If only there was a clause that protected you from being placed on waivers
NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers
- Thread starter viper0220
- Start date
EdmFlyersfan
Registered User
ClydeLee
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2012
- 12,371
- 5,850
He was not forced. He could just say no, find a team not on the ntc or waive him. He probably would of wound up in Anaheim anyway.
Chicago wouldn't of wanted him, Nashville couldn't afford him. Was anywhere else below Anaheim?
Over the volcano
Registered User
Zirakzigil
Global Moderator
I dont feel bad for Trouba at all. He played contract games with both the Jets and Rangers, karma bit back. Should of negotiated a full NMC if he wanted full control.
I don't see what the controversy is. He didn't have a no move clause. The only reason the waiver threat worked is because the Rangers put zero value in him. They were willing to give him away for free and no one thought they were bluffing.
If players are worried about that, don't sign contracts where you have negative value to your team. Frankly hes lucky the contract is 100% guaranteed
If players are worried about that, don't sign contracts where you have negative value to your team. Frankly hes lucky the contract is 100% guaranteed
I Hate Blake Coleman
Bandwagon Burner
Of course hes mad, he just got embarassed nationally.
I just don't see that as controversial
GirardSpinorama
Registered User
- Aug 20, 2004
- 21,862
- 10,840
No one should feel bad for Trouba. He needs to be a man and accept the deal hes signed and live with it.
Johnny HFBOARDS
Trade you!
CapitalsCupReality
It’s Go Time!!
- Feb 27, 2002
- 66,629
- 21,669
Ace Card Bedard
Back in Black, Red, and White
- Feb 11, 2012
- 9,106
- 4,096
Oilslick941611
Registered User
CapitalsCupReality
It’s Go Time!!
- Feb 27, 2002
- 66,629
- 21,669
Yes please let’s see if the players are willing to go to war for it. I doubt it.
What’s the solution? Change the entire waiver system? Only allow player approved teams on a NTC to claim?
Oilslick941611
Registered User
Drury absolutely did something wrong. He took it public and ruined his teams locker room.
its never just one issue, its a piling up of small ones.
CapitalsCupReality
It’s Go Time!!
- Feb 27, 2002
- 66,629
- 21,669
I’d suggest the room already was fractured/had issues and they’re trying to remove problems from that room to eventually improve it.
Oilslick941611
Registered User
sure and going public is never the best idea. It seems pretty desperate actually. Look at Swayman and boston how that went with management going public with dirty laundry.
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 28,537
- 37,420
You wish it was, but it's not at all lmao. Literally a big nothing burger.
Oilslick941611
Registered User
it will be nothing for the NYR becuase they play in NYC, if Drury was the GM of say the wild or stars...then this would be a bigger issue for him.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
That last part is total and complete nonsense. Players will never, ever EVER decide not to sign a contract for less than what's being offered to them because they're worried they can't live up to it. Players will never, ever EVER not try to get the best clauses in their contracts that they can. Expecting them to do that is absolutely absurd. It's the team's responsibility not to overpay players. It's the team's responsibility not to offer or agree to clauses that might be problematic.
I'm not saying that to absolve Trouba of any responsibility for this situation in 2024. He manipulated his M-NTC in a way that was within his rights, but not really in good faith. He let the trade situation from over the summer affect his play on the ice and the way he acted in the locker room. Those things are his responsibility. But expecting any player to torpedo their own contract negotiations is absolutely ridiculous.
CapitalsCupReality
It’s Go Time!!
- Feb 27, 2002
- 66,629
- 21,669
It may never be the best option, but sometimes desperate situations call for desperate measures.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 16,505
- 11,278
Yes, that's true. But what good is negotiating a M-NTC if waivers can eliminate that? We're not talking about a player being sent to the AHL and the issue isn't being on actual waivers. Teams typically expect a slightly lesser deal when you add restrictions, no? Yet, they can put you on waivers to be claimed by those 15 teams. That's the issue. The other issue is a GM telling the player, "Waive to a team I have a deal with or else." That's what Drury did.
Are teams doing anything currently against what they have the right to do when it comes to putting players on waivers? No. But does it make sense? Again, no, not really. It's not difficult to understand why players think that's something that should be changed. It's not something that should change tomorrow, but it should definitely be talked about in the CBA negotiations. This isn't exactly a pick your battles situation. It's a pretty big one.
Typically, when you expose a highly paid player to waivers you couldn't make a deal and you're hoping somebody takes this older vet from your team. Rarely is it because you want to play hardball because he wouldn't accept offers you did have. So it's easy to see why this ruffled some feathers.
The only thing waiving the M-NTC does is allow a team to get a valuable asset back and make deals., yet they can say F the asset and deal, take this player off my team because he's not playing nice and agreeing with me. Fans can point to a player not living up to his contract but that's a different issue and I don't see that going well in CBA negotiations. Drury didn't do anything wrong here because that's a allowed. Noting you can do now, but it will certainly be brought up.
Last edited:
My opinion is if a player signs a no trade the team isn't allowed in anyway to ask the player to waive that, its up to the player to ask for a trade
But that's me
But that's me
There is no issue.
The M-NTC/NTC is built to prevent a player from taking a discount and then being flipped to some shithole for significant assets because he now has a valuable contract.
It is not meant to protect a player who is bad enough that his team is willing to lose him for nothing.
I agree, Jacob Trouba should have been placed on waivers.
The rangers did not want trouba on their roster anymore. They knew from trade discussions that there was a market (from some stupid GMs but anyway). Trouba refused to waive for a trade, and since they STILL wanted him off their roster, they were going to place him on waivers.
At this point they offered Trouba a win-win courtesy that would allow the rangers to get some, minor assets back, and Trouba to get some, minor say in his destination.
If Trouba wanted to protect himself from waivers he should have negotiated it into his contract.
If the issue is them making a trade where he waives his NTC, I don't see the issue. It gives a benefit to both team and player compared to the alternative option of him being placed on waivers
