Are NTCs and NMCs Ruining the Game?

[GreenLantern2814]

I don’t think it’s the NTC/NMCs that are the problem so much as it’s impossible to massage the cap and rid yourself of bad contracts.

The idea that we should punish teams for five, six seven years for signing a bad contract is dumb. If you don’t want to pay the player, pay him what he has owed. For one season, you carry then player’s full cap hit, and then it’s done.

If you’ve drafted/developed a player from day 1, or they played their entire career with you, or 400 games, or whatever, there should be more mechanisms to retain those players without screwing yourself over. I don’t know what that would look like.

Maybe you get $250k accrued for each year the player is on the roster, and when an extension is due, you can knock X amount off the cap. So if you have Pat Kane And extend him for $10.5M after 8 years, his cap hit is only $8.5M. And that would follow Kane if he was traded.

Transactions and player movement drive interest. The games are secondary.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I don’t think it’s the NTC/NMCs that are the problem so much as it’s impossible to massage the cap and rid yourself of bad contracts.

The idea that we should punish teams for five, six seven years for signing a bad contract is dumb. If you don’t want to pay the player, pay him what he has owed. For one season, you carry then player’s full cap hit, and then it’s done.

If you’ve drafted/developed a player from day 1, or they played their entire career with you, or 400 games, or whatever, there should be more mechanisms to retain those players without screwing yourself over. I don’t know what that would look like.

Maybe you get $250k accrued for each year the player is on the roster, and when an extension is due, you can knock X amount off the cap. So if you have Pat Kane And extend him for $10.5M after 8 years, his cap hit is only $8.5M. And that would follow Kane if he was traded.

Transactions and player movement drive interest. The games are secondary.

This would result in the loss of a ton of income for the players. I can't see them agreeing to this. They want reliable incomes.

However, it might be a good idea if the league limits contract lengths to 6 years. The last CBA added a term limit, and it put an end to the ridiculous 12-20 year contracts that ruined so many teams and circumvented the cap.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Well players would just refuse to play in certain places if they didn’t have contractual NTC so it wouldn’t change a thing.

Before the last lockout, I don't recall there being many, if any, players having NMCs or NTCs and players got traded all the time. I don't recall any refusing to play for their new team. May have happened on some odd occasion, but it certainly wasn't a regular occurrence.

I am not sure when movement clauses became a thing. I know back in the Sittler days, some players had them because there is a story about him refusing a trade, so the Leafs traded Lanny instead... or something like that.

At some point, I don't know if it was a rule change, but movement clauses disappeared and didn't re-emerge until the salary cap came in.

Does anyone know the history there? It seems like the NHL had them at one point, then got rid of them (probably realizing they sucked), but the brought them back as a trading chip for the last CBA.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

This would result in the loss of a ton of income for the players. I can't see them agreeing to this. They want reliable incomes.

However, it might be a good idea if the league limits contract lengths to 6 years. The last CBA added a term limit, and it put an end to the ridiculous 12-20 year contracts that ruined so many teams and circumvented the cap.

How would they lose income? The way the buyout system works now costs them millions - correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s 66% of the value remaining, spread out over double the length of term.

If we owe James Neal $20M, we should be able to cut James Neal a cheque for $20M and be done with him, carrying his full $5.75m cap hit for one year following the buyout.

That makes sense to me.

What doesn’t make sense is Paying Neal $13M over 8 years and carrying $2M in dead money for two full presidential terms.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

How would they lose income? The way the buyout system works now costs them millions - correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s 66% of the value remaining, spread out over double the length of term.

If we owe James Neal $20M, we should be able to cut James Neal a cheque for $20M and be done with him, carrying his full $5.75m cap hit for one year following the buyout.

That makes sense to me.

What doesn’t make sense is Paying Neal $13M over 8 years and carrying $2M in dead money for two full presidential terms.

This basically kills the point of the cap.

