Should NMC count against expansion draft?

[dissentowner]

I thought it would be interesting to have a poll to see what the masses think as far as NMC and the expansion draft goes. I know we have a thread on the rules as they come out but this is a more focused discussion on this part of it. As far as I can tell the NHL's stance is that NMC do not protect from exposure in an expansion draft. I am sure the players and the NHLPA will contest that but who knows. What is your opinion?

[Poe969]

yes but teams should be given another round of compliance buy outs.

[Coach]

I voted can be exposed, but I still think they need to waive the clause to move. I've said the same thing in a few different threads, but just honor the clauses as they are. Risk to pick the player in the draft, risk to expose them. Let the teams (including the expansion team(s)) decide for themselves.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Some of these just cause too many complications.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I voted can be exposed, but I still think they need to waive the clause to move. I've said the same thing in a few different threads, but just honor the clauses as they are. Risk to pick the player in the draft, risk to expose them. Let the teams (including the expansion team(s)) decide for themselves.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Some of these just cause too many complications.

I can't see how that is fair to the expansion team though. So they pick M.A. Fleury and he refuses to waive, how does that work? Do they just instantly lose that selection or do they get another?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I can't see how that is fair to the expansion team though. So they pick M.A. Fleury and he refuses to waive, how does that work? Do they just instantly lose that selection or do they get another?

Get another.

Could also allow the expansion team's management to discuss possibilities with unprotected NMC/NTC players prior to the draft. Lets say, a week?

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I can't see how that is fair to the expansion team though. So they pick M.A. Fleury and he refuses to waive, how does that work? Do they just instantly lose that selection or do they get another?

I presume he has to waive to be exposed. Otherwise you have to use a protection slot on said NMC players or say NMC straight up isn't valid in expansion draft.

[lazypucker]

I voted "NMCs must be protected, but do not count as a spot." In other words, NMCs don't need to be on the protected list and still be guaranteed not be picked away by the expansion team.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this may give teams incentives to lock up marquee players they want to keep with NMCs to guarantee they stay regardless, BUT there will be the risk of them turning out to be boat anchors down the road.

And maybe put in a rule where a team can only have 2 or 3 NMC players on the roster at any given time.

[Sylvanfan]

I think that teams should be forced to protect this guys unless the players contract is set to expire within a month of the expansion draft. This is based on the assumption that the expansion draft would have to happen between the end of the season and June 30th. So if you have a player with a NMC and the contract extends into the next playing season...this player takes up one of your protected players.

If a team gave a player a NMC, they should have to honor it. If owners feel that strongly that their team is going to get screwed....they can refuse the expansion money that they'll get and vote to not expand.
So for example, if Dennis Wideman has a full no trade clause on a contract that expires on June 30th of 2017. The Flames would not have to protect him in an expansion draft that happens on June 15th of 2017.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I voted can be exposed, but I still think they need to waive the clause to move. I've said the same thing in a few different threads, but just honor the clauses as they are. Risk to pick the player in the draft, risk to expose them. Let the teams (including the expansion team(s)) decide for themselves.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Some of these just cause too many complications.

You're still giving team's 'extra' protection slots if the player refuses to waive his NMC. Not too many people are going to waive to go to an expansion team (regardless of where they play).

Every free agent would get a NMC for their first year of their contact this year so none of them have to exposed or protected.

[PeteMoss]

The only fair option for the teams is to treat them like normal players and allow them to be picked and moved in an expansion draft.

Of course that is the least fair for the players involved, so here we stand.

[flambers]

NMC is a contractual item, not sure how the NHL could ever obtain approval to expose these players. Without the NHLPA consent.

Will be an interesting item to follow

[Finger Cookin]

Options 1 and 4 seem like reasonable compromises. I voted Option 1.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You're still giving team's 'extra' protection slots if the player refuses to waive his NMC. Not too many people are going to waive to go to an expansion team (regardless of where they play).

Every free agent would get a NMC for their first year of their contact this year so none of them have to exposed or protected.

That's the right they negotiated into their contract, and likely took a pay cut to do so.

They could make a rule that any NMC/NTC given to a player in free agency 2016 is eligible to be selected in the expansion draft without the need to waive.

[Geeoff]

The way I figure it, if a player has a NMC, he is protected from moving unless he waives the clause. So, there should be no need for a team to protect a player with a NMC, since he is already protected. Players with NTC are fair game though, since it is not technically a trade.

[dissentowner]

As far as the Flames go option 1 would mean we would either have to trade Wideman before the expansion draft, buy him out, or we would be forced to protect him. Here was another question I had because I am not sure how buy outs work. If it is option 1 and a player will be a UFA in a month what stops that team from just buying those guys out for like $0 so they don't have to protect them?

[Jason14h]

Use some of the expansion fee to allow players to avoid the escrow losses they are going to face and I am sure the NHLPA will waive the NMC rights instantly! $$$$$$$$$

[blankall]

No. They should not apply. This would lead to horrible horrible abuse. As a team could just give NMCs to all the players they want to protect.

From a legal/contractual point of view, a NMC is an agreement between the player and the specific NHL team. It creates no rights between the player and the NHL or the expansion team. The NHL is not bound by a NMC.

As Geeoff pointed out, a NMC only applies to trades. An expansion draft is entirely different.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by blankall

As Geeoff pointed out, a NMC only applies to trades. An expansion draft is entirely different.

I think you're talking about NTC at the moment, but I get your gist. NTC would be worthless in expansion draft because it's not a trade.

NMC is movement which includes waivers (For instance Raymond had a modified NTC and Ference had NMC. Raymond is in Stockton. Ference is a press box regular). Thus that's why NMC has the debates for expansion draft I think.

[Finger Cookin]

A NMC doesn't only apply to trades though. That would be a NTC. A NMC would also include waivers and assignment to the minor leagues.

[Matata]

I think the right thing is to expose the players.


I think teams being forced to use one of their protected slots is what will actually happen.