Asking players to waive NTCs, and NMCs

[gvitaly]

During last night's game, Kelly Hrudey's opinion was brought up. His take: A team should never approach a player to ask him to waive something that's in the contract and has been negotiated.

I see where he's coming from, but I don't entirely agree. There are many situations where a trade could benefit both the team and the player. I was curious where do you guys stand on the issue?

I think a better approach would be to have a monetary compensation attached to breaking a NTC/NMC. For example, both the team and the player agree that if a player agrees to waive the NTC, and gets traded, then he gets compensated with $1M(insert dollar value here). The same idea could apply when a player asks for a trade.

Would/Should that affect the cap? I think such compensation can be treated like an entry level performance bonus.

While performance bonuses count against the salary cap, teams are permitted to exceed the salary cap due to performance bonuses, to a maximum of 7.5% of the Salary Cap.

If a team exceeds the Salary Cap due to performance bonuses, then any amount over the Salary Cap is considered a Bonus Carryover, and counts against the cap in the next season.

So what do you think, is it something that should be a part of the NHL's Standard Player's Contract(SPC)?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Give up guaranteed contracts.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Give up guaranteed contracts.

I don't think that's an option in a league where you want players to put their health on the line to make a play.

[btimbit]

I have zero issue with teams asking, and I have zero issue with players refusing

[FlamesAddiction]

If a player with an NMC/NTC can ask for a trade, then a team can ask a player with an NMC/NTC to be traded.

[transplant99]

Hrudey.....sigh. Saw that segment and just shook my head.

Bet he is fine with players who are under contract asking for trades, but how dare a team be afforded the same benefit?

I know Im in a big minority, but i just wish Hrudey was off TV all together, he offers nothing imo.

He is a great human being and does the hard work when it comes to raising awareness about mental health. Huge kudos on that front.

Used to really like him too, no idea what happened.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If a player with an NMC/NTC can ask for a trade, then a team can ask a player with an NMC/NTC to be traded.

But should there be additional compensation for waiving that part of the contract?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Hrudey is out to lunch on this one. A player has control over their situation with a NTC. It shouldn’t prevent a team with talking with that player. The player can always say no, or provide a list. I don’t see how that could not be in the spirit of a no trade clause

As for the compensation, hard no. It is different from the ELC situation, as those contracts are designed to be lower than market. The bonuses help the exceptional young players, while not penalizing the team too much. Very different than players in a UFA situation.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

But should there be additional compensation for waiving that part of the contract?

For a NMC the compensation is picking your spot.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

But should there be additional compensation for waiving that part of the contract?

Maybe only if the NMC/NTC was negotiated as part of an original discount to sign. Which I used to think was part of getting such a clause a long time ago, but these days, the clauses seem to be added on top of also getting top dollar.

And if a player were to receive compensation for it, then a player with an NTC/NMC should forfeit the clause if they ask for a trade, as it pertains to providing specific lists of were they will go.

[sureLoss]

Can't wait for the collusion that would happen if there was player compensation for waiving NTC/NMCs.

Star player would get to go to desirable cities and get paid a bonus on top of it from a departing team.

[kyuss275]

I would be okay at what hrudey is saying as long as players don’t come to management and ask for a trade because they don’t like coach or direction. It can’t be one sided affair.

[bluejays]

I posted my thoughts on this in another thread. Everyone should have the option to be approached about another opportunity. If a guy doesn’t want to waive, it’s all good too. I don’t think management should make an enemy of the guy if he refuses, as management made the decision to sign that person to the contract and it’s on them for giving into that clause.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I have zero issue with teams asking, and I have zero issue with players refusing

this. Hrudeys argument makes absolutely no sense ... NTCs and NMCs allow the players to dictate whether they want to move or not, but they are not "don't ever ask me" clauses. You'd have to imagine there's enough communication between all involved parties to make this a non-issue.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Can't wait for the collusion that would happen if there was player compensation for waiving NTC/NMCs.

Star player would get to go to desirable cities and get paid a bonus on top of it from a departing team.

We do have bonuses in the league. So that can also apply against the cap for the team trading the player, or as an increased cap-hit for that contract year.

Other non-cap leagues do have a way for either players or teams to get out of contracts, facilitate trades, or even renegotiate contracts. The cap obviously makes it more difficult.

I just look at it from a player's perspective. If I gave up a bunch of money for a NMC, then I should get compensated if I get moved, even if I get the final say on the destination.

Personally, I want to see less NTC/NMC or an easier way to move players with said clauses. I thought that compensation for breaking said clauses would provide the players with extra incentive to move.

[Jacks]

Hrudey is out to lunch on this one. A NMC doesn't mean a player will never be moved, it just means they can't be moved (or demoted) without their permission.

Compensation? hell no.

[PaperBagger'14]

Maybe standardize asking every player on your team to submit their NTC/NMC lists at the beginning of every season. This isn’t meaning to say they will be moved, but if you get everyone’s list every year it shouldn’t be seen as negative as Hrudey makes it out to be.

The NMC players can opt to not give an answer too and that’s fine as well.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Hrudey is out to lunch on this one. A NMC doesn't mean a player will never be moved, it just means they can't be moved (or demoted) without their permission.

Compensation? hell no.

I thought it could work both ways, so that a player(even without a NTC/NMC) would have to pay the team if he really wants out, and say his agent types something in social media.

[Bubba17]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

But should there be additional compensation for waiving that part of the contract?

If is reciprocal, i.e. a player asks to be traded he should pay the team a penalty and/or if the player asks to be traded he should lose any say in where he is traded to when it occurs.

Basically if the player asks out then it is at the teams convenience where he goes, but if the player still wants a say in where then it is financial.

[Bubba17]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I thought it could work both ways, so that a player(even without a NTC/NMC) would have to pay the team if he really wants out, and say his agent types something in social media.

I just wanted to say that you started a good discussion and in my opinion you phrased the question to get good debate, thanks.