- Dec 12, 2017
- 23,579
- 13,475
Not one quote, even from an anonymous source, in that tweet. You can’t say “we’re hearing” or “the information we gathered” without a quoted source.
Player Discussion Mitch Marner Part Infinity
- Thread starter SoupNazi
- Start date
Not one quote, even from an anonymous source, in that tweet. You can’t say “we’re hearing” or “the information we gathered” without a quoted source.
robertmac43
Forever 43!
- Mar 31, 2015
- 23,635
- 18,563
The lack of trust was gone Marner... That's why they tried trading you..
- Dec 12, 2017
- 23,579
- 13,475
The team performed well, met every reasonable expectation this season, perhaps exceeded them depending on how you evaluate success, but the playoffs were a referendum on Marner, and he did not earn a contract offer from the Leafs. So it doesn’t matter what Marner wants as far the Leafs are concerned.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,780
- 13,504
Let me approach this from a different angle: why would Marner care at all? He's not obligated to talk to any team, not even the Leafs. He's a UFA in 3 weeks (and has earned the right to that). When you answer that question, it may become more obvious to you there's no chance there's anything written into his contract that prevents the Leafs from trading their exclusive rights to negotiate with him.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,780
- 13,504
Jebus you're difficult. I've provided links, facts, logical arguments and you provide nana nana boo boos. Seeya pal and have a nice life.
Youve provided nothing factual. I gave you a podcast where Friedman ends your dumbass "argument"
Tak7
Registered User
Why are we still debating this?
A player with a full no move clause, has to waive that clause, in order to have his negotiating rights moved to another team.
This is standard and in every SPC that carries a NMC.
Last edited:
Tak7
Registered User
Seems like a good time to remind everyone, amidst some confusion:
The Leafs are the only team that can offer Mitch Marner an 8-year deal.
Even if the Leafs trade his negotiating rights, the acquiring team can only offer a maximum 7-year deal.
The only way Mitch Marner could end up on another team, with an 8-year deal, would be for him to sign an 8-year extension with the Leafs, and then the Leafs trade that 8-year deal to another team (a "sign and trade").
A "sign and trade" is very different to "trading his negotiating rights".
The Leafs are the only team that can offer Mitch Marner an 8-year deal.
Even if the Leafs trade his negotiating rights, the acquiring team can only offer a maximum 7-year deal.
The only way Mitch Marner could end up on another team, with an 8-year deal, would be for him to sign an 8-year extension with the Leafs, and then the Leafs trade that 8-year deal to another team (a "sign and trade").
A "sign and trade" is very different to "trading his negotiating rights".
Last edited:
Mess
Global Moderator
Anybody watch Draisaitl dominate last night?
He is a player that will begin next year his 8 year X $14 mil (the highest in the NHL).
Does anybody on planet Earth think Marner should be getting the same contract amount $$ ?
He is a player that will begin next year his 8 year X $14 mil (the highest in the NHL).
Does anybody on planet Earth think Marner should be getting the same contract amount $$ ?
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 74,160
- 48,021
Doubtful but most if not all GMs will pay it.
Welcome to reality.
TMLBlueandWhite
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2023
- 1,414
- 2,783
It seems like a lot people think a NTC/NMC has all kinds of powers attributed to it beyond what it actually does.
All a NMC/NTC does is provide the player the right to not be traded, waived, or sent to the minors without their consent, and THAT'S IT, that's ALL it does. The right to negotiate with the player is a team right... the team isn't actually trading the player so the player has nothing to do with it. When the team trades this right all it means is the acquiring team now has the right to speak exclusively with the player ahead of free agency.
It doesn't mean the player has to talk to them though.
All a NMC/NTC does is provide the player the right to not be traded, waived, or sent to the minors without their consent, and THAT'S IT, that's ALL it does. The right to negotiate with the player is a team right... the team isn't actually trading the player so the player has nothing to do with it. When the team trades this right all it means is the acquiring team now has the right to speak exclusively with the player ahead of free agency.
It doesn't mean the player has to talk to them though.
Much like Marner's performance in the playoffs, "reality" will reveal itself shortly.
But I do suppose this answer's Mess's question that there's at least a few.
TMLBlueandWhite
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2023
- 1,414
- 2,783
Some of these guys just really want to believe their own bullshit I guess.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 80,241
- 68,401
Yeah this point is worth noting due to the back and forth on the topic.
A sign and trade facilitates an 8 year contract between the outgoing player and their new team, assuming there’s some AAV impact and size of contract that works for new team and player. So you get a middle man fee.
A trade of negotiating rights is just to grant the right to talk to someone ahead of July 1. Although I wonder if there’s a loophole whereby Team X could just pay a low pick for Marner’s phone number and permission to chat vs the Leafs trading his rights outright.
In conclusion, this guy is such a pain in the ass and July 2 cannot come soon enough.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,780
- 13,504
Again, it's not the *player's* negotiating rights, it's the *team's* exclusive negotiating rights. The player is under no obligation whatsoever to negotiate with anyone. He's not losing any rights.
"This is standard and in every SPC that carries a NMC."
Show me. I've already provided multiple links stating a team can trade their negotiating rights to a player with a full NMC. Not one of the people arguing with me has provided a shred of evidence to the contrary.
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 74,160
- 48,021
Which “reality will reveal itself shortly” ?
If it’s Mess always being wrong that was revealed years ago.
thewave
Passenger 67
- Jun 17, 2011
- 41,762
- 18,053
It's the 2020s anything goes now. From science to polls to politics to environmental to trade wars to real wars.
Trusted sources is good enough! Trust in media, trust in media, trust in media (thanks for that gem global news lol)
thewave
Passenger 67
- Jun 17, 2011
- 41,762
- 18,053
I don't think it's a trade. I think they can allow the Marner team the ability to speak to other teams. I may be wrong, perhaps they could trade a 6th for that permission or something.
The Hanging Jowl
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2017
- 10,780
- 13,504
That's basically what I'm saying. And why would Marner even object to that? Nothing stops him from declining to talk to another team and just waiting a few weeks to talk to any team he wants. Even the Leafs again at that point.
The sun will rise and a new season will be filled with hope. It could have been worse if Mitch had a great playoff, delivered us to at least the final and then stated, nah I’m not coming back.
ToneDog
56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
Nobody would not unless they want to spite the team but my understanding is that a player with a full NMC needs to waive in order for his rights to be traded. Does not make sense, but it is what it is.
Tak7
Registered User
For the 95th time:
There is no difference between "negotiating rights", "exclusive team negotiating rights", and "player contract" - they are all the same thing within the context of this discussion.
The Toronto Maple Leafs Professional Hockey Club, competing in the National Hockey League, cannot receive any form of compensation in exchange for the ability of another Professional Hockey Club from the National Hockey League, granting that other team the ability to speak/negotiate a contract with Mitchell Marner, without Mitchell Marner waiving his No Movement Clause.
