[News] TSN: NHL GM Meetings: To discuss playoff cap, player no-trade lists, cap increase

[robertsfanatic]

Originally Posted by Cycling76er

I wouldn't take a 100k/yr job somewhere that I didn't want to live. But a 750k/yr job? I would give that some thought.

yes, i would join a company that says we'll pay you $750K (for 10 months with 2 months off) but you may have to move to another one of our 32 locations if we need you to....even though it might not ever happen.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by robertsfanatic

yes, i would join a company that says we'll pay you $750K (for 10 months with 2 months off) but you may have to move to another one of our 32 locations if we need you to....even though it might not ever happen.

Bargaining power. And TBF, I don’t know of any league minimum guys with a NTC. I suppose there might be some that say I will take minimum but I can’t be sent down, even at full price.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Nah, at the end of the day people should have the ability to choose where they work. The NHL is making billions of dollars off their backs and workers have the right to negotiate contracts that make sense for their lives.

By this logic we should eliminate the draft, which is obviously a bad idea.

People have complete control of their lives. Being drafted to the NHL is essentially just a job offer. They don't have to accept it. But if they do it comes with the chance of job relocation across 32 different cities.

Nobody is forcing them to play anywhere.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

By this logic we should eliminate the draft, which is obviously a bad idea.

People have complete control of their lives. Being drafted to the NHL is essentially just a job offer. They don't have to accept it. But if they do it comes with the chance of job relocation across 32 different cities.

Nobody is forcing them to play anywhere.

Professional sports is also an entertainment business that depends on some semblance of competitive balance in order to keep the customers interested, which means talent has to be spread around. It's what they sign up for when they choose to play in the NHL. The fact the NHL even allows NTCs and NMCs at the scale they do, is damaging to the product.

It would be like an actor signing up to do a movie and then complaining that they need to shoot in remote locations.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Is NHL the only league with an actual official NTC/NMC? I think football, baseball or basketball don't have that, and anyone can be traded to anywhere or sent down/cut at anytime. Although you have the likes of Lebron playing agent/coach/GM manipulating trades and signings, but still only the NHL has an official NTC/NMC.

Who thought of having NTC/NMC in the first place? The NHL should ban them from any future contracts being signed.

MLB has the 10/5 rule.

Players who have accrued 10 years of Major League service time and spent the past five consecutive years with the same team are awarded 10-and-5 rights. Under these circumstances, a player can veto any trade scenario that is proposed.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

MLB has the 10/5 rule.

Players who have accrued 10 years of Major League service time and spent the past five consecutive years with the same team are awarded 10-and-5 rights. Under these circumstances, a player can veto any trade scenario that is proposed.

The NBA also has a rule that awards longevity and loyalty to a club. I think there are fewer than 20 players this season that actually qualify to exercise it though. Quite different than the NHL where literally hundreds of players have some kind of NMC and most teams have 20% or more of their team made up of them because they have become expected by most free agents making above league minimum.

[powderjunkie]

I wonder if teams/players are able to be more creative in designing their NTCs. For instance, I'd prefer the following over a ~16 team NTC:

5 Team No Trade List effective May 1 - August 15 every year
5 Team Trade List effective the rest of the year.
(could maybe also add a ~16 team list from say Feb 15-May 1)

Want me to uproot my life? Fine, as long as I have at least a few weeks before training camp to get my family settled.

Originally Posted by Cycling76er

Personal opinion; when the lowest paid person in the NHL makes more in one year then most people make in 10 years, they should be a little more open to being moved around. "It's part of the business" is a commonly used phrase by GMs and players alike.

I wouldn't take a 100k/yr job somewhere that I didn't want to live. But a 750k/yr job? I would give that some thought.

That being said, I don't think it unreasonable to allow a 3 team, pre-determined NTC. It should only be allowed to be submitted once at the onset of a contract. You didn't put the Pittsburgh Penguins on your list and now they look to be in the dumps for the next 10 years? Tough. You can be traded there.

Of course you would. Because you are an Average Joe, and not at the top 1% of your profession. What if you could choose between:

$750k and absolutely no control of your location - it can change anytime/anywhere
$600k and you can choose ~10 places you might have to be
$500k and near total control of you location

It's all going to depend on your life circumstances. SINK or DINK? Take the $$.. School aged kids? Then stability becomes a lot more appealing.


There's always tradeoffs. Building/patching big holes through trade/UFA is rarely an effective long-term plan. They are tools to put the finishing touches on your team.

