NHL Players Reportedly Bothered By Jacob Trouba Trade Saga With Rangers

[God]

i side with trouba on this, and the notion that you can put someone with an NTC on waivers if they block a trade so that the other team can pick them up is definitely circumventing the spirit of the NTC. in fact, these billionaire owners should pay to buy these contracts out if they're so bad.

 

[dgibb10]

i side with trouba on this, and the notion that you can put someone with an NTC on waivers if they block a trade so that the other team can pick them up is definitely circumventing the spirit of the NTC. in fact, these billionaire owners should pay to buy these contracts out if they're so bad.

It absolutely does not violate the spirit of an NTC.

An NTC prevents a team from, for example, signing a guy in free agency who takes a discount for them for whatever reason, then flipping them to some shithole he wouldn't sign with for profit.

It should not protect a player from being placed on waivers because the team doesn't want them.

If you want waiver protection, negotiate an NMC. You can even have a partial NTC, and an NMC that prevents you from being waived. About 20ish players in the league have this.

 

[Beau Knows]

Playing hockey for a living is an amazing job, being able to waved or traded is a relatively small sacrifice to make to have the ability to do so. But I'm not completely unsympathetic when players are moved, I'm sure it can tough to uproot your life and move from a city you chose to live and play in to wherever you happen to get dealt. I'm sure it's tough on players and their families.

With that said, Trouba probably had the clout to negotiate a NMC in his contract, it likely would have meant a lower salary or less term in exchange, but he made his choice to forgo that and extract the maximum value he could.

 

[My3Sons]

It absolutely does not violate the spirit of an NTC.

An NTC prevents a team from, for example, signing a guy in free agency who takes a discount for them for whatever reason, then flipping them to some shithole he wouldn't sign with for profit.

It should not protect a player from being placed on waivers because the team doesn't want them.

If you want waiver protection, negotiate an NMC. You can even have a partial NTC, and an NMC that prevents you from being waived. About 20ish players in the league have this.

I tend to agree. this isn't that complicated in the scheme of things. Of course players want to maximize their trade and waivers protection but I'm not sure that adding a blanket rule that a team on a no trade list is also precluded from making a waiver claim is reasonable. Obviously the league could do that if they want to but waivers and trades are two different things as you well note.

 

[dgibb10]

I tend to agree. this isn't that complicated in the scheme of things. Of course players want to maximize their trade and waivers protection but I'm not sure that adding a blanket rule that a team on a no trade list is also precluded from making a waiver claim is reasonable. Obviously the league could do that if they want to but waivers and trades are two different things as you well note.

I think there should be (if there isn't already) a seperation between waivers protection in a clause and expansion draft protection in a clause.

I think it would make teams slightly more willing to give waiver protections

And agents should fight more for M-NTC+NMCs like a number of guys (Dougie and Palat included) have in their contracts

 

[DJJones]

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.

Whatever then, guess they should be prepared to be treated like shit if they become worthless.

Seems like a small price if they won't agree to non-guaranteed contracts

 

[GreeningOil]

A lot of people are missing the point. NHL players take note of ridiculous situations and choose whether or not they would consider playing for/ with said team.

NHL players will likely look harder at teams that don’t ruthlessly release players in favour of teams with a more consistent system.

If my work fired everyone based on performance and treated them like that, I too would think twice about continuing employment…

 

[gritdash60]

I get it, must be horrible to live in Anaheim while making 8m per year. Cant even think about such horror.

 

[God]

It absolutely does not violate the spirit of an NTC.

An NTC prevents a team from, for example, signing a guy in free agency who takes a discount for them for whatever reason, then flipping them to some shithole he wouldn't sign with for profit.

It should not protect a player from being placed on waivers because the team doesn't want them.

If you want waiver protection, negotiate an NMC. You can even have a partial NTC, and an NMC that prevents you from being waived. About 20ish players in the league have this.

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.

 

[DrDangles]

Lmao if you don't want to be put on waivers live up the the contact you signed.

This is a business and I'm not about to feel bad for a multimillionaire that now gets to play hockey for a career and live on a beach in California.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

i side with trouba on this, and the notion that you can put someone with an NTC on waivers if they block a trade so that the other team can pick them up is definitely circumventing the spirit of the NTC. in fact, these billionaire owners should pay to buy these contracts out if they're so bad.

