Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix
They are already punished by having an unmovable anchor. I'm not sure how it makes sense to force them to lose another player because of it. In some of these cases, it's an issue of the player failing to live up to the deal, not that the team signed a "bad contract" initially. I think some of you would be singing a different tune if the Flames had a couple bad contracts with NMCs.
I think they (NMCs) should be exposed to the draft but the player can always just say no, what's stopping them? LV can pick the NMC player but there's nothing stopping the NMC player from not reporting. The official policy should be "take them at your own risk, Las Vegas".
Makes no sense to punish the teams, who in some cases are under completely different management than when the bad deal was signed.
This is like when the NHL started penalizing teams retroactively on the back diving contracts with the recapture penalty. It's bush league but I guess we should all be used to this by now.
|
So your solution is to punish the expansion teams.
Bottom line is if you hand out a no movement clause, you should be prepared to honor it. It's called a no movement clause not a no movement unless it's an expansion draft clause