Should NMC count against expansion draft?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

A NMC doesn't only apply to trades though. That would be a NTC. A NMC would also include waivers and assignment to the minor leagues.

Regardless, a NMC doesn't apply to expansion drafts. If it did, it wouldn't be valid. You can't create a contract that applies to a 3rd party.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by blankall

Regardless, a NMC doesn't apply to expansion drafts.

Isn't that the whole ongoing debate that has yet to be decided on or agreed to by the involved parties?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Isn't that the whole ongoing debate that has yet to be decided on or agreed to by the involved parties?

Fair enough. I was responding to posts about what happened if a player with a NMC was chosen.

The only debate I see is if a team is forced to automatically protect all players with a NMC.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You're still giving team's 'extra' protection slots if the player refuses to waive his NMC. Not too many people are going to waive to go to an expansion team (regardless of where they play).

Every free agent would get a NMC for their first year of their contact this year so none of them have to exposed or protected.

Yeah, this is the key. If NMC applies to the expansion lottery, then every half-decent free agent this off-season will get a NMC added to the start of their deal. It undermines the entirely expansion lottery and doesn't really provide an even playing field as only teams that were lucky enough to have cap money to spend this particular off-season get to benefit.

[Geeoff]

What if a team had more players on NMC than there are protection spots? The Sutter-era Flames were pretty close.

I think the league will honor NMC and not penalize the team and people will just have to deal with some teams getting "extra protected players"

[Fire of the Phoenix]

To the people who think that teams would just sign guys to NMCs for free protection, the NHL would have a fairly easy work around for that. Any players signed after July 1st 2016 (or in the weeks leading up, if teams are extending their own RFAs/UFAs) that are given NMCs, will have to be protected. All others are exempt. Pretty simple.

[Mister Yamoto]

No Movement clause should mean no movement. If a franchise relocates, the NMC players should still have to stay.

Seriously though, option 4 seems like a reasonable compromise. Seeing that the NHL/NHLPA are incapable of reasonable compromises Fehr and Bettman will go to court over this. Don't be surprised if fighting about the expansion fees, expansion draft etc delays expansion for a year or two.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

To the people who think that teams would just sign guys to NMCs for free protection, the NHL would have a fairly easy work around for that. Any players signed after July 1st 2016 (or in the weeks leading up, if teams are extending their own RFAs/UFAs) that are given NMCs, will have to be protected. All others are exempt. Pretty simple.

Having a bunch of NMC is not a good scenario for a team anyway.

[Robbob]

I went with option one. The team typically gets a break when giving a NMC to a player. No reason for them to get a mulligan because they don't want the player anymore or they don't hold as much value as they once did.

[Resolute 14]

I went with option 2, but would probably favour option 1 first.

First off, players with NMCs should be exempt. That's the purpose of an NMC: they can't be moved against their will.

The problem for me is the "must protect" vs. "totally exempt" question. Expansion wasn't a serious thing until recently, so I find it hard to fault a team for offering one previously and expecting them to suck it up and lose a younger player now because of this. Personally, I would utilize a hybrid strategy as the most fair solution: Anyone with an NMC signed before today is exempted from the draft without taking up a spot on a team's protected list. Anyone given an NMC afterward takes up a spot, because the teams will now know the landscape.

[getbak]

My thoughts...

• NMCs should not give any team additional opportunities to protect players from exposure in the Expansion Draft.
  
  
• Teams should be able to ask a player to waive his NMC for the Expansion Draft. The player should be able to refuse.
  
  
• If a player refuses to waive his NMC, he should automatically be assigned to one of the team's protected slots in the Expansion Draft.
  
  
• Only NMCs that are valid for the entire 2017-18 season should be considered in force for the Expansion Draft. If the NMC expires before July 1, 2017, or if it takes effect partway through the 2017-18 season, it should not be considered valid for the Expansion Draft.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

For me this is all about the intended purpose and included items in a NMC. What does the exact language in the NMC say? Was the NMC designed to protect against expansion? Or just trades/demotions to the minors? Some things, like buyouts, are obviously exempt. Why not an expansion draft?

I'm assuming that an Expansion Draft isn't mentioned in any NMC (are they all exactly the same? Is it a standard clause? Is each one drafted individually or is there a league wide template?). As such it needs to be treated as neither automatically included or excluded and the league and the NHLPA need to hash out a resolution before any draft can take place.

I think it is unfair to punish any team or player based on circumstances that were never forseen when the contract was signed.

I voted exposed even though my thoughts in favor can be easily countered. Basically I think that Expansion Drafts weren't explicitly included and no one thought they would be an issue. Therefore NMC does not offer protection. Could be argued the reverse for a player pretty easily though.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

To the people who think that teams would just sign guys to NMCs for free protection, the NHL would have a fairly easy work around for that. Any players signed after July 1st 2016 (or in the weeks leading up, if teams are extending their own RFAs/UFAs) that are given NMCs, will have to be protected. All others are exempt. Pretty simple.

I agree (and said the same thing a few posts up), but I think you have to be careful about words like "have to be protected." They shouldn't HAVE to be protected. It'd be stupid to sign a player in free agency, give an NMC, and then not protect them only to have them taken. So they SHOULD be protected from a team management perspective, but the team shouldn't be forced to from a legal perspective.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

For me this is all about the intended purpose and included items in a NMC. What does the exact language in the NMC say? Was the NMC designed to protect against expansion? Or just trades/demotions to the minors? Some things, like buyouts, are obviously exempt. Why not an expansion draft?

I'm assuming that an Expansion Draft isn't mentioned in any NMC (are they all exactly the same? Is it a standard clause? Is each one drafted individually or is there a league wide template?). As such it needs to be treated as neither automatically included or excluded and the league and the NHLPA need to hash out a resolution before any draft can take place.

I think it is unfair to punish any team or player based on circumstances that were never forseen when the contract was signed.

I voted exposed even though my thoughts in favor can be easily countered. Basically I think that Expansion Drafts weren't explicitly included and no one thought they would be an issue. Therefore NMC does not offer protection. Could be argued the reverse for a player pretty easily though.

From the CBA:

11.8(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, 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.

[calgaryblood]

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

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Weitz

From the CBA:

11.8(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, 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.

So the only issue is "whether by" is an exhaustive list. It looks like it is.

I guess it's possible that implied terms could be read into a NMC or that the contract between the team and the player is allowed to be more comprehensive than the CBA definition.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Having a bunch of NMC is not a good scenario for a team anyway.

They could sign a guy to a 5 year deal where the 1st year is NMC and the rest is limited NTC, just to avoid the expansion draft.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by getbak

My thoughts...

• NMCs should not give any team additional opportunities to protect players from exposure in the Expansion Draft.
• Teams should be able to ask a player to waive his NMC for the Expansion Draft. The player should be able to refuse.
• If a player refuses to waive his NMC, he should automatically be assigned to one of the team's protected slots in the Expansion Draft.
• Only NMCs that are valid for the entire 2017-18 season should be considered in force for the Expansion Draft. If the NMC expires before July 1, 2017, or if it takes effect partway through the 2017-18 season, it should not be considered valid for the Expansion Draft.

Exactly this.

But if forced to compromise, I would be willing to accept something along the lines of one extra keeper spot for an NMC contract if you want to use it.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by blankall

So the only issue is "whether by" is an exhaustive list. It looks like it is.

I guess it's possible that implied terms could be read into a NMC or that the contract between the team and the player is allowed to be more comprehensive than the CBA definition.

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?

[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.