Are NTCs and NMCs Ruining the Game?

[djsFlames]

For the amount these guys get paid, no movement or team should be off limits to the club owning their rights.

You probably have a 3-15 year career in the league. You can suck it up and be made available to any of the 32 cities over that time.

It's unnecessary sweetener to entice players that is used way too liberally nowadays and complicates a lot of potential transactions.

Get rid of it for sure.

Also that college loophole needs to be closed. Every odd year some kid forces his way out of his drafting team who deserves to have him in their system and darts for stupid New York.

That #### needs to stop IMO.

[FlamesAddiction]

For the record, I never said that they should get rid of them completely. Just make it a much bigger commitment for the team and player.

If a player wants flexibility on where they play, they are free to sign one-year deals until they get offer they like.

If they sign a super long deal and then complain that they aren't free to go where they want, that is their problem.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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

I agree.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Does this thread exist if Adam fox isn't having a banner March?

[neo45]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

Does this thread exist if Adam fox isn't having a banner March?

From a fan perspective it really really stings

He looks outstanding

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

Does this thread exist if Adam fox isn't having a banner March?

What does he have to do with a no trade or move?

The fact that there are next to no trades anymore is the reason for the thread

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

Does this thread exist if Adam fox isn't having a banner March?

Yeah, it does. It's bothered me for a long time. I didn't even think about Fox at the time as this doesn't really pertain to him at all.

The nixed Kadri deal crossed my mind though.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by dino7c

What does he have to do with a no trade or move?

The fact that there are next to no trades anymore is the reason for the thread

Or that its a pandemic, teams are dealing with a flat cap and have to balance dollars in and out. Not to mention a 7 day quarantine. Teams also aren't lining up to take Sam Bennetts of the world either.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

Or that its a pandemic, teams are dealing with a flat cap and have to balance dollars in and out. Not to mention a 7 day quarantine. Teams also aren't lining up to take Sam Bennetts of the world either.

Who's said anything about Sam Bennett...trade market has been mostly boring for a long while now league wide. Back in the day anybody could be traded, not so much anymore.

A Jets fan of all people should not like NTCs

[getbak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If they sign a super long deal and then complain that they aren't free to go where they want, that is their problem.

How often has that happened, (i.e. a player with a NTC/NMC demands a trade, but only to certain teams)? I'm sure there might be a couple of examples, but I can't think of any off-hand.

Most players are using their NTC/NMCs to choose their destination after their team decides they want to move them. Most of these players would be perfectly content staying with the team that signed them to the NTC/NMC in the first place.

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

Does this thread exist if Adam fox isn't having a banner March?

That's the other thread. This thread has nothing to do with the Fox situation. He isn't even eligible for a NTC/NMC for another 4 years.

[Sylvanfan]

Well take away the cap and linkage to revenues, put unrestricted free agency back to 31 years old, and you'll see a lot less of these. How would people feel about that?

When I was in high school taking chemistry, I remember Le Chatelier's principle. When you change the conditions of a balanced experiment, nature will try and undo the changes you made to bring back the balance. Well they added a cap and salary linkage which was a huge item for owners. So to balance it out, UFA age is much younger, and players are leveraging their ability to stay out of a cold small boring Canadian city after they turn 27.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who's said anything about Sam Bennett...trade market has been mostly boring for a long while now league wide. Back in the day anybody could be traded, not so much anymore.

A Jets fan of all people should not like NTCs

I dont but its reality. The Jets had a deal in the fall for Nate Schmidt and he wouldn't waive to come here. Not to mention they're at the top of almost every players no trade list. Or you draft and develop a Trouba only to know he wants out the second he gets to his Ufa years. Its part of the game, I just accept it.

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by getbak

How often has that happened, (i.e. a player with a NTC/NMC demands a trade, but only to certain teams)? I'm sure there might be a couple of examples, but I can't think of any off-hand.

