Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMike
So it only has to do with clauses that haven't kicked in yet? I believed if a player waived his clause once he didn't have to, but that goes against what I've learnt about the Lucic deal.
So its more of a signing a player into UFA years, where he gets to earn NMC/NTC but trading him before that clause kicks in, the next team still has to honour when that clause kicks in.
I can't believe it wasn't already that way, no wonder why they are fighting for this.
|
Technically it has to do with all NMC/NTCs. I'm not great with wording things so I will give a few examples.
Say we trade Gaudreau before his NTC kicks in like some want us to do. Under the current agreement, the new team could choose to scrap that NTC and Gaudreau loses that trade protection.
With Milan Lucic, he waived his NMC to come here. Under the current agreement we could have told Milan that we were not willing to honor his NMC going forward. The difference between this scenario are the Gaudreau one is Lucic had the power to nix the trade if the movement protection wasn't honored. But, if it was something he wasn't concerned about, he could have said yes to the trade and we could have scrapped the clause.
The scenario I am not sure of is when a player has an active NMC/NTC but is traded to a team the clause does not apply to such as Kadri to Colorado. I'm not sure if Colorado was allowed to do away with his NTC or not since he never actually had to waive it to go there.
The new system is much cleaner and makes way more sense.