NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers

[x Tame Impala]

Only one during christmas at least based on the past and the calender

View attachment 942149


How easy it is to manipulate the salary cap if NTCs make players exempt from waivers

Can't imagine they'd let an obvious loophole slide if the league initiates this (absurd) proposed waiver + NTC clause being proposed

 

[Frank Drebin]

Yeah the Rangers “did nothing wrong” by the letter of the CBA, but I do think it’s a shitty thing to do ultimately. He was very clear from the beginning about his priorities and why he was signing a contract the shape of the one he did. Not like he could have predicted Covid, lol.

Won’t change anything, obviously, but I think it’s very understandable if it leaves a bad taste in some people’s mouths.

It’s not shitty
Its business
They honoured the contract both parties signed
Trouba could have voided his current contract and renegotiated a new one

Can't imagine they'd let an obvious loophole slide if the league initiates this (absurd) proposed waiver + NTC clause being proposed

What loophole

 

[dgibb10]

Can't imagine they'd let an obvious loophole slide if the league initiates this (absurd) proposed waiver + NTC clause being proposed

What's the solution? Arbitrarily decide each case?

Or just add more roster freezes preventing movement throughout the season?

NHL teams already make paper moves like this during certain times (but it's much tougher since it can only be done with waiver exempt players. Now if you can basically make anyone over 27 waiver exempt if you want with an NTC, it will get cooked.

But the biggest example I can think of is enforcers.

NJD and Tor for example carry Macdermid and Reaves around. Slap NTCs on em and keep em in the minors without their cap hit whenever you want, calling them up when you want to play them and no other time.

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

Trouba could have voided his current contract and renegotiated a new one

Since when is this possible without retiring?

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Players are their own worst enemies. They get caught up in the emotion of knowing a dude who got moved against his will, and they look like asses saying it’s wrong. It isn’t. The share of profits, lockouts, fines for criticism of refs, bullshit schedule- those are reasons for complaint. Jacob Trouba’s situation is just not important.

The team does deserve some criticism, though, imo. They made a dumb deal, then forced the dude outta town in a very public way. I think that’s maybe more what players are responding to.

 

[McShogun99]

Hopefully he can afford to live in Anaheim on 8 million a year. Maybe someone has some space on their couch to help Trouba out during these hard times.

 

[FMichael]

And to think there was an opportunity to play for his hometown team in Detroit, but instead he’ll have to suffer for the remainder of his contract in sunny Orange County California…

 

[WarriorofTime]

Or, a cap loophole with what you suggest

There is no games between february 9th and february 21st.

On that day, NJD have conversations with and then waive:

Dougie Hamilton
Palat
Meier
Bratt
Dillon
Markstrom
Pesce

All of whom use their protections and decline being claimed by any other team.

NJD then accrues a very meaningful amount of cap space to spend at the deadline, before calling them back up without missing a single game

Nice and easy cap manipulation

Lmao even if there’s no roster freeze, nobody is doing that, all it takes is one player to go “oh yeah totally bro” and then choose a specific team to play for that’s not his current one when 31/31 teams put in claims.

 

[Based Anime Fan]

Since when is this possible without retiring?

It's not, nor will they ever allow it to be based on how the league and the PA like things to be.

 

[SeanAveryTheGreatOne]

There is no CBA issue here. Players are arguing they want provisions to protect them from being sent to a team on waivers that they included in their no-trade lists.

That makes no sense. The waiving team getting nothing in return for waiving them distinguishes it from a trade. There is also no guarantee they will go to a team on their list or any team at all if waived.

 

[Tawnos]

Or, a cap loophole with what you suggest

There is no games between february 9th and february 21st.

On that day, NJD have conversations with and then waive:

Dougie Hamilton
Palat
Meier
Bratt
Dillon
Markstrom
Pesce

All of whom use their protections and decline being claimed by any other team.

NJD then accrues a very meaningful amount of cap space to spend at the deadline, before calling them back up without missing a single game

Nice and easy cap manipulation

First of all, Hamilton, Meier, Bratt, Palat, and Markstrom have full NMCs. You can’t waive them. And even if you could, your idea puts the team $15m below the salary floor. Besides, I’m not talking about getting rid of NMCs, just changing the way NTCs are applied.

