Asking players to waive NTCs, and NMCs

[jlh2640]

Originally Posted by btimbit

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

This is the perfect summary

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Kelly is a saint. Great guy in person. Much better colour provider than Millen.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

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.

I'm sure I'm late to the party, but it is absolutely not the equivalent to that. The equivalent to that is asking a player to waive their vacation days or dental plan.

An NTC / NMC is a clause of value negotiated by the player for one reason, and one reason only: control over where they play. Asking the player to waive is not taking away the control, it's actually presenting the player with options, which is why they negotiate one in the first place, so that they have options and control over them.

It's on the team, to weigh out the pros and cons of approaching the player with this and letting the player know they would consider moving on from them (if this is a first time discussion with the player or out of the blue request) and those ramifications if the player isn't interested, but that's about it.

I'm a fan of Calgary, but we have given out a number of NMC / NTCs over the years. And I assure you none of those were because the player was like - It's Calgary or bust for me (maybe Stone is the only exception)! Those were handed out because the player wanted some control over where they played. Approaching them with options is not remotely inappropriate or at all like asking an employee to give up benefits or vacation days. It's literally engaging the player in the discussions they'd get no part of if they hadn't gotten an NTC or NMC, it's actually what the player wants the team to do.

[Stillman16]

We’ve seen complicated trade compensation, so why not add layers to the trade/movement clauses too.

Perhaps, if a trade/movement clause is included, a value is stipulated in the contract, ie. in exchange for signing for X dollars less. If then team ask the player to waive, the acquiring team owes this amount of compensation. But if the player asks to be traded, he must provide X (stipulated number/list) of teams he will expect trades to (up to no say).

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Kelly is a saint. Great guy in person. Much better colour provider than Millen.

I think they offer different things.
- Kelly has unreal chemistry with Rick. And he has been closer to the team over the last few years.
- Millen has the advantage of decades in doing color analysis, and offers a deeper level of true insight. I identifies and talks about things that are beyond what most fans see. But he is less close to the Flames.

I enjoy both quite a bit. And Rick Ball, is one of the very best PBPers in the business. Just fantastic.

[Calgary4LIfe]

NMC/NTC - players should leave money on the table in order to get one of those. Nowadays, they seem like the cherry on top, more than a hard decision for them.


As for asking them - GMs should respect them, but they can and should ask about waiving when a potential trade that they like comes up. Should be behind closed doors. Feaster ran Regehr out of town with his. He didn't give him a choice. With all the pressure, Regehr likely felt he had no choice but to agree to it. For me, that's what you do to players that have been terrible on your team, both on and off the ice. You don't do that for one of the leaders.


If a good trade opens up for Markstrom, I would expect Conroy to have that conversation with him behind closed doors. Ditto with anyone else on the team with trade protection of any sort. Heck, I would assume that IF Calgary is going to be rebuilding, Conroy will pretty well talk to every single player, trade clause or not, about their willingness to be here through this retool/whatever you call it.

[GirlySports]

NTCs and MTCs are given away too freely by GMs to cut costs due to salary cap. Then they get handcuffed later on. I feel like half the players in the league have one. MLB has the 5-10 rule so that's not even a negotiation.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Kelly is a saint. Great guy in person. Much better colour provider than Millen.

Is your name Myxlplix?

[lazypucker]

I just took a look at every team's NTC/NMC:

https://www.thefourthperiod.com/no-trade-clauses

On average there are like 6-8 players PER TEAM having some sort of clause that restrict GMs to move them. That's 1/3 of the players in every team!!

Adding salary cap complications, no wonder trades are so difficult to make and many teams are stuck with bad contracts...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

I just took a look at every team's NTC/NMC:

https://www.thefourthperiod.com/no-trade-clauses

On average there are like 6-8 players PER TEAM having some sort of clause that restrict GMs to move them. That's 1/3 of the players in every team!!

Adding salary cap complications, no wonder trades are so difficult to make and many teams are stuck with bad contracts...

If you look at players who are over 26 and earn more than $4 mil, it’s far higher than 1/3. Closer to 2/3.

But yeah, look at the Stars or Wings (two teams that fans have speculated about as trading partners) and try to work out a hockey deal that takes into about both the cap and NMCs.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

NTCs and MTCs are given away too freely by GMs to cut costs due to salary cap. Then they get handcuffed later on. I feel like half the players in the league have one. MLB has the 5-10 rule so that's not even a negotiation.

