Get rid of the NMC

[DieSendungmitderMaus]

This is false. You do not get a choice about your work location. The business decides it.

That's why the whole work from home thing is a huge sticking point for companies currently. They don't want to give up the ability to tell employees where their work location is. To them it's if you don't want to work where we tell you then you find a new job.

Well yeah but this is also changing and companies are forced to grant employees the right to work from home because they have less leverage with skilled workers than they used to. On a much smaller scale, a similar position as NHL owners find themselves in with in-demand players.

I wouldn't mind the labour rights of players being restricted if all the owners were taken behind the woodshed and clubs played into community trusts, but as is I'm not interested in doing that and laying the groundwork for another round of Harold Ballards and Bill Wirtzs.

 

[cowboy82nd]

I'd be in favour of reducing it to a set number each team can have - say 2. Make it interesting.

So, if you have two on your team and you make a trade for player X and player X has a NMC, could you exceed the limit or do you have to get rid of one of the NMC players? Just spit balling here.

 

[AfroThunder396]

The NHLPA will never agree to this, and they don't need to. After enough teams get bit in the ass they'll be much more prudent about it in the future.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

players will never give it up

This thread has been RickRolled.

 

[Jee]

ngl, I read this as Get rid of @MMC and I was like, jeez that's harsh

 

[BLNY]

So, if you have two on your team and you make a trade for player X and player X has a NMC, could you exceed the limit or do you have to get rid of one of the NMC players? Just spit balling here.

Could be a couple of scenarios.

1. the moment a player waives their NMC/NTC it goes away for remainder of contract. This happened with Weber. He waived to go to Montreal and however his deal was written they didn't have to go back to him. At least that's how I remember it.

2. Teams couldn't sign a player to a NMC/NTC contract if they already the maximum number allowed on the roster.

3. Maybe it's akin to a NFL franchise tag. I know the league uses those for players they can't typically extend long-term. But, a team only has one at a time. Similarly, NHL teams would 'tag' two players, or however many, as franchise players and they'd have that privilege. Wouldn't necessarily be a one-year scenario.

I think they're bad for the league, so creating policy that grandfather's in a system where they are better controlled would be something I support.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

ngl, I read this as Get rid of @MMC and I was like, jeez that's harsh

Sure they keep putting all the tweets and sources on the trade board stealing everyone thunder how dare they!

(Thank you I don't have to use Twitter)

 

[hangman005]

ngl, I read this as Get rid of @MMC and I was like, jeez that's harsh

Sure they keep putting all the tweets and sources on the trade board stealing everyone thunder how dare they!

(Thank you I don't have to use Twitter)

Me three.... kind of regret not double reading this before burying them in the desert.

Can we at least get rid of the NMCs on my team.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I'm sure if the owners offered to give back enough of HRR the players might consider it. I wouldn't hold my breath on that though.

 

[tomd]

NMC's do seem to reduce league parity by making it almost impossible for teams in Canada and California to compete for talent. Part of that is taxes and bad government but also the fact that players of a certain age no longer want to deal with the extra travel those teams have to endure.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

This seems like just another idea to try and idiot-proof contract by restricting terms. The problem is GMs negotiate too many NMCs/NTCs and it eventually puts the team in a choke hold. That will eventually correct itself by GMs figuring it out or being replaced with GMs who have.

But, let's assume we do put an end to this practice. The problem is then summed up in an old engineering saying that just when you thought you idiot-proofed your design, somebody came up with a better idiot. That is to say GMs will just figure out another way to screw themselves and their teams over. There is no end to this cycle.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Rofl....imagine the military unionizing and getting NMCs

False equivalence I know...especially since these guys get paid a shit ton more than our militaries. But it does kinda make me REALLY not give a shit if a millionaire athlete has to experience that.

Womp womp. They're elite athletes who dedicate their lives, time with their families, and physical health for your entertainment. During labor negotiations, they won the right, in some instances, to have a say in where they earn their paychecks. If you're pissed off about the millionaire side of those labor negotiations, then let me tell you about the guys on the other side of that table...

 

[snag]

Womp womp. They're elite athletes who dedicate their lives, time with their families, and physical health for your entertainment. During labor negotiations, they won the right, in some instances, to have a say in where they earn their paychecks. If you're pissed off about the millionaire side of those labor negotiations, then let me tell you about the guys on the other side of that table...

Who said I was pissed? I used a hypothetical to demonstrate my lack of caring or sympathy for the situation. I really couldn't give a shit if a millionaire athlete is inconvenienced. Comparing their lives and lifestyles to that of our brothers and sisters in the military....why should/would I?

