Should NMC count against expansion draft?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I think it would be incredibly unfair for teams to be able to use a NMC to shelter a player and not lose a "protection slot" on them. Best solution possible is for every NMC you have, you must protect them.

Fair and simple. NMC's weren't designed to protect against exapansion, they were put in place to prevent teams from hiding a player in the minors.

really... isn't a NMC to provide a player location security.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Except you are taking it out of context.

Depends on how you interpret it. If you interpret the way you arguing why would you word it that way? I can interpret it quite easily as a player unable to be moved except via buyout. Why would it not clearly say a NMC protects against trades, waivers, minors, and that is it? Instead the first part of it clearly states it protects involuntary movement and then has a comma. To me that covers expansion as that is involuntary movement.

[Weitz]

Should be an interesting battle.

You look at Chicago and Pittsburgh. They will get up to 13 - 15 protection spots.

No way other teams allow that.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Depends on how you interpret it. If you interpret the way you arguing why would you word it that way? I can interpret it quite easily as a player unable to be moved except via buyout. Why would it not clearly say a NMC protects against trades, waivers, minors, and that is it? Instead the first part of it clearly states it protects involuntary movement and then has a comma. To me that covers expansion as that is involuntary movement.

No not interpret. Take out of context. You literally cut off the sentence before it was over. That's not an interpretation, that's not quoting correctly.

The NHLPA will no doubt argue that clause includes expansion drafts, they won't do it by intentionally misquoting the CBA.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No not interpret. Take out of context. You literally cut off the sentence before it was over. That's not an interpretation, that's not quoting correctly.

The NHLPA will no doubt argue that clause includes expansion drafts, they won't do it by intentionally misquoting the CBA.

Actually the way I read it you are taking it out of context. The first part clearly says involuntary movement, then the rest of the sentence says "whether" the other pieces involved. Therefore an expansion draft is involuntary movement which is the first part of the sentence. Everything after the first comma is simply irrelevant.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Actually the way I read it you are taking it out of context. The first part clearly says involuntary movement, then the rest of the sentence says "whether" the other pieces involved. Therefore an expansion draft is involuntary movement which is the first part of the sentence. Everything after the first comma is simply irrelevant.

I'm not sure that's the case. They outlined those 3 things as the reasons for a potential "move". It doesn't say anything about any movements that don't fall into those parameters. This is a legal document, unless it says "including, but not limited too" what it says is what it says.

Ultimately, I think the NHL and NHLPA are going to have to draw up new legislation for the expansion.

It really is an oversight by both parties to have not included any provisions for an expansion draft as it relates to contracts under this CBA.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm not sure that's the case. They outlined those 3 things as the reasons for a potential "move". It doesn't say anything about any movements that don't fall into those parameters.

Right, but they also say it prevents "involuntary movement". There was no for the following added on or a specification of only those 3 things. It was followed by a comma and the next word was wether. How can anyone argue that being exposed in an expansion draft is not "involuntary movement"?

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It really is an oversight by both parties to have not included any provisions for an expansion draft as it relates to contracts under this CBA.

Not really. It seems pretty reasonable to discuss expansion when it's a reality, and not beforehand. I doubt the last two CBAs had specific rules for expansion in them either.

[Weitz]

Dissentowner is arguing what the NHLPA will argue, Cecil Matty and I are arguing what the NHL will argue.

At the end of the day it will be a negotiation instead of court case IMO with someone getting something out of it.

But like I said, how can you do an expansion draft where Pittsburgh or Chicago can save 14 players?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Right, but they also say it prevents "involuntary movement". There was no for the following added on or a specification of only those 3 things. It was followed by a comma and the next word was wether. How can anyone argue that being exposed in an expansion draft is not "involuntary movement"?

I'm just trying to think about it like a lawyer.

You're right, adding the "whether this, this or this" was not needed. But they did put it in and it specifies those things without saying it could include any other type of player movement scenario.

For example, It doesn't say anything about what happens if the team they signed their NMC with moves. It doesn't fall into those 3 categories, so that to me says that a NMC wouldn't be valid in regards to team movement.

[dissentowner]

Personally as a Flames fan I don't care either way, it won't have much bearing on us.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Dissentowner is arguing what the NHLPA will argue, Cecil Matty and I are arguing what the NHL will argue.

At the end of the day it will be a negotiation instead of court case IMO with someone getting something out of it.

But like I said, how can you do an expansion draft where Pittsburgh or Chicago can save 14 players?

Yeah, every team has to be treated equally.

So there really are only two ways to go: ignore NMCs altogether, or (more likely) force teams to count those players as protected (unless they agree to waive)

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Personally as a Flames fan I don't care either way, it won't have much bearing on us.

It could.

