2023/2024 Trade Rumors and Speculation Thread

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Obviously I understand why players want them. I do not understand why the NHL needs them or would agree to them. Like, pretty simple, just say no (as a league) and ban them, it’d be better for business.

These are men with families who probably don't want to uproot their wife and kids without having a say in where they are going. I can't see the PA even giving the idea of banning them a moments thought.

[dammage79]

IMO, NTCs should be like Franchise tag markers for one or two players and can be taken away within the final two years of a contract for transition purposes. I.e transition to younger core, entering a rebuild etc.

NMC,s should be limited to a 5 team no trade list per player and no NMCs in the final year of a contract.

Also no NMCs or NTCs for 35+ contracts. The NHL is guaranteed contracts, trade limitations should be swung back a bit.

I know the PA wouldn't find that fair and balanced but I think it is.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dammage79

IMO, NTCs should be like Franchise tag markers for one or two players and can be taken away within the final two years of a contract for transition purposes. I.e transition to younger core, entering a rebuild etc.

NMC,s should be limited to a 5 team no trade list per player and no NMCs in the final year of a contract.

Also no NMCs or NTCs for 35+ contracts. The NHL is guaranteed contracts, trade limitations should be swung back a bit.

I know the PA wouldn't find that fair and balanced but I think it is.

Too late now, as it's now ingrained. Especially since so many owners like it just the way it is.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by dammage79

IMO, NTCs should be like Franchise tag markers for one or two players and can be taken away within the final two years of a contract for transition purposes. I.e transition to younger core, entering a rebuild etc.

NMC,s should be limited to a 5 team no trade list per player and no NMCs in the final year of a contract.

Also no NMCs or NTCs for 35+ contracts. The NHL is guaranteed contracts, trade limitations should be swung back a bit.

I know the PA wouldn't find that fair and balanced but I think it is.

If a player requests a trade out, they should be removed in their entirety.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Obviously I understand why players want them. I do not understand why the NHL needs them or would agree to them. Like, pretty simple, just say no (as a league) and ban them, it’d be better for business.

And how do you propose the league "just says no, and bans them"?

The players would need to agree.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The issue is all of this is part of collective bargaining isn't it? And I think players are going to push for MORE ability to move around at their discretion not less.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

And how do you propose the league "just says no, and bans them"?

The players would need to agree.

Screw legally negotiated contracts !

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

And how do you propose the league "just says no, and bans them"?

The players would need to agree.

The upcoming CBA.

Term limits and no trade clauses need to be fixed.

The league is gridlocked.

[PepsiFree]

It doesn’t seem like owners or GMs have an issue with NMC/NTC either so I’m not sure why fans do.

If they wanted any of these changes on an organizational level they could just make them.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The upcoming CBA.

Term limits and no trade clauses need to be fixed.

The league is gridlocked.

OK so if the players are going to give up that, you better be sure they are going to want something in return.
And is this one of the top things the league wants? I doubt it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

These are men with families who probably don't want to uproot their wife and kids without having a say in where they are going. I can't see the PA even giving the idea of banning them a moments thought.

Other major leagues have greater restrictions on movement clauses. I don't see why the NHL should be different, especially when such a large number of teams are impacted.

I get that the NHLPA would fight it, because the camel's head is already in the tent. I am also not sure that the league would have the resolve for a strike or lockout over it. Some teams, like Florida, New York, L.A., Anaheim, to name a few, probably like that NMCs and NTCs give them an advantage for acquiring players. When you take 7-10 teams out of the trade market, it helps them and the owners of those teams probably love it the way it is.

In the end though, I don't think a league where most players in their prime have some form of NMC is best for the product, and therefore not ideal for revenue growth. I doubt the players are willing to consider that bigger picture though.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

OK so if the players are going to give up that, you better be sure they are going to want something in return.
And is this one of the top things the league wants? I doubt it.

Player movement generates interest in the NHL and I'm sure there could be some forecasting around how much money increased interest from trade activity or player movement does or does not impact league-wide financial ancillary benefits like marketing revenues, jersey sales, ticket sales, etc.

If teams can't move their players very easily because they start relying on these NTCs / NMCs, it could become a detriment from an owner perspective. Fans, likewise, want teams to be able to turnover rosters to try and improve.

I can see why people and the league would want them to be removed and as has been pointed out I totally get why players don't want them, of course. All valid points that have been raised so far.

I am just saying it's not great for the league- to the extent it is a focus of CBA negotiations? Not sure if it's there yet to be a focus. Maybe a future issue? Certainly.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

OK so if the players are going to give up that, you better be sure they are going to want something in return.
And is this one of the top things the league wants? I doubt it.

100% The fact that there is a hard cap is a pretty major concession by the players, offering the players control over where they can/can’t be traded is such a minor concession by the owners who already have a pretty damn good deal.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

OK so if the players are going to give up that, you better be sure they are going to want something in return.
And is this one of the top things the league wants? I doubt it.

Shorter terms will allow them to make more money and go to their teams earlier.

Give them 1 year of RFA so now 6 years of service in the NHL. That's a ELC and bridge deal and off to UFA you go or you can stay 4 year term.

All you see now in the NHL is a bunch of rumours and no movement, and you can attribute those long deals, capped out league, and NTC.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It doesn’t seem like owners or GMs have an issue with NMC/NTC either so I’m not sure why fans do.

If they wanted any of these changes on an organizational level they could just make them.

It's probably because fans want their teams to get better. To the extent that some locations are disadvantaged (in my opinion to an increasing degree the more of these that are signed), it makes sense to try and consider some caps or restrictions around them.

Similar idea to why they try and balance a schedule or create the same type of rules for all teams; to try and create fairness for the league. Should Calgary never be able to compete because 30% of players don't want to play there? Further, if you're Edwards, you think he's just good with that?

[PepsiFree]

Reducing the time players spend before becoming free agents would probably have a significantly worse impact on small market teams than any trade restrictions.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The players always compare themselves to other leagues and not being on par salary wise for superstars.

First of all the NHL has a 23 man roster compared to 12 in the NBA and the NFL has massive revenue no one will touch.

Term length teams will probably pay higher AAV on 4 year deal as opposed to being stuck with a 8 year deal with a no move clause.

McDavid if he went the 6 year route could have been a free agent 3 years after his ELC.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Being such a physical game I think the players value the security of term over taking a chance on a shorter contract.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It doesn’t seem like owners or GMs have an issue with NMC/NTC either so I’m not sure why fans do.

If they wanted any of these changes on an organizational level they could just make them.

Really?

I am sure GM’s and owners have a problem with them but it has become so commonplace in negotiations there is little choice but to include them as part of the negotiation. I am sure owners and GM’s love to lose leverage in trade negotiations when a player blocks a move that would result in a better return for the whole team.

Stating they should just adopt a philosophy they won’t give those out will hinder their ability to sign their own players in the future and any free agents they want to chase.

You are not sure why fans are bothered their team struggles to make moves because they are on everyone’s no trade list or their own players refuse to waive. The Flames fortunes would likely be vastly different had Kadri not blocked a trade here in 2019.

It is beyond ridiculous that someone like Hamonic gets a full NMC in his mid 30’s where he is a fringe player at best. There would likely be double the trades at the draft if 90% of these clauses were removed.

[iggy_oi]

I don’t think the league is going to make NTCs a hill to die on, at the end of the day if they don’t like them the GMs don’t need to be offering them to players.