Most players are using their NTC/NMCs to choose their destination after their team decides they want to move them. Most of these players would be perfectly content staying with the team that signed them to the NTC/NMC in the first place.






That's the other thread. This thread has nothing to do with the Fox situation. He isn't even eligible for a NTC/NMC for another 4 years.

My mistake you're right.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who's said anything about Sam Bennett...trade market has been mostly boring for a long while now league wide. Back in the day anybody could be traded, not so much anymore.

I'd blame the salary cap and false parity created by the OTL points for that more than NTC/NMCs.

[iggy_oi]

Players have a very limited career and being traded to a bad team can really impact your earning potential so it makes sense that they want some control over where they play. While I can understand the frustration fans feel when their team is handcuffed or in cap jail, I’m not sure why anyone is blaming the players since it’s the GMs job to manage the team. Players can’t sign no movement clauses if they aren’t offered to them.

[krynski]

Honestly, the NCAA loophole is a bigger concern for me.

NTCs and NMCs are generally only given to the really good players, and I would imagine in some cases it helps to keep salary down. Stability for star players and their families doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

I dont but its reality. The Jets had a deal in the fall for Nate Schmidt and he wouldn't waive to come here. Not to mention they're at the top of almost every players no trade list. Or you draft and develop a Trouba only to know he wants out the second he gets to his Ufa years. Its part of the game, I just accept it.

You kind of have to just accept it. We are powerless to change things.

But things do change and the movement clauses are still a fairly recent addition in the NHL. I just wonder if the NHL ever envisioned that they would become practically part of a standard contract. Once again, I think owner proved that they have no restraint when it comes to these things. I am definitely not complaining about the players here, this is all on the owners.

Just like there were some owners that didn't want a salary cap, there are some owners that always like the status-quo when it benefits them. I am sure the owners who benefited from the sponsorship system didn't like it when the entry draft was established. Some owners didn't like it when the NHL banned trading players for cash. All these things they recognized as negatively affecting the competitiveness of the league and were changed. I can see this becoming one of those things eventually.

Trades are a pretty important tool for building a good team and anything that makes it harder for one team to trade for players, and easier for a nothing team to trade them at a discount, upsets the competitiveness IMO.

Unless you just plan on building primarily through free agency (expensive) or drafting by position (terrible idea), you need to make trades. Being a team on no-trade lists is somewhat like back in the day when teams just couldn't afford to obtain good players.

Again, I think coming up with a tenure based system, like the MLB 10/5 or NBA 8/4 rule would be better for business. If it's works for them, why not here? Or just don't allow modified NTCs or NMCs. Make them all full NTCs or NMCs.

According to Capfriendly, there are 179 active NHL players with some form of NTC or NMC. That averages out to about 6 players per team. In the NBA, last season, there were no players with true NTCs, but 19 players that had trade veto powers based on their tenure and/or contract status. It's such a drastic difference.

[Jason14h]

Well players would just refuse to play in certain places if they didn’t have contractual NTC so it wouldn’t change a thing.

Plus when you are deciding to sign somewhere as a FA or stay somewhere for what you expect is the duration of your contract , not sure why you shouldn’t be able to negotiate job location stability

I guess a team could technically trade for a player who tells them they will not play there and then suspend them without pay

Not sure how this is beneficial to anyone

[Vinny01]

I think they are brutal and by far the most overused clause in common contracts. When you see a NTC in the NBA or NFL it is saved for the truly elite franchise players. In hockey you have third pairing D and bottom 6 forwards who negotiate some kind of trade protection in their contracts.

It has burned the Flames at least once that we know of. Being a fan of a crappy market team in a league where so many players get these clauses it makes it that much more difficult to build a winner.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by krynski

Honestly, the NCAA loophole is a bigger concern for me.

NTCs and NMCs are generally only given to the really good players, and I would imagine in some cases it helps to keep salary down. Stability for star players and their families doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

Maybe they should limit the number of NMC/NTC clauses per team, so GMs can then use it as an excuse not to give them, and they can be used only for elite players.