If they gave NMCs automatic exemption without requiring protection, and if the league determines that Jon Gillies will require protection, the Flames could go out and sign a starting goalie and give him a NMC that offers him automatic protection for the expansion draft so they could use their protected spot on Gillies.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Not really. It seems pretty reasonable to discuss expansion when it's a reality, and not beforehand. I doubt the last two CBAs had specific rules for expansion in them either.

Maybe not. But it seems prudent to at least have some verbage about how these types of clauses would be affected "in the event of" something that had a strong possibility in the near future.

[Jay Random]

The difficulty I see is that the NMC protects the player against being moved by the team. Trading a player, waiving him, or sending him to the minors, these are all things done by the team. So is buying him out or terminating his contract, which the NMC explicitly does not prevent. The entire context of the clause is about things that a team may not do to a player with an NMC.

An expansion draft, on the other hand, is not something done by the team at all. It is conducted by the NHL as a whole, which is not a signatory to the NMC. It can even be done against the will of some particular teams, since expansion (as I understand it) does not require a unanimous ‘yes’ vote. Can a team be held in breach of contract if it is forced by a third party to commit a violation? Or would that fall under the definition of force majeure?

Consider another hypothetical case: a dispersal draft. Could a franchise be forcibly prevented from folding simply because one or more players had NMCs? If, for instance, the Arizona Coyotes' franchise were revoked at the end of the season, would they have to go on paying Antoine Vermette to play for a hockey team that no longer existed? Or would Vermette be eligible for the dispersal draft in spite of his NMC?

It seems to me that an NMC cannot simply be treated as a carte blanche protection against forms of movement that are not specifically mentioned in its language, because this line of thinking leads to ridiculous scenarios like Vermette being the only player on the payroll of a defunct franchise.

For these reasons, I don't think any language in the CBA (or in the specimen SPC) can be used to support one position or the other. The only mention of expansion in the CBA has to do with paying the players' per diem and moving expenses, which is obviously inadequate. I should think that the whole issue needs to be negotiated between the NHL and the PA, because the existing terms clearly were not intended to cover this situation.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Maybe not. But it seems prudent to at least have some verbage about how these types of clauses would be affected "in the event of" something that had a strong possibility in the near future.

In the event of something that had a strong possibility in the near future actually happening, how these types of clauses will be affected can be addressed at that time.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by getbak

It could.

If they gave NMCs automatic exemption without requiring protection, and if the league determines that Jon Gillies will require protection, the Flames could go out and sign a starting goalie and give him a NMC that offers him automatic protection for the expansion draft so they could use their protected spot on Gillies.

Rather lose Gillies than sign a UFA goalie to a NMC. Teams aren't purposefully gonna load up with unmovable contacts to protect prospects.

Remember how awful it was when all of our players had NMC?

[SofaProfessor]

What will likely happen is either option 1 or, slightly less likely, option 3. I think option 2 is best for players and teams.

You have to recognize that players have signed contracts with NMC's in order to gain some stability for themselves and their families. Players that get these provisions have often earned them and it is their right to negotiate those terms into their contracts and exercise those terms as laid out in the contract.

However, I don't think teams should lose a protection spot for players with a NMC. If you're going to concede that a NMC means a player cannot move then it seems like double dipping to say "He can't go anywhere because of his contract and you also have to protect him from going anywhere because he can't go anywhere."

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned another round of buyouts. That would be a good solution if the league chooses to go with option 1. Force teams to protect their guys with a NMC but offer 2 buyouts in the offseason to help teams better manage their roster. I think, for the future, there needs to be a set rule for how the NMC affects expansion drafts so no one is sitting around asking questions like this a year before the draft happens. The rule should be set, that's how it is, that's the rule you work with when you negotiate contracts. No questions when the expansion draft rolls around.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by SofaProfessor

However, I don't think teams should lose a protection spot for players with a NMC. If you're going to concede that a NMC means a player cannot move then it seems like double dipping to say "He can't go anywhere because of his contract and you also have to protect him from going anywhere because he can't go anywhere."

Maybe. It seems to me like double dipping to say ‘You can only protect 11 players from the expansion draft, but if you have voluntarily signed some players to NMCs, you can protect more than 11.’ It's unequal treatment for the existing teams, and the potential for abuse is large and obvious.

[SofaProfessor]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Maybe. It seems to me like double dipping to say ‘You can only protect 11 players from the expansion draft, but if you have voluntarily signed some players to NMCs, you can protect more than 11.’ It's unequal treatment for the existing teams, and the potential for abuse is large and obvious.

I agree with that as well. No matter how I look at it, it seems like someone or some teams will get the short end of the stick and there's definitely no way to make everyone happy.

I'm just dumbfounded that this wasn't decided during the last CBA. There should have been a set rule that GM's could work with moving forward. Instead the league is going to be making rules on the fly and there will be people complaining no matter what.