NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers

[God]

If Trouba changes his list of teams he doesn’t want to go to every year based on who has available cap space and a need at RD, is that violating the spirit of the NTC as well?

He can pick whichever team he doesn't want to go to for whatever reason he wants, because he has an NTC that stipulates he can choose which team he doesn't want to go to. Putting him on waivers so that he ends up with a team he doesn't want to play for is violating the spirit of the NTC.

 

[SimpleJack]

Rich people problems. Really puts things into perspective.

 

[thestonedkoala]

If Trouba changes his list of teams he doesn’t want to go to every year based on who has available cap space and a need at RD, is that violating the spirit of the NTC as well?

If it is built into the contract that he gets to select 10 teams every year or x amount of teams every so often, then no. I don't see how an agreement where a player specifically states these are the teams I don't want to be traded to should be ignored?

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I'm also guessing you don't care that teams like Vegas can stash a player on LTIR until the playoffs or that the Devils shouldn't have been penalized for signing Kovalchuk to his contract, because (a) the NHL signed off on these contracts and (b) there is nothing that stipulated that GMs couldn't tack on a few extra years with a small amount of money coming to the players provided they didn't violate any other agreements...

Right?

No I don't care that Vegas is doing what Chicago and Tampa did. Players are allowed to advocate for themselves to play thru injury. I'm sure Stone did.

Devils got slapped but I don't particularly care. Ovechkin and Zetterberg signed deals that seemed realistic. I don't think 17 years was a realistic contract.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

He can pick whichever team he doesn't want to go to for whatever reason he wants, because he has an NTC that stipulates he can choose which team he doesn't want to go to. Putting him on waivers so that he ends up with a team he doesn't want to play for is violating the spirit of the NTC.

Waivers and trades are different categories. One doesn't violate the other.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Okay, then explain it to all of us? Because I get where the OP is coming from.

Trouba really didn't want to go to Columbus (who I believe wanted him and had a better offer on the table, or was going to pick him up on waivers), but he also didn't want to go to Anaheim.

I don't think fans realize how a toxic work environment, regardless of how much money you make, can just kill someone's passion for something.

Just read through the thread. There was a couple other confused people and people gave them the correct response.

 

[joestevens29]

Get rid of the NTC entirely and just have NMCs then. An NTC lets a player dictate which teams he doesn't want to go to. If you sign him, then waive him so he gets picked up by a team he doesn't want to play for, that's not fair to the player.

Is it fair to the team that the player isn’t playing near his contract value?

 

[thestonedkoala]

Devils got slapped but I don't particularly care. Ovechkin and Zetterberg signed deals that seemed realistic. I don't think 17 years was a realistic contract.

Except it wasn't stipulated in any of the CBAs that contracts had to be a certain length. Kovalchuk was 27 at the time the contract was signed, meaning he would play until he was 44. Who knows? Thornton played until he was 42. Fleury, as a goalie, is 40. Jagr is still playing.

The thing is, if you don't care about those, why are you in this thread, because you seem to care about this.

Just read through the thread. There was a couple other confused people and people gave them the correct response.

So, in other words, you can't explain the situation at all or why players are concerned about this move.

Is it fair to the team that the player isn’t playing near his contract value?

It depends; I mean is it the player's fault that the team overvalued them?

 

[The Crypto Guy]

So, in other words, you can't explain the situation at all or why players are concerned about this move.

Nope, just not going to repeat things over and over for people who have a hard time understanding things. Good luck.

 

[LuGBuG]

I bet the players aren’t as bothered as 90% of HF.

 

[surixon]

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.

Sure but players play games as well. They choose the teams on their modified NTC in a way that prevents them from being traded to anyone. That is also against the spirit of the rule.

It's all just one big game between agents and GMs. Getting angry at only one side is counter productive.

 

[TGWL]

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

It's clearly an issue that's why it's being brought up. You can say it's not an issue because so and so allows this, which is fine, but it's going to be an issue brought forward. And it's clear to see why it would be brought forward.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Except it wasn't stipulated in any of the CBAs that contracts had to be a certain length. Kovalchuk was 27 at the time the contract was signed, meaning he would play until he was 44. Who knows? Thornton played until he was 42. Fleury, as a goalie, is 40. Jagr is still playing.

The thing is, if you don't care about those, why are you in this thread, because you seem to care about this.


So, in other words, you can't explain the situation at all or why players are concerned about this move.


