Are NTCs and NMCs Ruining the Game?

[The Cobra]

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.

Allowing buyouts with lesser restrictions on the cap simply helps the rich, big market teams.

Teams like NY and CHi can sign guys to ridiculous terms knowing they can simply buy them out when they turn ugly in the latter days. Teams like calagry likely can't match those contracts in the first place, as they know they can't afford to buy them out.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Allowing buyouts with lesser restrictions on the cap simply helps the rich, big market teams.

Teams like NY and CHi can sign guys to ridiculous terms knowing they can simply buy them out when they turn ugly in the latter days. Teams like calagry likely can't match those contracts in the first place, as they know they can't afford to buy them out.

While true, that's all dependant on a lot of other things that could also be fiddled with.

Some managers already want to limit max allowed contract lengths.

Make max contract length three years and that helps alleviate a lot of problems. Then change ELC rules so that they end after the season where the player reaches 100 GP or 4 years (which ever comes first) and raise the max ELC contract to something like 4M.

Maybe move up the UFA age by a year.

Eh, one can dream.

[powderjunkie]

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.

Source? Pretty sure the teams were in favour of the 5 yr limit...

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Itse

While true, that's all dependant on a lot of other things that could also be fiddled with.

Some managers already want to limit max allowed contract lengths.

Make max contract length three years and that helps alleviate a lot of problems. Then change ELC rules so that they end after the season where the player reaches 100 GP or 4 years (which ever comes first) and raise the max ELC contract to something like 4M.

Maybe move up the UFA age by a year.

Eh, one can dream.

You may as well say give the big market teams half the cap of the small market teams.

Why would players limit the length of contracts to 3 years?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by 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.

Supply and demand.

The usual reason why things happen that you don't like.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Supply and demand.

The usual reason why things happen that you don't like.

Why did Hanifin and Andersson drafted 2015 get signed for all 4 year of their RFA at 4.9 and 4.55 Andersson gave up 2 UFA years for an extra 1.5-2M year for his 4 RFA years.. Like-wise for Hanifin.

Cernak just signed his 3 x 2.95 He is coming off a better year than Hanifin or Andersson has yet to have and is far far more of an impact player.

The Flames could have overpaid their 2 high upside D men with a 3 x 3 and leave 7M x 3 for the last 3 years IF and only IF they actual became elite D-men.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Why did Hanifin and Andersson drafted 2015 get signed for all 4 year of their RFA at 4.9 and 4.55 Andersson gave up 2 UFA years for an extra 1.5-2M year for his 4 RFA years.. Like-wise for Hanifin.

Cernak just signed his 3 x 2.95 He is coming off a better year than Hanifin or Andersson has yet to have and is far far more of an impact player.

The Flames could have overpaid their 2 high upside D men with a 3 x 3 and leave 7M x 3 for the last 3 years IF and only IF they actual became elite D-men.

How much would it have cost to sign Cernak to a 6 year deal? That’s the comparison you should be looking to make.

7M x 3 years for either of those players would be awful contracts for any team in a cap system.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You may as well say give the big market teams half the cap of the small market teams.

Why would players limit the length of contracts to 3 years?

I'm not really that interested in pretending I'm sitting at a negotiation table, I'm just throwing stuff put there, but it's not like there isn't stuff that would benefit the players. The ELC system for example is pretty garbage for players right now.

For buyouts, you could also for example set up a rule that playoff teams can't do buyouts, or that non-playoff teams have much more favorable terms.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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.

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.

The fact that the examples that are given is Iginla wanting to go to Pitts instead of Boston 10 years ago and Regehr waiving his NTC shows it doesn't happen all the time.

In fact, it happens very rarely. And usually not on overly impactful players.Certainly not enough to be ruining the sport as some are claiming.


Yes players didn't want to go to Edmonton. But i guarantee you that players would today. Having a quality team outweighs the location most of the time. Build a non-joke of a franchise and players will want to play there.

NTC are mostly irrelevant unless you are a joke organization

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Allowing buyouts with lesser restrictions on the cap simply helps the rich, big market teams.

Teams like NY and CHi can sign guys to ridiculous terms knowing they can simply buy them out when they turn ugly in the latter days. Teams like calagry likely can't match those contracts in the first place, as they know they can't afford to buy them out.

The Calgary Flames have spent to the cap in all but one or two years since the cap has existed. They are a big market team.

For that matter, every Canadian team is a large market team - it’s why Sportsnet’s tv deal pays each NHL team the same as the new US one even though they have 3x the Number of teams AND are about to add Seattle.


Teams like Calgary can absolutely buy these deals dollar for dollar - this isn’t 1999 anymore, everyone understands what this is; if they don’t, they can sell to another billionaire who doesn’t want to bitch about signing cheques. And last I looked, our ownership group had multiple members of the three comma club.

Say the Rangers had been able to do this with Chris Drury or Wade Redden - they’d still have $6M or $7M in real money attached to their cap for the following season - so they can’t just run out and replace the $7M player they just disappeared with another $7M one.

It’s not like these teams are committing crimes when they sign these guys - why does getting out of a bad contract require a prison sentence’s worth of time to elapse before you’re free of it?

Oh, does it hamper the Panthers or Blue Jackets or Coyotes? I don’t care. Some teams play in states with no state income tax.