Say you wanted a guy for 25 million over 5 years. Well why not just sign him for 25 million over 10 years, and buy him out after 5th year!

The player gets the same amount of $$ over the same 5 years, and the cap hit is twice as low for the team!

Basically allows rich teams to spend whatever they want and have under the table buyout agreement with players.

Heck, you want to sign Hall to a prove it 1 year 10 million deal, just make it 10 years for $10 million and buy him out after year 1!

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Yeah, I dont buy the players sacrifice angle.

If I could be paid multi millions a year for a job I would work ANYWHERE and do many more extremely horrible things than play a game.

Maybe that's just me though.

Even Edmonton?

[The Yen Man]

Players are pretty much mercenaries. They offer their services to whichever team they feel offer them the best package. The NTC / NMC is part of it. If it's negotiated in a contract, the player has every right to use it.

Should the NHL just get rid of it to level the playing field somewhat? I'm actually ok with that, but I can't see the NHLPA agreeing to it.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

...
I think the solution would be to just get rid of modified NMCs and NTCs...

I brought this topic up a few times too and I agree with the premise of NTC/NMC negative influence on players' performance, overall. The funny thing is, it was not the players, but the team owners who had implemented this out of pure greed for keeping superstars and vanity. I also do think it is too late now and they are not going to go away. Too complicated.

The only rational way to mitigate the NTC/NMC negative impact is having some form of escape clauses that tie NTC/NMC to player's performance. This would be a fair and honest compromise. Yes, players absolutely deserve to be rewarded for their long-term loyalty to a specific team and performance. No, it is not fair to have absolutely no meaningful recourse against a player who stops playing and/or caring the next day after signing a fat long contract. It would not be allowed in ANY other employment contract; what makes NHL players so special? This is entertainment business; and fans, who do pay for the entertainment, certainly don't deserve to watch their favourite teams suck for decades because of NTC/NMC of Neals, Luongos, Brouwers, Seabrooks etc.

[Itse]

As a fan, the most interesting question is 'does the high amount of NTCs and NMCs make the league less entertaining?'

I would say obviously yes. It doesn't just make it harder to build, rebuild and retool teams, it gives players disproportionate power over their coaches and even GMs. Combine that with guaranteed contracts and the players become untouchable, and there's no shortage of examples of how that leads to complacency.

I'm all for workers rights in general, but the situation in the NHL is crazy. Sure, a hockey player should have plenty of safety and insurance as they work in a dangerous and volatile profession, but the fat paycheck really should be most of that insurance. They should have earn all of it, every year, just like everyone else, or face the threat of being fired in the offseason.

The buyout system is currently way too generous to players. Every year the league is paying out tens of millions to hasbeens, money that could be spent on players actually worth their icetime.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Itse

As a fan, the most interesting question is 'does the high amount of NTCs and NMCs make the league less entertaining?'

I would say obviously yes. It doesn't just make it harder to build, rebuild and retool teams, it gives players disproportionate power over their coaches and even GMs. Combine that with guaranteed contracts and the players become untouchable, and there's no shortage of examples of how that leads to complacency.

I'm all for workers rights in general, but the situation in the NHL is crazy. Sure, a hockey player should have plenty of safety and insurance as they work in a dangerous and volatile profession, but the fat paycheck really should be most of that insurance. They should have earn all of it, every year, just like everyone else, or face the threat of being fired in the offseason.

The buyout system is currently way too generous to players. Every year the league is paying out tens of millions to hasbeens, money that could be spent on players actually worth their icetime.

Can you give a few examples of a NTC not being waved. Since this is making the league less entertaining there must be tons.

Is it just because Kadri didn't want to come to Calgary?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Can you give a few examples of a NTC not being waved. Since this is making the league less entertaining there must be tons.

Is it just because Kadri didn't want to come to Calgary?

Didn't Iginla dictate to which contender he was to be traded to?

Every guy the Oilers ever tried to trade for used their NTC to block it.

