Get rid of the NMC

[Melrose Munch]

Not only that, get rid of any kind of trade protection, get rid of NTC, NMC etc. Also limit max contract length to 5 years. Lock the players out if you need to, to get this done. In exchange the players get some perks, the ELC is reduced to 2 seasons and players get arbitration rights earlier in their career right after the 2 year ELC expires.



GMs have tools at their disposal to encourage the change- namely locking out the players until they get what they want.

If guys don't want to live in some places, nothing will stop them. The problem is those places.

Also, Owners lock out players. But the 5-year max contracts I agree with. It would help immensely since the cap is going nowhere.

The amount of NHL players with some kind of trade protection: 235

The amount of NBA players with some kind of trade protection: 11

Wow, I thought this number was in the 100s... that's 7.3 players per team.

 

[JimmyApples]

NMC are okay, but they’re supposed to cost the player in AAV for every year of NMC

That’s not happening, agents are taking the GM’s to school and it’s really ruining the league.

A NMC should take at least 10%-15% off the AAV

Absolutely right.

It’s a copycat league, though. It only takes one desperate team to offer full value plus a NMC for a player they really want, and the quickly after, becomes the norm.

 

[Strangle]

How is it meaningless when you're trying to argue that having no control where you are traded to and when is not a negative working condition?

They don't all have it because there's a balance between what players want and what the owners want to give.

Anyway, it's a pretty useless topic because the NHLPA will not accept the removal of NTC/NMC.

Because it is literally that important to a functioning professional league that teams be able to move players around

This is sports league basics 101

If teams are not able to make personnel decisions to improve their team, the league will die

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

There should be no NMCs, no NTCs, no guaranteed contracts and you should only get UFA status when you hit 30 years old.

And you should be chained to your work station where you are required to work 14 hours per day, with a 12 minute break for gruel.

And in general - NTC/NMC are ONLY available for people who have earned UFA status. So as a result - a player who has earned the right to decide where to play potentially has the right to not be shipped to someplace where he doesn't want to play. These are completely optional, and a team has NEVER been forced to give one to a player. The organization ALWAYS has the right to say "this deal does not include trade/movement protection".

 

[Melrose Munch]

The amount of NHL players with some kind of trade protection: 235

The amount of NBA players with some kind of trade protection: 11

@PaulD you seeing this? Guys don't like pressure and here's the proof. How does a Canadian team win at all?!?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Not only that, get rid of any kind of trade protection, get rid of NTC, NMC etc. Also limit max contract length to 5 years. Lock the players out if you need to, to get this done. In exchange the players get some perks, the ELC is reduced to 2 seasons and players get arbitration rights earlier in their career right after the 2 year ELC expires.



GMs have tools at their disposal to encourage the change- namely locking out the players until they get what they want.

Hate to break this to you, but GM's don't have the ability to lock out the players.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Being important to them is a meaningless statement and not the argument being made.

Making $100m is also important to them, I’m sure. Doesn’t mean it’s at all reasonable.

If this is such an important thing, why don’t all players just have NMC in their contracts from their ELC’s right through to retirement? The union could negotiate that into the CBA and refuse to play until it’s signed.

What a wonderful league we would have then! But I’m sure the players would be really happy making less money as the NHL dies due to teams inability to improve themselves

It's not meaningless statement because it was proven to be important enough for the NHLPA to negotiate trade protection in the last CBA.

Your strawman about trade protection for the entirety of the contract is true but ignorant. If the NHLPA didn't want the salary cap - they could have refused to play. That is 100% true. But the owners were willing to forego playing longer to get the salary cap than the players were so we ended up with the cap. The owners were willing to negotiate certain points, including NTC/NMC to get that to happen. Negotiations between parties are give and take, and both sides gave and took to get the CBA signed in it's entirety.

 

[jigglysquishy]

If owners want to limit NMCs they will have to give up something in negotiation. Their biggest play would be UFA age.

 

[Strangle]

It's not meaningless statement because it was proven to be important enough for the NHLPA to negotiate trade protection in the last CBA.

Your strawman about trade protection for the entirety of the contract is true but ignorant. If the NHLPA didn't want the salary cap - they could have refused to play. That is 100% true. But the owners were willing to forego playing longer to get the salary cap than the players were so we ended up with the cap. The owners were willing to negotiate certain points, including NTC/NMC to get that to happen. Negotiations between parties are give and take, and both sides gave and took to get the CBA signed in it's entirety.

Just because something was negotiated and accepted, doesn’t mean it wasn’t and continues to be, a mistake.

If NMC took money off the AAV, as it should …. Then at least there is a negotiation, and a give and take, between the player and team.

What we are seeing now is that NMC are throw ins to max value contracts to up the value for the player even more, often to the detriment of the team.