Though there is a certain level of irony there with this coming from a guy calling himself Rich Nixon protecting the rich like that when making a comparison to our service people.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Who said I was pissed? I used a hypothetical to demonstrate my lack of caring or sympathy for the situation. I really couldn't give a shit if a millionaire athlete is inconvenienced. Comparing their lives and lifestyles to that of our brothers and sisters in the military....why should/would I?

Though there is a certain level of irony there with this coming from a guy calling himself Rich Nixon protecting the rich like that when making a comparison to our service people.

I made no such comparison—you're the only one who mentioned anything about that! It's an absolutely terrible equivalency that I didn't even bother to touch. Add a colossal eyeroll here.

I interpreted "really not give a shit" as "pissed" so apologies for that stretch if it was one. But my point is that this is just how labor negotiations work, no matter the scale. If you're invoking the economic status of those involved, you're talking about millionaires fighting for and earning the right to have a say in what billionaires (via the direct reports/team management they employ) do with their livelihoods.

Yes, it's an entertainment product you enjoy, but the negotiation isn't between your entertainment and millionaire players, it's between billionaire owners and millionaire players. And if they don't come to agreements on these things, you get lockouts and 0 entertainment. That's the agreement they came to, as was their right. You don't need to have any sympathy for anyone involved, but if you don't care for those terms, look to the top—where the cards are held and the NMCs are issued—not the middle.

 

[NVious]

The NHLPA has your location OP.

 

[snag]

I made no such comparison—you're the only one who mentioned anything about that! It's an absolutely terrible equivalency that I didn't even bother to touch. Add a colossal eyeroll here.

I interpreted "really not give a shit" as "pissed" so apologies for that stretch if it was one. But my point is that this is just how labor negotiations work, no matter the scale. If you're invoking the economic status of those involved, you're talking about millionaires fighting for and earning the right to have a say in what billionaires (via the direct reports/team management they employ) do with their livelihoods.

Yes, it's an entertainment product you enjoy, but the negotiation isn't between your entertainment and millionaire players, it's between billionaire owners and millionaire players. And if they don't come to agreements on these things, you get lockouts and 0 entertainment. That's the agreement they came to, as was their right. If you don't care for the terms they came to, look to the top—where the cards are held and the NMCs are issued—not the middle. You don't need to have any sympathy for anyone involved.

Well.....to be fair, I did straight up call it a false equivalence. Not sure why such a simple comment turned into that lol

 

[Rich Nixon]

Well.....to be fair, I did straight up call it a false equivalence. Not sure why such a simple comment turned into that lol

Well, just served as a jumping-off point for the larger note: players take all the flak for being millionaires as if there isn't an even more powerful and wealthy side of the conversation that is equally or more responsible for the things everyone complains about.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

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

Agents are taking GMs to school because teams keep hiring former players with no meaningful management experience to run their teams.

 

[dekelikekocur]

Which is one of the main reasons players can’t or shouldn’t choose where they play.

Being an nhl hockey player is a privilege, if they don’t want to play in Winnipeg or Minnesota, they can go do something else for a living.

And you can watch another sport if you don't' like it. It's a privilege to watch hockey, get on board with how it is or turn it off and go someplace else since you aren't entitled to an opinion either.

 

[Chet Manley]

The players that achieve NMC status have already paid their dues by having no say in the first half of their career. Plus the clauses allow for team friendly deals without instantly turning that player into an inflated trade asset. Basically signing a team friendly deal makes the player more tradable which is the opposite of their intent in signing at a discount.

 

[HockeyVirus]

Brad I know it is frustrating not being able to trade Marner but please go do other things the team needs a few more players

 

[Honour Over Glory]

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

Teams agree to those NMC's to get those players and players want them for job security and to not uproot their families every couple of years. So no, they shouldn't get rid of it.

Go watch a different sport if that irks you so much for your own selfish reasons.

 

[JungleBeat]

Teams agree to those NMC's to get those players and players want them for job security and to not uproot their families every couple of years. So no, they shouldn't get rid of it.

Go watch a different sport if that irks you so much for your own selfish reasons.

Bootlicker.

 

[MasterofGrond]

Bootlicker.

I'm not certain you understand which side wears the metaphorical boots in this situation, my friend.

 

[rea]

Why get rid of it? GM's faults for giving them. Sometimes they work out sometimes they don't.

I think on the contrary, it's entertaining as hell watching teams have to figure out a way to get out of the monsters they created. I have empathy for stupidity hahah.