It happens all the time.

Also along the lines of GMs needing protection from themselves.....

Bettman is a proponent of 5 year contract limits, but the teams didn't want to go along with it.

It would help a lot IMO. The Skinner contract for example has doomed Buffalo for almost an entire decade. Five years would still be bad, but way more tolerable to endure for fans.

[iggy_oi]

Maybe if they just moved the oilers to another city the overall number of no move clauses negotiated would be lower

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Yeah, I don't buy the players sacrifice angle.

If I could be paid multi millions a year for a job I would work ANYWHERE and do many more extremely horrible things than play a game.

Maybe that's just me though.

True, but if you could get paid multi-millions of dollars and choose to get to work where you want, wouldn't you prefer that?

In isolation, players would likely agree with your statement, but why wouldn't they want more if they can get it?

While you you give up the right to choose where you work if it came to a question of no work, no pay, but why give it up if you don't have to.

You would work for $1M per season, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't rather have $2M or $10M.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Didn't Iginla dictate to which contender he was to be traded to?

Every guy the Oilers ever tried to trade for used their NTC to block it.

It happens all the time.

Also along the lines of GMs needing protection from themselves.....

Bettman is a proponent of 5 year contract limits, but the teams didn't want to go along with it.

It would help a lot IMO. The Skinner contract for example has doomed Buffalo for almost an entire decade. Five years would still be bad, but way more tolerable to endure for fans.

Regehr initially blocked being traded as well, but the Sabres GM was allowed to approach him and talked him into it.

But yeah, it happens all the time.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

The idea that we should punish teams for five, six seven years for signing a bad contract is dumb.

It's dumber to reward teams for signing bad contracts.

[The Cobra]

There are many restrictions that as fans or owners would like to see put on NMC or NTC (including the elimination of them), but it seems really doubtful that players would give on those. Why should they?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

It's dumber to reward teams for signing bad contracts.

It’s not a reward - they have to pay all the money outstanding, and they carry a full cap hit for a year without the benefit of the player.

I don’t care about the money. It’s not mine, and this isn’t a retirement fund, it’s a pro sports team - anyone who doesn’t like the price of poker doesn’t have to stay at the table.

The point of the cap was to prevent four or five teams for hoarding all the talent in free agency. Allowing teams some sensible way to clear bad contracts off their books does not screw with the competitive balance.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

It’s not a reward - they have to pay all the money outstanding, and they carry a full cap hit for a year without the benefit of the player.

I don’t care about the money. It’s not mine, and this isn’t a retirement fund, it’s a pro sports team - anyone who doesn’t like the price of poker doesn’t have to stay at the table.

The point of the cap was to prevent four or five teams for hoarding all the talent in free agency. Allowing teams some sensible way to clear bad contracts off their books does not screw with the competitive balance.

It would make revenue sharing very complicated if/when the league goes back to a guaranteed 50/50 split of HRR, though I suppose the NHLPA would agree if any buyouts are excluded from the players’ share of revenue.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There are many restrictions that as fans or owners would like to see put on NMC or NTC (including the elimination of them), but it seems really doubtful that players would give on those. Why should they?

Agreed, they have no reason to and it likely won't change, at least any time soon.

But then again, players had no reason to give in to a salary cap either. They were forced to.

It seems like movement clauses were revoked for a period from the 1980s or 90s until 2005, before that period, they seemed pretty rare. I don't know the whole story (there doesn't seem to be much information about when or why movement clauses disappeared and then reappeared), but it does appear that it was negotiable at some point.

[ricardodw]

The better question is why the Flames need to sign a players to a 4-6 year deal to keep them

Likely awful (35+) in the last years of the contracts: Backlund, Tanev Markstrom

RFAs with 4 more years of team control: Andersson, Hanifin, Tkachuk

There should be a rule that a player prove himself over more than a 2 year period before betting the franchise future on them becoming elite.