None of the other professional North American leagues come close to the NHL when it comes to the liberal use of trade protection clauses. The NHL should have reeled it in a lot sooner, because it is probably beyond the point of no return.

Kypreos had an interesting comment saying that the NBA caters to the fans, and the NHL caters to the players.

[lazypucker]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Kypreos had an interesting comment saying that the NBA caters to the fans, and the NHL caters to the players.

The NBA has another problem though where star players manipulate free agencies, cap space, and forcing trades to create superteams.

It feels that players like Kevin Durant and Chris Paul switch teams every couple of years....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you look at players who are over 26 and earn more than $4 mil, it’s far higher than 1/3. Closer to 2/3.

This is why it isn't even a cap or cost cutting thing anymore. An eligible player with any significance will get an NMC or NTC no matter which team it is, so it is back to the highest bidder anyway.

If teams had a limit or like 3 or something, NMCs would be a much more effective bargaining tool and would have some actual value.

[GioforPM]

NBA has it a bit easier. Roster size is muich smaller (and therefore competition for a spot is greater). Plus they have a soft cap and a luxury tax, so teams can avoid demands like NTCs by paying more. Plus their max term is 5 years so escaping a bad contract is less onerous. That said, there are also some cap related trade restrictions that make trades more difficult in the NBA. And IMO a lot more top guys just go to unrestricted free agency.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This is why it isn't even a cap or cost cutting thing anymore. An eligible player with any significance will get an NMC or NTC no matter which team it is, so it is back to the highest bidder anyway.

If teams had a limit or like 3 or something, NMCs would be a much more effective bargaining tool and would have some actual value.

It will never happen, as many teams have way more than 3 right now?

Even if you grandfathered them, would it prevent teams from giving their superstar a NTC?

Players will never agree to it.

When they permitted a salary cap to exist, they got guaranteed contracts, earlier UFA and NTC as part of the bargain.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

I just took a look at every team's NTC/NMC:

https://www.thefourthperiod.com/no-trade-clauses

On average there are like 6-8 players PER TEAM having some sort of clause that restrict GMs to move them. That's 1/3 of the players in every team!!

Adding salary cap complications, no wonder trades are so difficult to make and many teams are stuck with bad contracts...

Seattle!!

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

The NBA has another problem though where star players manipulate free agencies, cap space, and forcing trades to create superteams.

It feels that players like Kevin Durant and Chris Paul switch teams every couple of years....

NBA kind of likes the superteams, they sell tickets whatever town they go into. The NBA regular season is now pure entertainment, 250 points a game. The result doesn't even matter anymore really. You know who'll be there at the end.

Whereas in the NHL, teams are playing for points in November to sneak into the playoffs.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

When they permitted a salary cap to exist, they got guaranteed contracts, earlier UFA and NTC as part of the bargain.

I may not have been paying enough attention at the time, but is that accurate? I don't recall NMCs or NTCs being part of the negotiations. I am not saying you are wrong, but can you verify it?

I agree, it is likely never going to happen, but for a different reason. The main reason is that for teams like NYR, Florida, Tampa, L.A., Anaheim, San Jose, Dallas, and Vegas, it actually benefits them as most players use their clauses to steer themselves that way. It gives them a huge advantage on the trade market when about a third of the teams can't compete due to no-trade lists. Then for the bulk of the middle teams, it doesn't matter much either way, they win some and lose some on the issue.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I may not have been paying enough attention at the time, but is that accurate? I don't recall NMCs or NTCs being part of the negotiations. I am not saying you are wrong, but can you verify it?

I agree, it is likely never going to happen, but for a different reason. The main reason is that for teams like NYR, Florida, Tampa, L.A., Anaheim, San Jose, Dallas, and Vegas, it actually benefits them as most players use their clauses to steer themselves that way. Then for the bulk of the middle teams, it doesn't matter much either way, they win some and lose some on the issue.

It’s not quite right. NMC came in 2005 (as a function of having a salary cap and the roster management implications that came with it), but guaranteed contracts and NTC pre-dated the salary cap.

[IamNotKenKing]

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. 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.

I also believe this NTC for Sittler is why Lanny was traded to the Rockies. Imlach couldn't trade Sittler, so traded his friends instead.

Worked out well for us!