Are NTCs and NMCs Ruining the Game?

[FlamesAddiction]

This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately.

When the NHL first started allowing movement based clauses, I was under the assumption that they would be rare and something reserved for just a handful of elite players to reward them for their loyalty. I didn't realize that they would be this common. Even average players know that if they aren't offered one, they can get the same money from another team that will give them one.

For a league that puts so much emphasis on competitive balance, it sure seems to throw that off and handcuffs some very specific teams (most of the same teams that were hurting before the salary cap came in). When trying to pivot direction by making trades, it has become a massive problem for some. Trades are necessary or building a good team this issue gives a huge bargaining advantage to some teams.

Someone more familiar with the NBA can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe in the NBA, a player has had to have been with their current team for at least 4 seasons before they can get a NMC/NTC. It's a way for a player that has made a life somewhere to get security and be rewarded for their loyalty. In essence, it was something implemented so the player couldn't be moved from the place they want to be. In the NHL, I think there is a subtle difference. In some cases, the above is true, but in many cases (I would wager most), it's more of a tool to control where they go, which is something they should be doing in free agency.

Here is a write-up on the MLB system and how some of the same concerns have been raised, so it isn't just an NHL situation:

https://calltothepen.com/2016/08/25/...damaging-game/

I think the solution would be to just get rid of modified NMCs and NTCs. None of this 10-team list crap and no waiving the clause. If you get an NTC or NMC, you are not moving. You can't ask for a trade, and the team can't trade you - you ain't moving during the whole contract term. In other words, exactly what they are supposed to be. I think it would make teams and players think hard about whether that was something they really wanted to do, and I couldn't see teams having more than one or two at any given time.

I know the NHLPA would fight hard not to change it and that change is unlikely. It's just another example of how owners are their worst own enemies.

Here is someone else's rant on it:

http://winnipeghockeytalk.com/featur...o-trade-clause

[albertGQ]

I think its fine the way it is. Players can't get a NMC/NTC until they are UFA eligible anyway (27 years old or 7 years of pro experience). So earliest is 25 years of age

If I was a player, I'd love to have some sort of say in where I go. If I commit to a team as a UFA, I'd be uprooting my family so if I can get a NMC and ensure that I won't be moved right away, that would entice me more to sign

[Mull]

Restrictions on NTC/NMC may be needed for the sake of the economics of the game, but my initial reaction to something like this is always to resist.

It seems odd we need NHL mandated rules to protect team GM's (i.e. those who represent the owners in salary negotiations with the league player employees) from themselves.

Reducing options to include in contract negotiations simply because the NHL negotiators are incompetent is why my first reaction to something like this is always to resist. Less flexibility means less "fun" in contracts for a fan. I don't know, maybe a weird view.

That said.. the salary cap follows the same logic. Although, I don't know how much of a success it truly is with the NHL claw back payments, someone else can comment on that. Appears on the surface to me almost like a shell game.

[Flashpoint]

I don’t know why any of the big markets would want to change it. Or those in sunshine states. They directly benefit through no action of their own. It also saves teams money by offering no move instead of cash or term.

[FlamesAddiction]

The other thing mentioned in the MLB article that I think the players might accept in the 10/5 Rule.

If I am understanding that, it means that any player with 10 years in the league, and at least 5 years with their current team, gets a veto on being traded.

It rewards loyalty and gives them control over where they go. It would also be universal. While some teams would still benefit more than others (players would likely veto small, cold markets more than others), it would also be a huge incentive for a player to stay with their team for 5-10 years so they could earn that perk. The threat of being traded and having to start your 5-year tenure somewhere else would be a big kick the pants for players dogging it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I don’t know why any of the big markets would want to change it. Or those in sunshine states. They directly benefit through no action of their own. It also saves teams money by offering no move instead of cash or term.

I am doubting that it really saves money any more. I think it just became a throw in that is expected at this point. A lot of the player this really pertains to will get the exact same deal somewhere else. I assume that when the agents and GMs start negotiating, the NMC/NTC is already there before the dollar amount and term is decided.

[afc wimbledon]

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

[Roof-Daddy]

As a fan of a small market canadian based team I hate them with a passion.

[neo45]

Players sacrifice enough IMO

Every negotiation is a multivariate equation consisting of money, term, and security. You don’t want to offer them security then pay them more or pay them for longer.

[combustiblefuel]

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

I would argue it's the opposite.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by neo45

Players sacrifice enough IMO

Every negotiation is a multivariate equation consisting of money, term, and security. You don’t want to offer them security then pay them more or pay them for longer.

Ya getting a dream job and getting gueranteed pay outs contracts worth millions and having half a year off if you miss playoffs....

[CsInMyBlood]

Yeah, I dont buy the players sacrifice angle.

If I could be paid multi millions a year for a job I would work ANYWHERE and do many more extremely horrible things than play a game.

Maybe that's just me though.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Yeah, I dont buy the players sacrifice angle.

If I could be paid multi millions a year for a job I would work ANYWHERE and do many more extremely horrible things than play a game.

Maybe that's just me though.

But would you sacrifice decades of hard work and physical tolls to get good enough at something to the point where millions of people want to watch you?

Because the players did. Let them choose where they want to raise a family FFS

[neo45]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Ya getting a dream job and getting gueranteed pay outs contracts worth millions and having half a year off if you miss playoffs....

“Getting a dream job” is a laughably pejorative way of putting it

How about “earning a dream job in an ultra competitive and physically dangerous meritocracy”

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by neo45

But would you sacrifice decades of hard work and physical tolls to get good enough at something to the point where millions of people want to watch you?

Because the players did. Let them choose where they want to raise a family FFS

By that logic, why bother having a draft or free agency restrictions?

I think we all agree there needs to be restrictions, it's about where to draw the line. That line is drawn differently depending on the league, some being more conservative than others. I guess we should just assume the NHL got it exactly right?

[getbak]

They're not ruining the game any more than the draft, restricted free agency, or the ability to trade players in the first place are ruining the game.

Why do we accept that a team should be able to do whatever it wants with the players, but the players shouldn't have any control over their careers?



None of us would accept these kinds of restrictions on our jobs and it doesn't matter how much money someone makes, there's always someone who will look at your salary and think, "What are you complaining about? You make a lot of money. Just shut up and do your job."

That's why we have unions in the first place.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

By that logic, why bother having a draft or free agency restrictions?

I think we all agree there needs to be restrictions, it's about where to draw the line. That line is drawn differently depending on the league, some being more conservative than others. I guess we should just assume the NHL got it exactly right?

There are already restrictions on who can get trade protection and when. Not only does it have to be earned, the GM has to agree to it, and it almost always comes in exchange for a $$$$ discount, out of the issues I have with the league trade clauses and overall parity would be very far down, personally.

So no, I think when it comes to trade protection I think the league has a good balance. Obviously the players would want more and the owners less

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by neo45

But would you sacrifice decades of hard work and physical tolls to get good enough at something to the point where millions of people want to watch you?

Because the players did. Let them choose where they want to raise a family FFS

Most of those guys are going to retire in their early 30s. They have a ton of opportunities to choose where to raise a family.

[dino7c]

League would be more exciting without them...can't see it happening

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by neo45

“Getting a dream job” is a laughably pejorative way of putting it

How about “earning a dream job in an ultra competitive and physically dangerous meritocracy”

You can say that about alot of industries.. the difference is they are making way way more . Their pay is ridiculous.