Get rid of the NMC

[BigGoalBrad]

NMC or NTC themselves aren't the problem. The problem is stupid GMs that give them out to everyone, including the jobbers, like they're candy.

Not really. Most players refuse to sign deals that don’t give them complete control of the teams they play for. It’s made the NHL dull with the lack of trades.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Just get rid of buyout cap penalties. If they can’t trade a guy buy him out and let a rival sign him for the minimuM.

If the Leafs want to hand out 8 year deals and then buy guys out after 2 just let them.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

None of these guys are going to play until they are 60-70 like other professions and can expect to stay in that city. NMCs suck they should all be prepared to move to Winnipeg if their employer wants to trade them there. They will all have 30-40 years after their playing days until they are normal retirement/social security age to live wherever they want.

How about playing well so no one wants to trade you?

If these guys don’t like it the KHL is always an option.

 

[LeafGrief]

Ultimately the league will need to commit to parity or not. What prospective owner is going to want to pony up $1.5bn in an expansion fee if half the league is going to put that city on their no-trade lists? Is the plan to just let the Canadian markets die because the players don't want to go there?

When the league half-asses parity, you end up with teams that get competitive advantages due to factors like this. Is the no-income-tax-state advantage, or the sunny climate/low pressure advantage actually all that different from when there was no salary cap? (the Leafs have no problem losing in either scenario)

NMC's in principle are fine. But they have absolutely reached a saturation point where huge percentages of the league and almost every player of any note has trade protection. I don't really care about the trade deadline, but it is absolutely a complicating factor in roster construction. And I am staunchly against any sort of contract clause, be it price or NMC, where a previous GM can hamstring their team for up to eight years. My Leafs are probably just too chickenshit to trade Marner, but that his and Tavares's NMC's are directly hindering our ability (not necessarily the willpower lol) to reconstruct our roster is indisputably a bad thing for the fans.

And for the record, I have zero sympathy for the players in this regard. Don't want to live in Winnipeg? Neither do I, but I have made deliberate choices in my life to avoid Winnipeg, and I'd move there in a heartbeat for even ELC money. Getting traded to a Canadian city is part of the job. @snag 's comparison to the military is apt.

 

[Demigod11]

NMC or NTC themselves aren't the problem. The problem is stupid GMs that give them out to everyone, including the jobbers, like they're candy.

It really only takes 1 or 2 GM's that throw out NMC's for the well to be poisoned for the entire league and set a standard that noone wants to follow.

A diamond hard salary cap, fully guaranteed 8 years contracts with NMC's and nonsensical buyout rules, without even including the LTIR circus... The NHL truly has the worst contract/cap structure out of any team sport i know of.

 

[Sniper99]

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

I'm not a fan of NTC/NMC either but I at least get why they're there. How would like it if you were playing hockey down south LA Dallas somewhere warmer than Edmonton in January. and your boss said "Jeune we're trading you to Edmonton where today its -40C. Pack up your belongings say goodbye to your teammates Edmonton expects you there tomorrow morning.

Dont get me wrong even though the HF Fools like to dump on "deadmonton" its actually a nice place to live even in -40. Worse places in the world to live in right now. I'm sure you wouldnt like packing up your family on short notice with no "buts" NTC at least can protect that from happening.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

They should standardize trade protection a bit more than they already do. There should also be a central registry for it. It shouldn't be that one player gets a 3 team list, one a 10, another a 20, etc - there should be one standard type of list that players can give. Maybe have it be less expansive in the early years and more expansive in the later years of the contract.

Maybe make it so that a player has to either be drafted by a team, or play x amount of seasons there to qualify for a full NMC on their next contract. Otherwise, give each team 1 "franchise" slot where they can give a full NMC to a play they acquired through trade or free agency. Same deal with signing bonuses beyond the first year of a contract.

I'd go as far as to let teams loan out their unused franchise slots in trades. So a Canadian team that knows they will never be in on superstar UFAs can go to Tampa or Florida and say you need a franchise slot for the next 7 years, give us a 1st round pick and we will loan you ours for 7 years.

I don't think NMCs that prevent players from being sent to the minors are as big of a deal. They are also more understandable with ageing players. If their is a restriction on full NMCs, I think they should still allow teams to give out as many modified-NMCs as they want. Similar to how Bobby Ryan had a NMC that was strictly crafted to keep him from being assigned to the AHL, but he could still be traded or left unprotected in the expansion draft.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Ultimately the league will need to commit to parity or not. What prospective owner is going to want to pony up $1.5bn in an expansion fee if half the league is going to put that city on their no-trade lists? Is the plan to just let the Canadian markets die because the players don't want to go there?

When the league half-asses parity, you end up with teams that get competitive advantages due to factors like this. Is the no-income-tax-state advantage, or the sunny climate/low pressure advantage actually all that different from when there was no salary cap? (the Leafs have no problem losing in either scenario)

NMC's in principle are fine. But they have absolutely reached a saturation point where huge percentages of the league and almost every player of any note has trade protection. I don't really care about the trade deadline, but it is absolutely a complicating factor in roster construction. And I am staunchly against any sort of contract clause, be it price or NMC, where a previous GM can hamstring their team for up to eight years. My Leafs are probably just too chickenshit to trade Marner, but that his and Tavares's NMC's are directly hindering our ability (not necessarily the willpower lol) to reconstruct our roster is indisputably a bad thing for the fans.

And for the record, I have zero sympathy for the players in this regard. Don't want to live in Winnipeg? Neither do I, but I have made deliberate choices in my life to avoid Winnipeg, and I'd move there in a heartbeat for even ELC money. Getting traded to a Canadian city is part of the job. @snag 's comparison to the military is apt.