If your take in all of this is that the players wishes should come before team success, then we will just have to disagree on that.

I believe team success is paramount, especially in a results oriented business like professional sports.

The players wishes are secondary by a long shot. The logic behind this is similar to asking why players get drafted and don’t just choose which team they want to sign them in the first place

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Makes free agency and the trade deadline boring as hell. Seems like every team has a couple scrubs with NMCs.

The purpose of free agency and the trade deadline isn't to keep you entertained.

 

[tfwnogf]

nmc makes guys like brad treliving laughing stocks, we should keep it for that reason alone

 

[Treb]

Because it is literally that important to a functioning professional league that teams be able to move players around

This is sports league basics 101

If teams are not able to make personnel decisions to improve their team, the league will die

And they can do that, with the limits indicated in the contracts they signed with their players

Trades are happening right now in a league with NTC/NMC, why are you creating an imaginary scenario where trades don't happen?

 

[Melrose Munch]

Just because something was negotiated and accepted, doesn’t mean it wasn’t and continues to be, a mistake.

If NMC took money off the AAV, as it should …. Then at least there is a negotiation, and a give and take, between the player and team.

What we are seeing now is that NMC are throw ins to max value contracts to up the value for the player even more, often to the detriment of the team.

If your take in all of this is that the players wishes should come before team success, then we will just have to disagree on that.

I believe team success is paramount, especially in a results oriented business like professional sports.

The players wishes are secondary by a long shot. The logic behind this is similar to asking why players get drafted and don’t just choose which team they want to sign them in the first place

That's not how things work. This is a business. Keeping the players is part of that. Most importantly, the owners haven't given an indication they want to get rid of it.

 

[Strangle]

And they can do that, with the limits indicated in the contracts they signed with their players

Trades are happening right now in a league with NTC/NMC, why are you creating an imaginary scenario where trades don't happen?

Trades happen, but they are very rare already and it’s only getting worse.

Further to that, the reason for trades is mostly cap related and not hockey related.

You might see 1 hockey trade every 3-4 years, the rest (of the very few that happen) are trades of contracts.

If you refuse to see how this is detrimental to a professional sports league, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I’m not going to convince you that this is bad for the league and you’re not going to convince me that players preferences are more important than a healthy and competitive league

 

[DuklaNation]

Agreed on the NMC, NTC parts. When conditions change, it can hurt the team for a prolonged period. Similar to NBA when they had longer term contracts that were too difficult to move, the team suffered for too long.

 

[Strangle]

That's not how things work. This is a business. Keeping the players is part of that. Most importantly, the owners haven't given an indication they want to get rid of it.

Why does the league have a draft where team claim the rights of young players? Isn’t that a ‘negative working environment’? Mandating an 18yo kid to move to a new city?

Shouldn’t, if we are putting players preferences first, the kids choose which city they want to play in?

Or would that be ridiculous and bad for the league?

 

[Treb]

Trades happen, but they are very rare already and it’s only getting worse.

Further to that, the reason for trades is mostly cap related and not hockey related.

You might see 1 hockey trade every 3-4 years, the rest (of the very few that happen) are trades of contracts.

If you refuse to see how this is detrimental to a professional sports league, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I’m not going to convince you that this is bad for the league and you’re not going to convince me that players preferences are more important than a healthy and competitive league

Trades are very rare? Lol ok buddy.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Just because something was negotiated and accepted, doesn’t mean it wasn’t and continues to be, a mistake.

If NMC took money off the AAV, as it should …. Then at least there is a negotiation, and a give and take, between the player and team.

What we are seeing now is that NMC are throw ins to max value contracts to up the value for the player even more, often to the detriment of the team.

If your take in all of this is that the players wishes should come before team success, then we will just have to disagree on that.

I believe team success is paramount, especially in a results oriented business like professional sports.

The players wishes are secondary by a long shot. The logic behind this is similar to asking why players get drafted and don’t just choose which team they want to sign them in the first place

Strangle - strongly agree with the bolded.

With that said - UFA eligible players have earned the right in the CBA to choose where they do not want to live/play. When they sign that UFA eligible contract - they are committing to organization for that entire period of time. The players have the ability to negotiate the ability to not get traded to someplace that they NEVER would have signed. If they're making a commitment to the organization - it is not unreasonable for the organization to make a commitment back. If the organization isn't comfortable with making that commitment - they always have the right to not offer the trade protection.

The Leafs pay their big ticket players almost exclusively by signing bonus. This is a signficant financial benefit that should also lower the AAV, but because the Leaf's don't care about cash flow they just give that away. The Leafs are guilty of away that benefit similar to how GM's don't put a value on the NMC.

