No more NMC/NTC! - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

StrykerSteve · 03-29-2013, 10:37 AM

Let's hope that the Flames have finally learned their lesson and will now stop handing out NTC/NMC to anyone to entice them to play here. Either they want to be here, or they don't. Don't handcuff yourself. Half of this roster can't be moved without the player's consent, it's poor asset management to put yourself into that kind of position and will always limit the potential return. I would like to see an end to NTC/NMC on the Calgary Flames for the most part. Impose a limit, of say, 2 or 3 at the most. Thoughts?

Ashasx · 03-29-2013, 10:38 AM

Iginla is one of the few that actually deserved his NMC.

Rocky Raccoon · 03-29-2013, 10:39 AM

This would be my policy as well; I would never want to be restricted in my options. At worst any NTC should be a limited clause where the player can submit a list of 5-10 teams they don't want to go to.

normtwofinger · 03-29-2013, 10:39 AM

You can blame Sutter for that.

Heavy Jack · 03-29-2013, 10:40 AM

^^ Kipper too up until his expired. After that I don't get why they handed out so much, players must have insisted. As you can see though the player can still be traded if they have a NMC/NTC it's just they hold most of the power. I hope we don't see the same kind of scenario unfold with Bouw that we saw with Iggy. I don't mind that we got a lesser return for Iggy for him to choose where he wanted to go but Bouwmeester doesn't deserve that luxury.

nik- · 03-29-2013, 10:41 AM

Considering the state this team is in, we'd likely have to give them out to get anyone here. But if that means we stay away from the upper end FA market for a while, I'm OK with it.

TurnedTheCorner · 03-29-2013, 10:42 AM

Every time I hear someone discussing hockey utter the phrase "asset management" I want to punch them in the face.

GirlySports · 03-29-2013, 10:42 AM

It'll be tough, don't most big free agents like Bouwmeester demand long term contracts with NTCs?
Especially with a salary cap, NTCs are a negotiating tool that can save a lot of money.

Roof-Daddy · 03-29-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Let's hope that the Flames have finally learned their lesson and will now stop handing out NTC/NMC to anyone to entice them to play here. Either they want to be here, or they don't. Don't handcuff yourself. Half of this roster can't be moved without the player's consent, it's poor asset management to put yourself into that kind of position and will always limit the potential return. I would like to see an end to NTC/NMC on the Calgary Flames for the most part. Impose a limit, of say, 2 or 3 at the most. Thoughts?

False. Half the roster? False, false, false.

Bouwmeester, Giordano, Glencross, Wideman.

That's it.

The rest are limited, or expired and don't need the players consent.

Also, souns more and more like JBO is on his way out soon, so that leaves three.

StrykerSteve · 03-29-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Every time I hear someone discussing hockey utter the phrase "asset management" I want to punch them in the face.

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

SuperMatt18 · 03-29-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Every time I hear someone discussing hockey utter the phrase "asset management" I want to punch them in the face.

May I ask why?

It is a very valid term in the NHL today.

StrykerSteve · 03-29-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

False. Half the roster? False, false, false.

Bouwmeester, Giordano, Glencross, Wideman.

That's it.

The rest are limited, or expired and don't need the players consent.

Also, souns more and more like JBO is on his way out soon, so that leaves three.

? Limited is still consent. The Flames can't deal with any team the player hasn't already given the approval on.

DoNotCompute · 03-29-2013, 10:46 AM

A partial or modified NMC/NTC is a great bargaining chip in today's NHL. Take a look at Glenny's contract for an example as to why. Glencross would have been worth closer to 4m in today's market without that NMC, now we've got one of the best value deals in the league.

Let's not allow some of the Flame's past bad NMC decisions to prevent us from potentially using them properly in the future.

CaptainYooh · 03-29-2013, 10:47 AM

I hate NMC/NTC too but I don't believe this is possible to do as a stand-alone organization. This can only be done through the new round of collective bargaining. For as long as someone else is willing to give them out, there is market and those not willing to offer them will be at a disadvantage.

I also hate multi-year contracts and think that we would be able to enjoy a much better hockey if all contracts around the league were one-year. This would force players to play there best game each and every season. I know this opinion is unpopular here for a few good reasons (e.g. time to re-negotiate and re-sign 26-30 contracts each summer, risk of not being able to keep good players etc.). But, at least in theory, if it were true, then all teams would be in the same boat and the proper solutions to overcome the logistical challenges would have been found. Anyway, this is off-topic in this thread.

Roof-Daddy · 03-29-2013, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

? Limited is still consent. The Flames can't deal with any team the player hasn't already given the approval on.

It's not the same, so quit pretending it is in an attempt to bolster your argument.

Cammalleri was dealt to us last year and had no clue about it until it happened.

LouCypher · 03-29-2013, 10:54 AM

I would like to see a rule where teams can only hand so many NTC or NMC out. 2 or 3 per team, might give different teams another way to attract top free agents if they have an open NTC still while another team doesn't.

TurnedTheCorner · 03-29-2013, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouCypher

I would like to see a rule where teams can only hand so many NTC or NMC out. 2 or 3 per team, might give different teams another way to attract top free agents if they have an open NTC still while another team doesn't.

Owners should have a lockout to get this important issue addressed in a corrected CBA that finally addresses all of the systemic oversights and missed opportunities from the last round of negotiations.

Jbo · 03-29-2013, 10:58 AM

If this is because of the Iggy Trade, no player deserved it more.

If you want guys to sign at a discount or for a longer period, you need to give them.

As was said earlier ...Bouwmeester (Big UFA signing), Giordano (future captain imo), Glencross (Great contract), Wideman(UFA).

Now that we will be rebuilding, you will see them less, but the over dramatics with everything Flames lately is tiresome.

robmneilson · 03-29-2013, 11:02 AM

I agree, if anyone deserved a no trade it's Iggy. The Flames did need to do right by him and send him to the team he wished. Wish that the return was better though...

StrykerSteve · 03-29-2013, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It's not the same, so quit pretending it is in an attempt to bolster your argument.

Cammalleri was dealt to us last year and had no clue about it until it happened.

Just trying to have a conversation, no need to be so aggressive about it.

I feel that any form of clause limits the potential return a GM can get for a player. You disagree. That's fine, we're all allowed to have an opinion.