Does CGY land either Markstrom or Coleman if they can't offer them more security? I'm not sure a NTC free league would work nearly as well as people think.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Are you suggesting that people who make $100,000 per year should be freely transferrable to anther city or even country?

You are clearly out of touch with reality.

For clarity, when I say "make 6 figures", I mean get that amount in take-home pay.

But yes, at that level you are living a life of extreme luxury, so also getting to choose the location of your workplace doesn't seem like something that should be guaranteed. In the case of NHL players, the league minimum is $750k... after escrow & taxes it's substantially lower than that, but still in the several hundreds of thousands. And the potential locations that players can be moved to is limited to 32 North American cities.

I do think the level of NMCs/NTCs are having an adverse effect on NHL hockey. Solutions seen in other major sports leagues might be worth taking a look at.

[D as in David]

It's not just 32 cities, it also the cities of the AHL squads where they may get demoted. Plus, if they get sent down, they're often making far less than NHL minimum (offset somewhat by the lack of escrow).

[dissentowner]

Vegas has put Smith on LTIR. Martinez must be having to come off.

[FlamesAddiction]

If I am counting right, there are currently 182 roster players with some form of NTC or NMC, for an average of 5.6 per team. That is almost about 25% of all players in the league. This does not include players who have them written into their contract and just haven't kicked in yet. Tampa has the most at 11 and Columbus the lowest with only 1. The Flames currently have 7.

It seems like a ridiculously high number. I am not saying that they should get rid of them completely, but there should be a way to moderate it more.

I think you could probably achieve the result if you just made a rule where no team could have more than 5 on their roster at a time. It will make teams think twice about who they want to handcuff themselves to.

I think you could also make it so the clauses can't be waived no matter what. It will make players and teams think twice about asking for a clause.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

For clarity, when I say "make 6 figures", I mean get that amount in take-home pay.

But yes, at that level you are living a life of extreme luxury, so also getting to choose the location of your workplace doesn't seem like something that should be guaranteed. In the case of NHL players, the league minimum is $750k... after escrow & taxes it's substantially lower than that, but still in the several hundreds of thousands. And the potential locations that players can be moved to is limited to 32 North American cities.

I do think the level of NMCs/NTCs are having an adverse effect on NHL hockey. Solutions seen in other major sports leagues might be worth taking a look at.

$100,000 in take home pay is miles away from “extreme luxury”.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

MLB has the 10/5 rule.

Players who have accrued 10 years of Major League service time and spent the past five consecutive years with the same team are awarded 10-and-5 rights. Under these circumstances, a player can veto any trade scenario that is proposed.

Baseball also has NTC if the player can negotiate it. No difference than Hockey.

Once hockey went to a salary cap there is zero chance that the players would allow the dissolution of the NTC.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

$100,000 in take home pay is miles away from “extreme luxury”.

Speak for yourself....I'd kill to take home 100 grand in a year

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

$100,000 in take home pay is miles away from “extreme luxury”.

You are very wrong.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You are very wrong.

Extreme luxury? Compared to a median income, we're talking about having some, but probably not all of the following:

- a bigger nicer house (let's ballpark $800k)
- a nicer car
- going on nicer/longer vacation(s) most years
- going out for more dinners, shows, hockey games, ski days, etc.
- spending a little more on other hobbies or general purchases
- saving for retirement
- paying off debts that you may have acquired to achieve this income level (doctors, lawyers, MBAs, entrepreneurs, etc.)

Overall a bit less stress about generally paying the bills, presuming you live within your means, which means doing the bullet points above in moderation.

That just sounds like a very nice and comfortable life. Some more opportunities to enjoy some luxuries, but it's definitely far from 'extreme'. That income level also tends to involve lots of working hours and/or higher stress jobs.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

$100,000 in take home pay is miles away from “extreme luxury”.

It is if you are talking worldwide, actually a far lower amount would be

the vast majority of people in this world don't have their own home and car let alone all the other things

we are spoiled around here

[Mindtravellee]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

There are pretty strict protocols regarding concussions. You are making a big leap assuming he was brought back too quickly. Frankly his decline in play pre-dated the scary hit.

I'm the first to say the NHL needs to do more to prevent concussions (eliminating big hits and fighting) but that's very different from suggesting they are still bringing concussed players back too soon.

I don't think that big of a leap. AFL has mandated 10 days for any player taken off with concussion, however the team lists provide space for the players to rest ,list of 38 (I may also be more concerned since the team I support has had a number of players retire due to excessive concussions). If the NHL wanted to support concussed players they should allow flexibility to the teams to not rush them back, maybe a wavier exemption?