With your point on the draft - it's a process to enable long term competitive balance in the league. The players "submit" to the draft because it's part of the competitive balance of a sports league, and in the long term it's in the NHLPA's best interest to have a healthy the league as possible. (EDIT) - The nature of the CBA is that the PA is always looking out for it's current players, and is willing to throw future members (aka - those not drafted yet) under the bus to maximize the $'s available for it's current constituents. The ELC artificially limits $'s for new players so teams can play more to "guys who have paid their dues".

 

[Strangle]

Strangle - strongly agree with the bolded.

With that said - UFA eligible players have earned the right in the CBA to choose where they do not want to live/play. When they sign that UFA eligible contract - they are committing to organization for that entire period of time. The players have the ability to negotiate the ability to not get traded to someplace that they NEVER would have signed. If they're making a commitment to the organization - it is not unreasonable for the organization to make a commitment back. If the organization isn't comfortable with making that commitment - they always have the right to not offer the trade protection.

The Leafs pay their big ticket players almost exclusively by signing bonus. This is a signficant financial benefit that should also lower the AAV, but because the Leaf's don't care about cash flow they just give that away. The Leafs are guilty of away that benefit similar to how GM's don't put a value on the NMC.

With your point on the draft - it's a process to enable long term competitive balance in the league. The players "submit" to the draft because it's part of the competitive balance of a sports league, and in the long term it's in the NHLPA's best interest to have a healthy the league as possible. (EDIT) - The nature of the CBA is that the PA is always looking out for it's current players, and is willing to throw future members (aka - those not drafted yet) under the bus to maximize the $'s available for it's current constituents. The ELC artificially limits $'s for new players so teams can play more to "guys who have paid their dues".

I am not arguing that the terms don’t exist in the CBA, they do.

I am arguing that they have turned out bad for the league as a whole by being there

 

[JetsFan815]

And the owners make 10+ times what the players make. Let's give that group everything they want and f*** the little guys.

Who is talking about giving owners anything? These proposals are for the good of the league and the fans, if that happens to align with what might benefit the owners that's a different story. Fans are not here to be arbitrators of who the winners and losers should be between owners and players.

Right. Because they make a lot of money they shouldn't have human needs or emotions. You know the owners make even more money, right?

I understand that they make obscene money compared to teachers, firefighters, most of us working stiffs, but they are not holding anyone at gunpoint. They are an elite labor pool that generates billions of dollars of revenue for the NHL. Their income is already artificially restricted so they're not even being paid market value. Yet you think they should be cool with having zero control over their lives too?

Where are your tears for journeymen AHL players who make a similar amount of money as normal people, no way near what the NHL guys and still have to put up with moving regularly? And these guys have to often live and work in smaller rinky dink towns compared to the NHL'rs all being in 32 metropolitan cities.

These guys are the top 1% of 1%, it is not some kind of atrocity that they have to get traded a few times in their career for the good of the league and the fans.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Why does the league have a draft where team claim the rights of young players? Isn’t that a ‘negative working environment’? Mandating an 18yo kid to move to a new city?

Shouldn’t, if we are putting players preferences first, the kids choose which city they want to play in?

Or would that be ridiculous and bad for the league?

Because talent dispersal of new guys is different than veterans of 10 years or more service.

 

[boredmale]

While I don't think they should get rid of NMC and NTCs for long term deals I do think they should make a rule in the final year of the contract starting Jan 1 you have no NMC/NTC.

 

[norrisnick]

Who is talking about giving owners anything? These proposals are for the good of the league and the fans, if that happens to align with what might benefit the owners that's a different story. Fans are not here to be arbitrators of who the winners and losers should be between owners and players.



Where are your tears for journeymen AHL players who make a similar amount of money as normal people, no way near what the NHL guys and still have to put up with moving regularly? And these guys have to often live and work in smaller rinky dink towns compared to the NHL'rs all being in 32 metropolitan cities.

These guys are the top 1% of 1%, it is not some kind of atrocity that they have to get traded a few times in their career for the good of the league and the fans.

How is it good for the league or fans?

 

[DamonDRW]

I don't see why this matter.

Hockey players are humans and deserve the right to negotiate their working conditions.

Definitely. Within their CBA. This is what they are doing.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Who is talking about giving owners anything? These proposals are for the good of the league and the fans, if that happens to align with what might benefit the owners that's a different story. Fans are not here to be arbitrators of who the winners and losers should be between owners and players.



Where are your tears for journeymen AHL players who make a similar amount of money as normal people, no way near what the NHL guys and still have to put up with moving regularly? And these guys have to often live and work in smaller rinky dink towns compared to the NHL'rs all being in 32 metropolitan cities.

These guys are the top 1% of 1%, it is not some kind of atrocity that they have to get traded a few times in their career for the good of the league and the fans.

But the NHL doesn't have 32 Metropolitan cities - that's why we're here. Some cities are just not desirable.