Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef
I never said I wanted that, simply pointing out that people saying it is illogical to not uphold a contract lacks understanding of what logic is. Upholding a legally binding contract is not illogical in any sense of the word.
|
It would be upheld though. The player would never be forced to move, the contract would not be violated. The only difference would be the expansion team having exclusive negotiation rights for like 2 weeks?
If someone really wanted to get that pedantic, as long as the NHL and NHLPA agree the rules can be whatever they want. If they wanted to make it that NMC that expire after July 1, 2017 are protected (or forced to be) they could just do that...
A no-movement contract "prevents the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim." As defined in the CBA. There's nothing about expansion drafts.
The same issue came up with Doan and the idea that his NMC would have invalidated his contract if the team relocated. Most agreed that it wouldn't. (I don't know if any players on Atlanta had NMC at the time but that would be a good case).