What will likely happen is either option 1 or, slightly less likely, option 3. I think option 2 is best for players and teams.
You have to recognize that players have signed contracts with NMC's in order to gain some stability for themselves and their families. Players that get these provisions have often earned them and it is their right to negotiate those terms into their contracts and exercise those terms as laid out in the contract.
However, I don't think teams should lose a protection spot for players with a NMC. If you're going to concede that a NMC means a player cannot move then it seems like double dipping to say "He can't go anywhere because of his contract and you also have to protect him from going anywhere because he can't go anywhere."
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned another round of buyouts. That would be a good solution if the league chooses to go with option 1. Force teams to protect their guys with a NMC but offer 2 buyouts in the offseason to help teams better manage their roster. I think, for the future, there needs to be a set rule for how the NMC affects expansion drafts so no one is sitting around asking questions like this a year before the draft happens. The rule should be set, that's how it is, that's the rule you work with when you negotiate contracts. No questions when the expansion draft rolls around.
__________________
|