Asking players to waive NTCs, and NMCs

[FlamesAddiction]

In Hrudey's playing days, NTCs were extremely rare and you had to be a really special player to get one, and it usually meant the player was giving up some salary in return. These days, every team has several players with them and they have become something that even a lot of average players expect.

[Buff]

Players get them so they can control where they go if the time comes for them to move before the end of the contract. You can't sign long term contracts and expect the team to be a contender for the entirety of the contract. If you want a chance to win now then why would you let your team trade you to Columbus this year if Colorado has interest in you too?

Also, maybe a player just doesn't want to move for family reasons and would like to stay where they are. Doesn't mean they can't be asked but they have the right to say "No thanks, I'm happy with my NMC keeping me here".

[browna]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In Hrudey's playing days, NTCs were extremely rare and you had to be a really special player to get one, and it usually meant the player was giving up some salary in return. These days, every team has several players with them and they have become something that even a lot of average players expect.

I don't even know if they were part of the CBA when he was a player.
It was only 1992 or 1993 when player salaries were public knowledge and movement clauses came in years after that.

NMC's are yes to provide some stability and not getting traded out of the blue, but it's really more a control point for the union in CBA negotiations, of which they had to give something up for from the owners.

His opinion and that's fine.

[Erick Estrada]

It’s tough for me because Kelly is such a great guy but his takes are getting worse and worse as time passes.

[iggy_oi]

I think Hrudey is confusing a no trade clause with a you can’t even ask me if I would agree to a trade clause.

Pretty silly take on his part.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by browna

I don't even know if they were part of the CBA when he was a player.
It was only 1992 or 1993 when player salaries were public knowledge and movement clauses came in years after that.

NMC's are yes to provide some stability and not getting traded out of the blue, but it's really more a control point for the union in CBA negotiations, of which they had to give something up for from the owners.

His opinion and that's fine.

According to this story in the Toronto Star, Darryl Sittler was the first NHL player to get an NTC in order to prevent him from playing in the WHA, and he explicitly gave up $200k for the NTC. The Toros offered him a $1 million contract, and the Leafs countered with $800k plus an NTC. Nowadays, I don't think players actually leave anything on the table for a clause, it's just expected on top of everything else. Later, he also rejected $500k from the Red Wings who tried to entice him to waive.

https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...e8c688375.html

They certainly weren't common until after the 2004-2005 lockout.

[GioforPM]

I doubt you can get away from them altogether. I think a limit on them - just like limits on LTIR, retention, buyouts etc might be doable.

There could be some give from players as well. If you have an NTC/NMC there could be conditions attached and also events which might terminate the NMC/NTC (eg asking for any trade = a complete waiver, not just wherever you want).

[dissentowner]

I could care less what Hrudey says as longs as he isn't doing colour on our broadcasts anymore. Millen is so refreshing and good, just a joy to listen to compared to Kelly.

[browna]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

According to this story in the Toronto Star, Darryl Sittler was the first NHL player to get an NTC in order to prevent him from playing in the WHA, and he explicitly gave up $200k for the NTC. Later, he also rejected $500k from the Red Wings who tried to entice him to waive. Nowadays, I don't think players actually leave anything on the table for a clause, it's just expected on top of everything else.

https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs...e8c688375.html

They certainly weren't common until after the 2004-2005 lockout.

Thanks, though the Sittler one seemed more like a personal terms type thing (while obviously written into his contract) and more at the whim of crazy Harold Ballard who out of spite didn't want his star going across town to play for another league. Later, the fact that the Wings said publically that they were going to pay him $50k to have him break his clause to go to the Wings in a trade is just wild West stuff to how things operate today between owners, union, and the league.

I mean if Gretzky didn't have one (remember his contract signing at center ice in the early 80s) then it was far from common and no owner would write it into a contract.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

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.

Does the NFL count?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by browna

Thanks, though the Sittler one seemed more like a personal terms type thing (while obviously written into his contract) and more at the whim of crazy Harold Ballard who out of spite didn't want his star going across town to play for another league. Later, the fact that the Wings said publically that they were going to pay him $50k to have him break his clause to go to the Wings in a trade is just wild West stuff to how things operate today between owners, union, and the league.

I mean if Gretzky didn't have one (remember his contract signing at center ice in the early 80s) then it was far from common and no owner would write it into a contract.

Yeah, I personally never heard of movement or trade clauses in the NHL until after the 2004-2005 lockout. If they existed before then other than the Darryl Sittler thing, they couldn't have been common and may not have been public knowledge.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Does the NFL count?

I misread the OP. I read it as "give up on guaranteed contracts".

I tried to say that a player wouldn't be as eager to block a shot, or take a hit to make a play if his contract isn't guaranteed, if he loses a step or receives an injury.

[Reign of Fire]

The only thing I would change is that if a player has an NTC/NMC and asks for a trade, they should no longer be protected by it. They shouldn't be able to dictate where they are getting traded.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Asking a player to waive their NTC or NMC is morally equivalent to your boss asking you to waive your vacation days or dental plan.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

Asking a player to waive their NTC or NMC is morally equivalent to your boss asking you to waive your vacation days or dental plan.

Not really. It's more like if you were hired to work out of an office at one location, and your boss asked if you were willing to do the same work for the same money out of a different office location instead.

[Ferarri]

Not a fan of these NMC or NTC as it kills fan excitement for trades (especially when you’re a small market team). Also, if they need to be part of the game then there should be a select few for true star players. The fact that they are given out like candy is a ridiculous concept.

[getbak]

It has been said many times over the years that for most players, the trade protection clauses aren't about the player only wanting to play for one team, it's about giving the player a voice in determining where he will be playing. Very few players are likely in the position of not wanting to be traded at all, and for most of those players (like Crosby), the team probably feels the same way.

Most of the players who have trade protection only have limited protection anyway (especially in the latter seasons of the contract), so they have already agreed to be traded to some teams. Why wouldn't you ask about their willingness to go to a team that isn't on their "okay to trade" list if you think they might be fine with it?

This year is a good example, I'd bet a lot of players who submitted no-trade lists on July 1 had Vancouver and Winnipeg on the list because no one expected them to be good this year. Most of those players would likely gladly accept a trade to Vancouver or Winnipeg today if it was offered.



Like most workplace issues like this, it really comes down to open communication. There should be a constant dialog between the GM and player so neither side is caught off-guard by what the other side wants.

It doesn't make any sense to say "we're going to honour the exact terms of your contract no matter what" only to find out later that the player would have gladly accepted a trade you would have been happy to make if you had only asked.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

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.

CFL doesn’t have guaranteed contracts. I’m thinking football players put their health on the line more than hockey players do. Having played both sports.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Does the NFL count?

NFL has non guaranteed contracts but they've had to go to a lot of signing bonuses as a result. Which is equally undesirable.

[CSharp]

To Waive or Not To Waive, that is is the question:
Whether Markstrom in mind to offer
The trade to a Cup Contender
Or stay a Flames to grow older
With no hopes for a Cup to bear
In the near and distant future
Will Conroy ask?
Sure he will
When the price is right and phenomenal!
Will Markstrom Waive?
That is the question
We will wait to see!