It depends; I mean is it the player's fault that the team overvalued them?

No, I care about the discussion of the Trouba trade because it's being misrepresented. You bringing up something unrelated is not a gotcha.

 

[Ciao]

He can pick whichever team he doesn't want to go to for whatever reason he wants, because he has an NTC that stipulates he can choose which team he doesn't want to go to. Putting him on waivers so that he ends up with a team he doesn't want to play for is violating the spirit of the NTC.

I guess even @God is wrong once in a while.

There is no spirit to the CBA: just a bunch of rules.

If Jacob Trouba wants to be a hard-ass and stick by his rights, that's his prerogative.

Ditto for the New York Rangers.

A modified NTC is not a NMC. No further explanation needed.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Waivers and trades are different categories. One doesn't violate the other.

While different categories, they are still one of three ways a player moves from one team to another.

I think the biggest issue is that teams generally don't want to try and risk eating an 8 million dollar cap hit in the minors and knew only a few teams could absorb Trouba's cap hit, which I think many are on his no trade list.

Again, if you put it into perspective, salary and cap hits are two different categories. One doesn't violate the other. The penalties to Minnesota, New Jersey and Vancouver should have never happened because they retroactively changed the CBA to try and make salaries and cap hits similar.

No, I care about the discussion of the Trouba trade because it's being misrepresented. You bringing up something unrelated is not a gotcha.

How is it being misrepresented? And it is VERY related, because the NHL has in the past amended their CBA or their rules when something the business owners don't like - like signing a 17 year contract - that isn't illegal under the CBA which that contract was signed but did violate the spirit of what the CBA was trying to represent.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

While different categories, they are still one of three ways a player moves from one team to another.

I think the biggest issue is that teams generally don't want to try and risk eating an 8 million dollar cap hit in the minors and knew only a few teams could absorb Trouba's cap hit, which I think many are on his no trade list.

Again, if you put it into perspective, salary and cap hits are two different categories. One doesn't violate the other. The penalties to Minnesota, New Jersey and Vancouver should have never happened because they retroactively changed the CBA to try and make salaries and cap hits similar.


How is it being misrepresented? And it is VERY related, because the NHL has in the past amended their CBA or their rules when something the business owners don't like - like signing a 17 year contract - that isn't illegal under the CBA which that contract was signed but did violate the spirit of what the CBA was trying to represent.

Fact remains, a NMC is a negotiable aspect of a contract. Maybe he could've got one if he only had a $7M or $7.5M cap hit, but he didn't. So if the Rangers don't want him on the team anymore, for whatever reason, waiving him is an option at their disposal.

 

[FiveTacos]

Then you're gonna have rival teams on the player's NTC list claiming the player only to f*** up the waiving team.

Well tough cookies. I'm sure some of the Rangers' rivals would have liked that.

While the claimed player will end up with even more money in the end because there is no way someone like Trouba isn't signing at something around 3 mil 2 yrs.

In other words, the only losing party is the waiving team.

Then don't sign players to stupid contracts. If a team does that, then they SHOULD be the losing party.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

How is it being misrepresented? And it is VERY related, because the NHL has in the past amended their CBA or their rules when something the business owners don't like - like signing a 17 year contract - that isn't illegal under the CBA which that contract was signed but did violate the spirit of what the CBA was trying to represent.

The Trouba traded is being talked about as if there was wrongdoing when there wasn't. Teams have always been able to waive players unless they have a NMC. He had a NTC, not a NMC.

No one cried crocodile tears for Ales Kotalik when he waived his NTC, allowing him to be traded to Calgary despite the Flames being on his NTC list.

 

[Javaman]

I find it really difficult to feel sympathy for people who've managed to earn set-for-life money by the time they are 30 because their employment situation is less than ideal.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Yes, that's true. But what good is negotiating a M-NTC if waivers can eliminate that?

pretty sure guys like Mitch Marner and Auston Matthews aren’t too worried about being put on waivers.

If you’re still in your prime for the duration of the contract and are good enough that a team would never just cut you loose for free, a NTC definitely has value.

 

[dgibb10]

It's clearly an issue that's why it's being brought up. You can say it's not an issue because so and so allows this, which is fine, but it's going to be an issue brought forward. And it's clear to see why it would be brought forward.

Jacob Trouba should go talk to his agent that he paid probably 3+ million dollars to and ask him why he didn't get him an NMC along with an M-NTC to protect him from this scenario.