Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny01
Really?
I am sure GM’s and owners have a problem with them but it has become so commonplace in negotiations there is little choice but to include them as part of the negotiation. I am sure owners and GM’s love to lose leverage in trade negotiations when a player blocks a move that would result in a better return for the whole team.
Stating they should just adopt a philosophy they won’t give those out will hinder their ability to sign their own players in the future and any free agents they want to chase.
You are not sure why fans are bothered their team struggles to make moves because they are on everyone’s no trade list or their own players refuse to waive. The Flames fortunes would likely be vastly different had Kadri not blocked a trade here in 2019.
It is beyond ridiculous that someone like Hamonic gets a full NMC in his mid 30’s where he is a fringe player at best. There would likely be double the trades at the draft if 90% of these clauses were removed.
|
The Hamonic example is good. A NMC helps a small market team sign a player they want to sign for a price that is likely cheaper than without the NMC. Why does management hate this? They are agreeing to sacrifice trade flexibility to get the player they want at the price they want to pay. The alternative is they don’t have that tool so they don’t get the player or pay more. How does that help them?
(without debating whether Hamonic is even worth having)