The term “untouchable” is often tossed around on Twitter, on blogs, and around the interwebs in many different forms. “Untouchable” is a term that fans have given to players they have either grown attached to, think are special in some way, or are vital to the organization’s well being. In the business that is hockey, there is no such thing as an “untouchable” player. Everyone can be had in the right deal. Including the most important player the Rangers have had since Brian Leetch: Henrik Lundqvist.
Now, will Lundqvist be traded? Absolutely not. But let’s say the Red Wings came calling for Hank, and they offered up Jimmy Howard, Henrik Zetterberg, and a top prospect for Lundqvist. Only a fool would say no to that trade. We all love Lundqvist, but in this case, I make that trade. Remember: emotions have no place in the business of the game.
“Untouchable” is a phrase that is used for prospects as well, which is mind boggling to be honest. I again use the Bobby Ryan for Chris Kreider scenario. Ryan is proven, and still young. Kreider is still unknown, and at his absolute peak is what Bobby Ryan is today. If the Ducks ask for Kreider for Ryan, you make the trade (assuming the other pieces make sense of course).
The phrase “untouchable” is a phrase used by those who have formed emotional attachments to players, prospects, and picks. Any player, any prospect, or any pick can be had in the right deal. It is a general manager’s job to evaluate all possible trades and determine the best path for his team’s success. If that means trading the captain, or the top prospect, or the heart of the team, then so be it. It is the cost of doing business in the NHL.
Actually, the more I write this post, the more I realize there are a few players that are “untouchable”. Those are the players with no-movement or no-trade clauses. They are “untouchable” because they can’t be moved without their approval. But even then, they aren’t really “untouchable”, they are just more difficult to move.
Is there an end to the madness that is the phrase “untouchable?” Likely not, but might I suggest saying “It would take a big overpayment to get that player.” Much like the Lundqvist example above, the Rangers aren’t moving him unless there is a huge overpayment. No general manager would make that trade, but it’s a trade that would make Hank very, very movable. No one is “untouchable.” Period.