It doesn't circumvent anything. If he wanted a full NMC, he should've asked for one, eh?

So much of the comments in this thread are based on "feelings." The CBA doesn't care about feelings.

 

[Tawnos]

It doesn't circumvent anything. If he wanted a full NMC, he should've asked for one, eh?

So much of the comments in this thread are based on "feelings." The CBA doesn't care about feelings.

It's almost like the players have feelings and have an equal stake in how the CBA is written.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

It's almost like the players have feelings and have an equal stake in how the CBA is written.

So f***in what? They don't have to like it. Drury did nothing wrong.

 

[Tawnos]

Whatever then, guess they should be prepared to be treated like shit if they become worthless.

Seems like a small price if they won't agree to non-guaranteed contracts

Nobody should be treated like shit, no matter how much money they make or if their performance has deteriorated. Because of their union, the players have the leverage and ability to not be treated like shit.

 

[Tawnos]

So f***in what? They don't have to like it. Drury did nothing wrong.

Drury didn't do anything wrong by the letter of the CBA. I didn't say otherwise. Doesn't mean players stop being human beings. Doesn't mean they stop being employees with power in their relationship with their employer. Anyone who has the power to get their employer to treat them better and on their own terms should do it. In the end, that's the only thing this conversation is about.

 

[3074326]

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.

So you want the players to have fewer options?

Just admit you were wrong. It doesn’t even matter. Dude should have signed a NMC. He didn’t.

It isn’t about fair or not. It’s about performance and contracts.

 

[Captain97]

Did the Rangers break any rules? No. Did they operate in good faith by forcing Trouba to a team on his NTC? Also no.

What this means is players will now either look for NMC alongside their no trade lists and will likely be brought up in the next CBA. Until then it's completely allowed.

 

[thestonedkoala]

So much of the comments in this thread are based on "feelings." The CBA doesn't care about feelings.

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?

 

[Tawnos]

Did the Rangers break any rules? No. Did they operate in good faith by forcing Trouba to a team on his NTC? Also no.

What this means is players will now either look for NMC alongside their no trade lists and will likely be brought up in the next CBA. Until then it's completely allowed.

100%. Which, for those who didn't bother to read the article, is exactly what the players are saying.

“Some of the agents said they had more contact with their players than they’ve had on most other topics than they’ve had on this one,” Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman said. “One of the things people have been talking about is that players feel very strongly that maybe there should be a streamlining of the protection process. The Rangers by the letter of the law did nothing wrong. Jacob Trouba had a no-trade protection to some teams, but did not have no-move protection, so he should go on waivers.

“What bothered the players I think to a large degree was if you can’t be traded to certain teams, why should you be allowed to go to those teams on waivers. I think that they are going to ask the players association to do is have a conversation in the upcoming CBA negotiations that maybe there should be just one form of protection.”

 

[FiveTacos]

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.

I get that allowing players to block a waiver pick up makes things potentially abuse-able.

Perhaps the better solution ultimately will be, if you're picked up by a team on your NTC block list, you have the option of taking a buyout instead (from your original team) and becoming a UFA.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

i side with trouba on this, and the notion that you can put someone with an NTC on waivers if they block a trade so that the other team can pick them up is definitely circumventing the spirit of the NTC. in fact, these billionaire owners should pay to buy these contracts out if they're so bad.

No, it doesn't though. I dont think you fully understand it.

 

[thestonedkoala]

No, it doesn't though. I dont think you fully understand it.

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.

 

[MXD]

Perhaps the better solution ultimately will be, if you're picked up by a team on your NTC block list, you have the option of taking a buyout instead (from your original team) and becoming a UFA.

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

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.

While Trouba is laughing all the way to the bank with 11 millions a year instead of 8.

 

[1989]

If waivers are ignorable via NTC (not NMC obviously) doesn't it only hurt the lesser teams?

For example, Trouba's overly expensive contract and decline in play lead to this situation - usually only bottom feeders have the cap space to take on undesirable contracts, but they still might want a strong veteran presence to help their rebuild situation.

Seems like it just makes the poor teams poorer, especially Canadian teams.

 

[Martin Skoula]

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.

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?