Why do we have to sit up here in Canada and kneecap ourselves of a genuine advantage?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm not really that interested in pretending I'm sitting at a negotiation table, I'm just throwing stuff put there, but it's not like there isn't stuff that would benefit the players. The ELC system for example is pretty garbage for players right now.

For buyouts, you could also for example set up a rule that playoff teams can't do buyouts, or that non-playoff teams have much more favorable terms.

You’re right that the ELC system favours teams more, but the problem is that current players aren’t going try to hard for future players. Agents could possibly influence them.

It has been suggested that some players take a discount for a NMC. One way to maybe improve the situation would be to simply put a dollar value on a trade. Like if you trade a player that won’t waive their NTC, you have to pay them an amount based on their yearly average salary. Like a guy making $5 million gets $500 k for every year left on the contract if the team trades him. Or just negotiate a set amount. Make it punitive to the team, but not impossible to trade the player to any team.

[Classic_Sniper]

If GMs don’t want to be hamstrung by NTCs and NMCs, then they should pony up the dough so it doesn’t need to be negotiated or at least, not be as restrictive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Why did Hanifin and Andersson drafted 2015 get signed for all 4 year of their RFA at 4.9 and 4.55 Andersson gave up 2 UFA years for an extra 1.5-2M year for his 4 RFA years.. Like-wise for Hanifin.

Cernak just signed his 3 x 2.95 He is coming off a better year than Hanifin or Andersson has yet to have and is far far more of an impact player.

The Flames could have overpaid their 2 high upside D men with a 3 x 3 and leave 7M x 3 for the last 3 years IF and only IF they actual became elite D-men.

Those are considered good contracts. Pay a bit more now, save a bunch later.

The 3 x 7 would no longer be available, as the players would want 8 year contracts.

Get the players through their prime years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The fact that the examples that are given is Iginla wanting to go to Pitts instead of Boston 10 years ago and Regehr waiving his NTC shows it doesn't happen all the time.

In fact, it happens very rarely. And usually not on overly impactful players.Certainly not enough to be ruining the sport as some are claiming.


Yes players didn't want to go to Edmonton. But i guarantee you that players would today. Having a quality team outweighs the location most of the time. Build a non-joke of a franchise and players will want to play there.

NTC are mostly irrelevant unless you are a joke organization

You think players are regularly fighting hard for irrelevant contract clauses?

It takes very specific circumstances for the media/audience to learn about the use of an NMC/NTC.

It requires a player that has agreed to waive his clause, but then refuses to do so for a specific team AFTER the trade is already agreed upon, or at the very least trade talks with a specific team are already on the way.

If the player just says "no you can't trade me at all", we're never gonna hear about it, because no trades will be discussed. If a player has agreed to waive his clause for some teams but not others, that's usually settled on before any trade talks begin, so again we'll never hear about it.

It's also extremely common knowledge that players often put smaller and Canadian cities on their no-trade lists, which has nothing to do with "being a joke of an organization".

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Players aren't cattle to be bought and sold, if they can negotiate a NMC or NTC good luck to them

Most fans seem to forget this. To many people, players are simply toys to be moved around for our own viewing pleasure. Often times it's forgotten these guys have families they want to be around on days off, wives who want stability and friends in a single place, children in school with friends they love, and personal connections to the community.

Instead a bunch of guys on internet forums gets upset when these players are able to negotiate a clause in their contracts that allows them to have some stability in their lives. Most of us normal folk enjoy having stability in our own lives and not having the risk of being shuffled around to a new city in a day's notice.

Are NMC/NTC 'bad' from a fan's perspective? Absolutely. But honestly these are human beings with lives and these trades affect them. Any person in any industry who is able to ensure financial stability for their family and dictate their stability in a location of their choosing deserves to have that aspect of their contract honored without taking flak for it.

Having said that, I think if you're a player without a NMC/NTC, you are absolutely fair game to be moved at a whim's notice. That is part of the price you pay to be an NHL player and your spouse should 100% understand that. But as far as having a NMC, you negotiated that in your contract and everyone should respect that.

[Traditional_Ale]

Athletes in a blood-sport.

[Number 39]

I do miss the 1980’s when you could trade players like they were trading cards. Made things a lot more interesting as a fan.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Itse

It's also extremely common knowledge that players often put smaller and Canadian cities on their no-trade lists, which has nothing to do with "being a joke of an organization".

Yes a player will be more likely to play in California if the team is bad. NTC is a hurdle IF you have a bad team and are in a undesirable place to play.

The smaller market Canadian teams are:

Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg

3/4 have been jokes for most of the past decade.

Do you think many players still have Edmonton on their NTC? Seems like players are wanting to play with McDavid

If you have a good team NTC's don't matter the majority of the time.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Those are considered good contracts. Pay a bit more now, save a bunch later.

The 3 x 7 would no longer be available, as the players would want 8 year contracts.

Get the players through their prime years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right now only 2 years in to the Anderson contract there appear a very small chance that his next contract would be 3 x 7 (that the team is giving him) never mind anything for 8 years.

The team to the risk. They are counting on this 2 guys to be top 10 or at least top 20 in the league d-men. Cernak is better but even he might not be a top 20 in the league in 3 years.

[powderjunkie]

If I were a player, the kind of modified NTC I'd want is date based:

you can trade me from the end of the season until July 31. Otherwise I get veto. Of course I'd also want choice of teams, but it would be most important to know that I wouldn't have to uproot my family in the middle of the school year.