTC timeframe (and only a small handful of competing teams) will that lessen the return rebuilding teams are able to net on a rental swap since acquiring teams will only have these players for a few months?

2.     Pre-season goalie wink-wink trades no more. Deals like Junya and Dave made last year for Bishop are almost impossible to make now. For starters, a team will have to wait four months to acquire their impact goalie. You can survive a month with a plug in net (see: Junya.) But four? If that’s the case, they probably won’t be in contention by the time their goalie arrives. Also, speaking from personal experience, moving a goalie at the trade deadline is very, very difficult. Contending teams are contenders largely because of good goaltending. So when the deadline arrives, they don’t need one. Add to fact that most contenders don’t have a ton of cap space ... well, things can get awkward. Plus, if you agree to pay a huge ransom for a goalie, but find yourself out of it by Feb. by the time you get him, then what? Did you just trade a 1^st or 2^nd rounder for nothing, you silly shit? 

3.     Retention spots may turn into a strategic advantage. If you do the math, there are about 10-ish teams with a legit shot at competing (pre-FA, of course.) And per usual, those teams don’t have a ton of cap space. And if they do, after FA, the majority won’t. With the new rules potentially limiting the return on UFA’s, retentions on more reasonably priced assets may come into play. Trading that $6m player and retaining half will turn out to be a huge strategic advantage and a windfall for cap-strapped competitors, potentially netting a higher-than-usual return. Will be interesting to watch unfold and changing the way tanking teams rebuild, potentially increasing the value of the modestestly signed players exponentially.

4.     “I’ll just go longer term on the FA's and trade them next year.” Yes, there’s that strategy. You've thought of it all, haven't you? Unfortunately, you’re tanking because you want to get a good draft pick. So you’re going to hold on to a stud goalie and a 1^st line center to maybe trade them next year and end up with pick 12 in the draft? Bold move, Cotton. Plus, if they end up sucking this season in real life, next years rates won’t justify the price tag. And well, cue the Price is Right Loser music.

5.     Tankers maybe playing with fire? In a race for Lafreniere, who wants to be the tanking team who gets stuck with their two superstars they were unable to flip? Or the guy who pays a $23m BRHL cash bonus for Bergeron and has to move him for a 3rd? (cheaper to just use cash to buy the pick.) Obviously that's worst case scenario, but last year proved to be a buyers market, and the in increase in tankers only makes that seem like the likely scenario again this year. Tankers who love to spend money like MC Hammer buying his 3rd tiger ... will you get burned? As some teams can contest, one or two games can mean the difference between top-3 pick and top-10.

Conclusion: The rule change was designed to level out some of the astronomical and highly implausible prices in UFA. Hopefully

it will have an impact. Because personally, I find that to be the most unrealistic part of the BRHL2. While the process is fun, it’s

flawed. Will it solve the problem? Of course not. Premium players will go for premium prices. But hopefully it helps restore a little

more balance to the ecosystem. 

Happy Free Agency-ering.