Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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)
|
That is somewhat the problem though. This move in isolation is relatively harmless other than the fact the Sens need to keep Hamonic on the roster next year at minimum (he would be a cheap buyout next summer). This clause shouldn’t even be in question for a player like this but it has become so common that it does exist for guys at the bottom of the roster.
We have seen big market teams fleece small market teams when players demand a trade and only give a list of 1 team they will play for. Boston got Hall for less than the Flames paid to get Jarnkrok. Same with Kane and the Rangers these clauses still give the big market teams leverage.
Personally I am a fan of player movement and trades and feel if they got rid of these clauses (or limited them significantly) coupled with shorter term deals (5/6 years instead or 7/8) we would see a lot more player movement and less regrettable contracts signed.