Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Personally, I think the NBA way of doing it nails it perfectly.
For a player to be eligible for an NMC, they need to have a certain number or professional seasons and they need to be re-signing with the same team (having been with that team for at least 4 seasons already).
I've seen some suggestions, like limiting the number a team can have, to say three. I like that on the surface, but there is a theoretical possibility that every team will have all their slots used and then a player even with a very limited NTC would essentially have a full NMC in practice because you couldn't trade them anywhere. The only way to get around that would be if another player with an NMC was coming back, or if the player completely and permanently waived their NMC, which again defeats the purpose of even having one. For that reason, I don't think the players would go for it.
I read another proposal that suggested cap hit penalties to deter teams from overusing them. Like a $500k cap penalty per NMC (or whatever number is considered appropriate). Having a few wouldn't be a huge issue, but you definitely wouldn't want to abuse it or you could get into trouble. The money would be put in the escrow pot. Aside from the NBA system, this would probably be my next choice.
I don't know what the NHL could offer back though for accepting changes. Personally, I think NMCs are bad enough that I'd rather see a lockout over it to try and force the issue than have things continue down the same path it has been. I understand that a lot of teams don't mind it the way it is now and it might be tough to get a majority. I am sure more warm climate and larger market cities like it the way it is because they benefit from it mostly.
|
I really like the NBA approach. Merit and encouraging players to stay with their team is never a bad thing. Easy for me to say though because I cheer for a small market Canadian team.
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk