2026 NHL CBA negotiations, issues
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
The entire point of a challenge is to determine whether the right call was made. I'm not completely against reducing the number of challenges to something like three per month if that's something the league feels it needs to do, but slapping a time limit on top of that completely undermines the idea of finding out whether the right call was made.
LadyStanley
Registered User
rsteen
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2022
- 398
- 284
Players can have a NMC in addition to a partial NTC (Bruins have a couple). That would protect the player from waiver shenanigans while allowing the team some ability to move them elsewhere in the NHL. I don't see how it's a CBA issue if players don't negotiate for a similar set of clauses. Perhaps future UFAs joining the Rangers will.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
uncleben
Global Moderator
I'm a little torn. Like I get it... and usually I side with players' rights in the end, tbh.
But... if the players are that concerned... they can already negotiate a NMC
Like it's already built in.
A NTC is specifically a 'No Trade Clause'. Not a 'No Trade OR Waiver Clause'.
The NHL is infamous, imo, for kneejerk reactions to things that are legal in the CBA but are super rare and when they do happen, "it must be fixed"
It's not common and teams aren't really going to want to do it bc then they get no return for the player (not to mention the bad PR).
Like, if it's simply not addressed, when will it even really become an issue again, realistically?
That said, I'd be okay if the biggest change they'd made would be players get compensation if they are moved due to waiving or bypassing an NMC or NTC.
Agree to waive? The originating team has to pay the player $50k. Picked up by a team on waivers/expansion/dispersal to a team on your list? $50k.
Likely, it would be not counted against the cap, like waiver compensation, but, hell, make it a cap hit if players want to discourage teams asking to waive even more.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Saying that “they can negotiate a NMC” entirely misses the point and is exactly what I mean when I say it doesn’t address their concerns. The players know that. Pointing it out is meaningless to the conversation, because this isn’t about what the current rules are. It’s about what the rules could be to better honor the intent of the M-NTC. Given that this hadn’t happened before and now it’s happened twice in recent times (McDonagh in 2022), the players are concerned that this will become a more common tactic.
uncleben
Global Moderator
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
That isn't really accurate. The intent of a NMC is to prevent any kind of player movement at all, whether transfer to another team or re-assignment to the minors. The intent of a NTC/M-NTC is to prevent movement to another team, either all of them or specific ones, while allowing for the possibility of re-assignment to the minors. Waivers is just the mechanism that's involved with re-assignment to the minors that also gives the opportunity for the player to end up staying in the NHL. Just like trades are the mechanism that's involved with transferring a player to another team.
The issue is this conflict between intentions and mechanisms. The NTC/M-NTC has effectively covered the intentions fine for years and years. Everyone knew that the possibility of using the waivers mechanism to make a player available to all other teams existed, but teams honored the intention and didn't leverage the mechanism to force a player into accepting a deal to a team on their no-trade list. As long as that was true, it wasn't an issue that needed to be looked at. Now that they're starting to leverage that mechanism, the players are seeking a way to adjust it so the intention is still honored.
Last edited:
mouser
Business of Hockey
I would simplify it a little more. The intent of a NMC is to give the player full control over any trades, waivers or loans. The intend of a NTC is to give the player full control over trades, but not waivers or loans. The intent of a modified NTC and/or NMC is to give the player zero, limited or full control over one or more of trades, waivers or loans.
It’s clear to me that a NTC isn’t meant to prevent a team from waiving a player, otherwise the CBA wouldn’t allow for a no waiver clause in addition to a NTC.
I do think it would be reasonable to bar teams from compensating another team for claiming a player off waivers. If compensation is involved then the transaction is effectively a Trade and should go through any trade rules and restrictions.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I think you're mistaking my use of the words "intent" and "intention" for a legal concept, which I wasn't really doing. I was using the word to describe a softer concept involving the "why" and the expectations of the parties involved. Expectations, not in a legal sense, but in a human sense.
By the letter of the CBA, there's nothing wrong here. No one is claiming that there is. But clearly there's something not defined by the CBA that the players do feel is wrong that's related to the (softer term) intentions and expectations involved. We can sit here all day and say "but the CBA says this" and it isn't going to change that.
Question for the CBA experts here:
Under the current CBA, could a player negotiate to include a no waivers clause in his contract?
If so, this could be coupled with a NTC to give the player limited control over trades and full control over waivers.
Under the current CBA, could a player negotiate to include a no waivers clause in his contract?
If so, this could be coupled with a NTC to give the player limited control over trades and full control over waivers.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Yes, contracts can contain a no Waivers clause. It would usually be referred to as a partial or modified NMC.
No Movement Clauses can contain one of more of the following limits:
- Trades
- Waivers
- Loans (AHL)
There are players for example who have contract protection against Loans but not Waivers. Meaning the player could be waived, but cannot be assigned to the AHL even if they clear waivers.
rsteen
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2022
- 398
- 284
I'd say this would already be considered circumvention and would either be grieved by the PA or punished by the league if it occurred. Doesn't apply in the Trouba situation, but I'd assume any transactions between the Rangers and Sharks will be closely looked at until one or both GMs gets fired, to make sure there's no nudge-wink compensation going to the Sharks for picking up Barclay Goodrow.
Prior to covid, the players consistently voted to use the cap ceiling escalator clause, and then complained when escrow rose to 20%-ish. This is not the first time players have felt aggrieved by a mismatch between their expectations and the reality of something they themselves negotiated. If a player thought that a partial NTC would prevent him from being waived and picked up by any team, he was poorly advised.
I mean, what would the PA's ask be? Not to get rid of waivers completely, as many young or fringe players would welcome a waiver pickup as a fresh start elsewhere in the NHL rather than riding the bus in the AHL. For the player to essentially get a free No Waivers clause along with any NTC? But the owners's response to that would be that players can negotiate that clause currently. Sucks for a player under contract who didn't think to negotiate it, but I don't think changing the terms of an existing contract is a can of worms the PA wants to open either.
mouser
Business of Hockey
I agree the NHL and/or NHLPA, could have that interpretation. But it’s also a grey area in the CBA that I don’t believe has been grieved or resolved in a side agreement between the NHL and PA.
Or if it has been resolved then the full details of that NHL/PA agreement aren’t public.
LadyStanley
Registered User
rsteen
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2022
- 398
- 284
You can't have certainty in the future cap while also having the cap set at 50% of current revenues. Either they keep a bit of the buffer (which if they keep the prior-prior calculation into the next CBA, they will), or escrow starts creeping out of control again.
I don't see how having the cap hit equal the salary rather than the AAV adds flexibility. Front- and back-loading allows GMs to squeeze in more salary than the cap total in a contending window.
Unless he meant the numbers he quoted with a front-loaded contract going from 12 to 6, which is illegal under the 2013 CBA, because it provided too much flexibility and GMs were exploiting it like gangbusters.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Another point. Walsh is first business man head of NHLPA. Might he push for more union involvement in decisions related to the expansion of business? (I'm thinking expansion locations, New revenue streams, etc.) It’s a 50-50 business split nominally.
In the nfl, what gives teams cap flexibility is that they prorate “bonus” money into future years. So a team can instead make $20 mill of a $22 mill salary into a bonus this push $15 mill (1/4) of it to count against the cap for each of the next 3 years at $5 mill per. So you drop your cap hit from $22 mill to $7 mill.
But you then eat the remaining unallocated amount t when you move off that player, which you can then opt to eat all in 1 year or over 2 seasons.
Big markets in nhl can front load deals. So they benefit by having the AAV be even vs take a cap hit on what they pay. Same goes for smaller markets. Cap hit not as big an issue as true cash.