So many the hard cap was a bad idea then. Non guaranteed contracts come into play, or get rid of the cap.

I can tell that the Canadian teams will have an issue in ~40 years when the next round of arenas is being built. Because it will be ~70 years without a cup then...

 

[MadLuke]

players will never give it up

Remove the cap or give them total free agency super early in exchange..., maybe they would (depending on the share of the younger people that vote, veteran that achieved FA already would not care for that part) but for stuff owner would not give up and thus we have it.

 

[IslesNorway]

Each team should only be allowed a fixed number of NMCs and/or NTCs for their entire roster, probably like 3-4. It allows a team to keep a start player or two but will increase the number of trades that generates interest around the league.

 

[Duder54]

The players union won't go for it unless there's a considerable increase in cap space or something.

I was just thinking something along these lines. Want to get ride of NMCs? Get rid of the salary cap and I'm sure players will warm to the idea.

Just get rid of buyout cap penalties. If they can’t trade a guy buy him out and let a rival sign him for the minimuM.

If the Leafs want to hand out 8 year deals and then buy guys out after 2 just let them.

Yes please.

 

[bossram]

Not really. Most players refuse to sign deals that don’t give them complete control of the teams they play for. It’s made the NHL dull with the lack of trades.

So every single player in the NHL has a full NMC? Hmm....

Each team should only be allowed a fixed number of NMCs and/or NTCs for their entire roster, probably like 3-4. It allows a team to keep a start player or two but will increase the number of trades that generates interest around the league.

Or stop having stupid GMs.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

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

The ENTIRE purpose of the NHL is to keep fans entertained.

 

[5 Minute Major]

Players have earned it

You’re 100% right.

And it’s also a correct statement that they have made the game more boring to follow.

There are no wrongs here. Just opinions.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

The ENTIRE purpose of the NHL is to keep fans entertained.

The sport is the entertainment. Not the players signing contracts.

 

[MK9]

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

I would be happy if the Wild only had 'a couple scrubs with NMC's'. Unfortunately Guerin seems to fart them out as if they come free with every meal.

As far as NMC's. I understand why they're there. However, I also think the "the players earned it" reasoning should only extend so far. They should have some sort of specific performance numbers to meet. Just like there are escalator clauses in contracts for bonuses. Any employee at a job has a performance threshold. If you're not meeting it, they generally don't just let you sit around and waste space. Obviously there would be some exceptions, but if a dude is not meeting expectations for a couple years, should be some sort of an out so a team doesn't get stuck with someone not pulling their weight.

 

[MarotteMarauder]

The ENTIRE purpose of the NHL is to keep fans entertained.

The sport is the entertainment. Not the players signing contracts.

The ENTIRETY is the entertainment.
The draft.
The games.
The awards.
The TDL
The Free Agency period.
The gambling.

All designed to entertain the paying public.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

The ENTIRETY is the entertainment.
The draft.
The games.
The awards.
The TDL
The Free Agency period.

The purpose of those events is to facilitate the on ice product. They try to make them entertaining if possible, but the purpose is to facilitate.

The gambling.

That's unrelated

 

[FerrisRox]

Agents are taking the GM’s to school and it’s really ruining the league.

How is the league being ruined by No Movement Clauses?

 

[Chainshot]

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

I see I've stepped through a portal into the 1980's.

 

[norrisnick]

Remove the cap or give them total free agency super early in exchange..., maybe they would (depending on the share of the younger people that vote, veteran that achieved FA already would not care for that part) but for stuff owner would not give up and thus we have it.

Owners care FAR more about those two issues than trade/movement clauses.

 

[HolyGhost]

I WANNA DUMP A PLAYER I HATE BECAUSE HE HAS A NMC. LIFE IS NOT FAIR!!!!!!!

 

[norrisnick]

I would be happy if the Wild only had 'a couple scrubs with NMC's'. Unfortunately Guerin seems to fart them out as if they come free with every meal.

As far as NMC's. I understand why they're there. However, I also think the "the players earned it" reasoning should only extend so far. They should have some sort of specific performance numbers to meet. Just like there are escalator clauses in contracts for bonuses. Any employee at a job has a performance threshold. If you're not meeting it, they generally don't just let you sit around and waste space. Obviously there would be some exceptions, but if a dude is not meeting expectations for a couple years, should be some sort of an out so a team doesn't get stuck with someone not pulling their weight.

In the corporate world, execs that don't perform get fired with a nice golden parachute. NHLers are basically the hockey equivalent of CEOs. They aren't mid tier cubicle drones.

Change buyouts to the full 100% to get rid of them, buyouts don't count against the cap, and buyouts don't factor into the escrow equation, and I'm sure you'll get some concessions back from players.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

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.

Are you in the military, or have you been? Just wondering, because that is an insane example if you haven't actually been in the military. You get paid a fckton more than a starving child in Africa, does that mean that you don't have rights?

If you have a NMC, you most likely are amongst the top 500 people on the planet for what you do in a $5B industry. Add in that you have collectively bargained and forgone rights that everyone else has to earn your UFA status. The team is not obligated in any way to offer you a NMC. Funny how narcissistic some folks are with regard to their team not acknowledging that players have lives beyond the 200x85 sheet of ice.

 

[dekelikekocur]

Each team should only be allowed a fixed number of NMCs and/or NTCs for their entire roster, probably like 3-4. It allows a team to keep a start player or two but will increase the number of trades that generates interest around the league.

NMC/NTC aren't for the teams benefit. It's a player benefit. If a team isn't interested in trading a player, they aren't going to unless the player really forces the issue/refuses to report. It allows the player to have say in their future, to control where and IF they can be traded.