So you can only do this with Dillon and Pesce from your list. And the most you can save for each player is $1.125m. It’s about $6080 per day. Over 12 days, you’re saving about $146,000 for the two players. Hardly a significant amount.

But also keep in mind. The CBA has rules against cap circumvention. Just because you’re following the specific mechanisms as written doesn’t mean you aren’t circumventing the cap and won’t be punished for it by the league. Your concerns that teams would do this still aren’t valid.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Since when is this possible without retiring?

Would have allowed him to stay in NY

 

[dgibb10]

Lmao even if there’s no roster freeze, nobody is doing that, all it takes is one player to go “oh yeah totally bro” and then choose a specific team to play for that’s not his current one when 31/31 teams put in claims.

I think you vastly overrate how much players on good teams who have specifically negotiated protections to stay on said teams are willing to uproot their lives, as well as straight up lie to their front offices.

That and the fact that any cap team (good team) would be unable to make a claim on an expensive player due to lacking the available cap.

Yes, Chicago definitely couldn't do it.

 

[Oak]

No wonder the game is so soft now. Everyone has such deep feelings that they "need" to express.

Sorry I don't feel bad for any of you.

 

[dgibb10]

First of all, Hamilton, Meier, Bratt, Palat, and Markstrom have full NMCs. You can’t waive them. I’m not talking about getting rid of NMCs, just changing the way NTCs are applied.

So you can only do this with Dillon and Pesce from your list. And the most you can save for each player is $1.125m. It’s about $6080 per day. Over 12 days, you’re saving about $146,000 for the two players. Hardly a significant amount.

But also keep in mind. The CBA has rules against cap circumvention. Just because you’re following the specific mechanisms as written doesn’t mean you aren’t circumventing the cap and won’t be punished for it by the league. Your concerns that teams would do this still aren’t valid.

Full NMCs are NTCs. They have all the protections of an NTC. So, in this scenario where you rewrite the rules of NTCs to say teams cannot claim players with them on their NTC, it would also apply to guys with full NMCs.

They are just listed as 1 because full NMC is all encompassing

NHL teams literally already do this with guys who don't have to pass through waivers. It's called a paper transaction. Only now it would be able to also be applied to anyone with an NTC.

In fact, they'd do it MORE now, because sending ELCs (on 2 way contracts) with waiver exemptions to the minors generally means you pay them less, and pissing off your core ELCs to save cap space isn't worth it.

But there is no downside for the players here since they get their full salaries.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think you vastly overrate how much players on good teams who have specifically negotiated protections to stay on said teams are willing to uproot their lives, as well as straight up lie to their front offices.

That and the fact that any cap team (good team) would be unable to make a claim on an expensive player due to lacking the available cap.

Yes, Chicago definitely couldn't do it.

Now you’re just straight up making things up. It’s a stupid risk, it wouldn’t be allowed and it would never happen. It’s obscuring things to pretend that nothing can be done when it can.

 

[dgibb10]

Now you’re just straight up making things up. It’s a stupid risk, it wouldn’t be allowed and it would never happen. It’s obscuring things to pretend that nothing can be done when it can.

NHL teams literally already do paper transactions like this with waiver exempt players.

Only difference is now it's more beneficial for players generally, since most waiver exempt players are on 2 way contracts that gets them paid less if they are sent down

Allowing a mechanism for teams to bypass waivers with a contract clause is insane.

 

[WarriorofTime]

NHL teams literally already do paper transactions like this with waiver exempt players.

Only difference is now it's more beneficial for players generally, since most waiver exempt players are on 2 way contracts that gets them paid less if they are sent down

Allowing a mechanism for teams to bypass waivers with a contract clause is insane.

One guy decides “oh wait? Vegas claimed me? That sounds way better than freaking New Jersey. Later fellas” and your master plan (if legal) would be entirely ruined.

