Should NMC count against expansion draft?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

How about think of it this way:

Expansion teams cannot pick a NMC player, regardless of that player is protected or not. That player is just not available as he cannot change teams.

To avoid the flooding of NMC contracts being handed out, the league can make a rule from now on till the day after the expansion draft, no one can sign players to a NMC. All existing NMCs will be grandfathered.

Don't like that at all. Some teams would get way more protection spots than others, as you're basically giving automatic spots to anyone with a NMC.

[White Out 403]

I think it would be incredibly unfair for teams to be able to use a NMC to shelter a player and not lose a "protection slot" on them. Best solution possible is for every NMC you have, you must protect them.

Fair and simple. NMC's weren't designed to protect against exapansion, they were put in place to prevent teams from hiding a player in the minors.

[lazypucker]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think it would be incredibly unfair for teams to be able to use a NMC to shelter a player and not lose a "protection slot" on them. Best solution possible is for every NMC you have, you must protect them.

Fair and simple. NMC's weren't designed to protect against exapansion, they were put in place to prevent teams from hiding a player in the minors.

That's a chicken and egg argument.

Teams that have NMCs now don't know that they will have to "burn" a protection slot, so that's unfair for the teams.

If NMC players can still be picked by the expansion team unless a protection slot is used, then it's unfair for the players.

What is a good compromise?

[Stillman16]

Maybe a compromise, where for every 2 existing NMC's, one slot is used to protect them....and all new MUST be protected to prevent circumvention....

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Isn't a NMC mostly used for AHL/NHL reasons? The OP probably meant NTC.

No, NTC is irrelevant as there is no trade happening. It is about if a player who signed a NMC can be exposed.

[Weitz]

I bet the NHL with try and make it so the NMC can be drafted. When the NHLPA gets upset the NHL will give them the choice:

- NMC can be drafted
- NMC have to be protected

Then I think the NHLPA gives in, allows NMC to be drafted, but gets something in return (19 year old drafts for example).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Then I think the NHLPA gives in, allows NMC to be drafted, but gets something in return (19 year old drafts for example).

Is a 19-year-old draft even something that the NHLPA wants?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Is a 19-year-old draft even something that the NHLPA wants?

I thought so, but a quick search makes it look like the NHL wants it or something? Anyway I just mean they will get something they want in return.

[Coach]

Yeah NHLPA shouldn't want the 19 year old draft. It cuts out a full generation of potential employees who are of legal age.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I bet the NHL with try and make it so the NMC can be drafted. When the NHLPA gets upset the NHL will give them the choice:

- NMC can be drafted
- NMC have to be protected

Then I think the NHLPA gives in, allows NMC to be drafted, but gets something in return (19 year old drafts for example).

I can't see it. The NHLPA is there to protect the players rights. You are going to have players like M.A. Fleury who are not going to want to go to an expansion team and will argue they should not have to be exposed as they signed a NMC in the good faith that the team would honour that. I can't see any way that this does not come out as either option 1, 2, or 4.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No, NTC is irrelevant as there is no trade happening. It is about if a player who signed a NMC can be exposed.

Ok well I still think the NMC is irrelevant as the NMC is used for minors/NHL.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Ok well I still think the NMC is irrelevant as the NMC is used for minors/NHL.

Except at the beginning of the wording in the CBA it clearly states

A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I can't see it. The NHLPA is there to protect the players rights. You are going to have players like M.A. Fleury who are not going to want to go to an expansion team and will argue they should not have to be exposed as they signed a NMC in the good faith that the team would honour that. I can't see any way that this does not come out as either option 1, 2, or 4.

As mentioned earlier the NMC in the CBA doesn't mention anything about a draft. That would be up to lawyers to determine.

But as I said I imagine instead of lawyers it will be a negotiation between the league and the NHLPA.

[ricardodw]

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?

If he refuses then the penguins have to give up the draft picks as though they signed a RFA at the salary that Fluery has.... 1st 2nd and 3rd draft picks in that draft. If Pitsburgh does not have their own 1st, 2nd or 3rd draft pick they have a couple of weeks to get them back.... Basically make it too prohibitive to expose the player with a NMC.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Except at the beginning of the wording in the CBA it clearly states

You leave out the rest "... whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement."

No mention of protection from a draft.

[dissentowner]

pretty tight poll right now, interesting to see how split the board is so far on this.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Yeah this is what I'm referring to. Is it implied that draft is included? Or will the NHL fight and say that it is by the letter of the contract?

The NHL is going to say it is letter of the contract. The NHLPA is going to say it is implied.

FWIW, I believe there are other parts of the CBA that specifically describe a list of examples as being non-exhaustive. Mostly around the financial and HRR stuff. That might be an argument the NHL makes - if they meant this particular clause's list of protections to be non-exhaustive, the contract would have specifically said so.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Except at the beginning of the wording in the CBA it clearly states

Except you are taking it out of context.

A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think it would be incredibly unfair for teams to be able to use a NMC to shelter a player and not lose a "protection slot" on them. Best solution possible is for every NMC you have, you must protect them.

Fair and simple. NMC's weren't designed to protect against exapansion, they were put in place to prevent teams from hiding a player in the minors.

You could reverse the argument and come to the same result though. Any player with an NMC could be exposed to the draft and selected if the teams wish. After all, NMC's weren't designed to protect against expansion, they were put in place to prevent teams from hiding a player in the minors. Transferring such a player to the new Las Vegas NHL team would not be hiding them in the minors.

[ricardodw]

The player took less money to get his NMC and the team is considering steps to renege on this contract? I don't see how there can even be a discussion on not having NMC on the protected list.