If your team is out of the hunt and looking toward the future, the scouting department has a crucial job right now.

As the NHL trade deadline approaches, each team has a different strategy based on where they are in the standings. There are the obvious buyers and sellers, and the dreaded middle-of-the-pack teams. In the first installment of Trade Deadline Prep, Rachel takes you through how a seller prepares for the trade deadline.

The trade deadline is less than a month away, and we’ve already had one of the biggest fish in Bo Horvat, traded and signed. Vladimir Tarasenko also got sent to a new team. But there are more pieces available. Timo Meier, Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, Jakob Chychrun and Vladislav Gavrikov come to mind. Those players are talked about because, other than Chychrun, they are on expiring deals with teams that are bottom-five in the standings.

What constitutes a seller? At this stage of the season, the bad teams know they are the bad teams, and they’ve known for a while. If you are eight points or more back of the final wild-card spot and have a negative goal differential, you’re some level of seller. If you’re 15 points back, it’s not even a discussion. Teams that are eight or more points out have less than a two-percent chance of making the playoffs. Has it happened before? Yes. But it is not smart to bet that your team will be the St. Louis Blues reboot.

Preparing for a trade deadline when Team X is selling is different, from the scouting meetings to the strategy. If the GM decides to sell, the pro scouting meetings have a certain tone. When sitting down for scouting meetings, the scouts and executives will go through each NHL team. When Team X is in sell mode, there is an express goal of going through each team to identify what they may need and if Team X has any pieces to offer that fit. More importantly, Team X identifies what players they would covet as part of a trade return (these should be players on ELCs or prospects). This is done with the help of the analytics department, which provides a list of players they believe are undervalued or caution against players who may be overvalued. By doing this, Team X has a baseline of teams that are fits for the players they intend to trade and a skeleton for potential returns.

Heading into meetings, there will be a priority list made of players who the team wants to move out. For a seller, those players are on expiring contracts or bloated deals that they can retain money on without impeding a future contending window (usually one or two years remaining). Moving out expiring contracts is a must for these teams unless that player is part of the core group going forward. Players coming off their ELCs are usually candidates to be re-signed, while players with arbitration rights who are closer to unrestricted free agency and do not align with a rebuilding timeline (Meier) are strong candidates to be moved.

Teams in sell mode need a list of untouchables, as well. If you’re in sell mode, almost nothing should be off the table unless you have a superstar that will still be worth their value when the team is ready to contend. For a rebuilding team, those players need to be under 25. The goal is quite simple: accrue the most quality assets possible that fit your timeline while avoiding future cap headaches by signing long-term contracts that do not fit the timeline. If you are in sell mode, signing anyone 28 or older to a long-term extension does not align with a rebuilding timeline. It is highly unlikely the player’s contract will be efficient when the team is ready to contend, and that can handicap the team’s ability to add assets when the time is right. It must be avoided at all costs.

Pro scouts will compare the team’s players and prospects to what other teams have. Scouts consistently see other teams and provide a great perspective of where their team’s prospects and players compare in the grand scheme of things. Executives may believe a prospect is B+ level, but after hearing the scouting perspective, they may realize he’s more of a B or B-. Furthermore, scouts can share intel on how other teams value the prospects owned by Team X. For example, if Team X has soured on a prospect and does not believe he will become what the team needs, a scout can share that other teams may think highly of him. That may provide an avenue to flip assets and make both sides happy. This happens most often with prospects coming up to their junior and senior NCAA years and players who are approaching waiver eligibility.

When trading pending UFAs, contenders generally don’t have room to take on the full brunt of the salary. Retaining salary on an expiring deal increases the return Team X can get. 

When the Penguins acquired Rickard Rakell last year, Anaheim retained 35 percent of his expiring salary. The Penguins gave up two bottom-end roster players to make the money match, as well as Calle Clang and a second-round pick. Had the salary not been retained, it is likely the pick would have been in the fourth or fifth round. When Colorado acquired Lehkonen at 50 percent retained, it cost them Justin Barron and a second-round pick.

It is less about the percentage of money retained and more about the amount of money retained. Retaining 50 percent of Lehkonen at $1.1 million is not the same as retaining 50 percent ($5.2 million) of Patrick Kane’s expiring deal. There have been countless examples of capped-out teams sending good players packing and paying teams to take them. Why? Cap space is the most valuable asset. If you’re a seller, leveraging your cap space to accrue the best draft picks possible is shrewd asset management.

Acquiring a top-six forward or top-four defenseman for half the salary is very enticing to a contender. It is not the same as getting a third-pair 'D' for $800,000 instead of $1.3 million. The more valuable the player, the more valuable it is to retain money to increase the return value. Over the course of the scouting meetings, GMs will lay out what teams have called for what players and weigh the options of retaining or not.

Hypothetically, this is how a conversation may go: (Let me be extremely clear – defensemen are a hot commodity at the deadline, and teams overpay every year) “We have a second-pairing defenseman on a $4 million expiring deal who teams are interested in. These are the teams that have called (insert teams here). If we retain 25 percent, we can get a C prospect, a second and a fourth. If we retain 35 percent, we can improve to a C prospect and a first. But, if we retain 50 percent, we get a B prospect and a first, or we get the prospect we really want and a second.” 

The pro scouts will weigh the differences between the prospects and provide insight into whether the extra retention is worth the improved prospect or pick. If the increased retention gets Team X the prospect they really see value in, they may opt to retain more. It is largely dependent upon getting what you want. If Team X wants a certain B or C prospect and the team offers a similar prospect of value, it becomes a game of chicken.

As the deadline approaches, teams weigh offers on their expiring players. The smart teams shop the deal around quietly. You’re not going to say who has offered what, but a GM will say they have been offered a more enticing package, and “If you want to get the deal done, this is what it is going to take.”

This year, there are more sellers than buyers. Standard economics would say that should drive trade prices down. This is more likely the case for a bottom of the roster player – think fourth-line and third-pair guys. A GM may be hoping to get a second- or third-round pick for a player, but when push comes to shove, they may end up only getting a fifth. It is better to acquire a fifth than to keep the player and lose him for nothing.

Furthermore, it is better to get assets for a player than to re-sign him to a contract that does not align with his future value on the team’s timeline. Signing players because you don’t get the exact trade package you are hoping for leads to cap problems when you’re in the contending window and need to have efficient contracts. It’s not easy to trade away good players, but the teams who understand that timelines are key and efficient contracts are gold, are often the ones who position themselves to have long-term success.