 

[Tawnos]

Full NMCs are NTCs. They have all the protections of an NTC. So, in this scenario where you rewrite the rules of NTCs to say teams cannot claim players with them on their NTC, it would also apply to guys with full NMCs.

They are just listed as 1 because full NMC is all encompassing

NHL teams literally already do this with guys who don't have to pass through waivers. It's called a paper transaction. Only now it would be able to also be applied to anyone with an NTC.

In fact, they'd do it MORE now, because sending ELCs (on 2 way contracts) with waiver exemptions to the minors generally means you pay them less, and pissing off your core ELCs to save cap space isn't worth it.

But there is no downside for the players here since they get their full salaries.

No, an NMC is a full NTC that also prohibits putting the player on waivers. It still would do that.

Another thing you’re overlooking. The league requires a minimum daily roster size of 20, which means at least 4 or 5 of those players would have to be replaced by someone. Even if that player is league minimum, you’re only saving $2k per day.

And all of this is still without any other mechanisms the league might put into place if they were really concerned about potential nonsense.

 

[x Tame Impala]

It’s not shitty
Its business
They honoured the contract both parties signed
Trouba could have voided his current contract and renegotiated a new one


What loophole

The proposed NMC affecting waiver options loophole the players are allegedly pushing for in the OP.

What's the solution? Arbitrarily decide each case?

Or just add more roster freezes preventing movement throughout the season?

NHL teams already make paper moves like this during certain times (but it's much tougher since it can only be done with waiver exempt players. Now if you can basically make anyone over 27 waiver exempt if you want with an NTC, it will get cooked.

But the biggest example I can think of is enforcers.

NJD and Tor for example carry Macdermid and Reaves around. Slap NTCs on em and keep em in the minors without their cap hit whenever you want, calling them up when you want to play them and no other time.

No teams can put players on waivers during Christmas break or the all star break obviously. Where’s the confusion?

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Today’s NHL players are tissue paper soft entitled f***ing babies.

Good lord.

Go cry into your (frankly undeserved) millions of dollars.

 

[bobbyb2009]

I actually do agree that players should be able to negotiate waiver-pickup protection like they do trade protection

I guess, but isn't the point of the waiver system and the point percentage priority to spread players from teams with significant depth to other teams of less depth, while allowing non exempt prospects who can't crack a deep NHL lineup to get opportunities to play in the NHL somewhere else, earning NHL salaries instead of AHL.

Players on that bubble are advantaged by this system. There would be significant consequences to some players being held hostage in the AHL by team rights if such a system did not exist.

And then If you allowed players to negotiate waiver protection from certain teams, or to veto those teams, you would effectively be changing one way of ensuring balance in the league- no longer providing the opportunity to lesser teams to add useful players to their rosters through the waiver system. The player protection comes from NMC, and if you can't negotiate that, then you would be subject to the system as it is set up in order to benefit the majority of players AND teams.

 

[Mike C]

My heart goes out to them, just imagine making 10s of millions of dollars and you can't even be sure you're going to stay in the same location. Hopefully the media covers this over other more trivial stuff like wars, famine or

Would have allowed him to stay in NY

So would have better play in his own end

 

[Frank Drebin]

The proposed NMC affecting waiver options loophole the players are allegedly pushing for in the OP.


No teams can put players on waivers during Christmas break or the all star break obviously. Where’s the confusion?

We’re not in the all star or Christmas break.

Trouba didn’t have a nmc. There is no loophole.

Unless, of course I’m missing something obvious

I personally think this is great. If you’re overpaid to the point that your team feels you’re negative value at age 30 you should consider yourself lucky you got the contract you did and go wherever they sign your paycheques

 

[Anglesmith]

That makes no sense. The waiving team getting nothing in return for waiving them distinguishes it from a trade.

I imagine from the perspective of the PA, in this economy this is becoming much less of a valid argument.

Trades these days commonly involve providing assets along with a contract. Waiver claims fall somewhere on the spectrum of value exchanged between this and conventional trades.

I'm not on the PA's side on this matter as a whole, but I can understand why they would argue that there isn't a strong distinction between an agreed-upon waiver claim and a trade.