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?
He already knows the answer and it’s because he wanted more cash instead.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.
I mean, the Rangers have some prreetttttyy horrible users on these boards, but that's no reason to develop a Rangers Derangement Syndrome.
just because the Devils didn’t break any rules per se, doesn’t mean they are above punishment.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?
Yeah, I've always thought Trouba is all about Trouba and has absolutely no class. You've hit the nail on the head: the New York Rangers have been dealing with one classless guy.They did this to their Captain? Classless.
They did this to their Captain? Classless.
I think this may stem from the fact that Trouba definitely had all 7 Canadian teams on his NTC. And ironically at the time of the threat, he would have been turning down 5 teams in playoff positions.
But down near the bottom of the waiver claim order is Montreal who would have had a pretty decent chance of landing him. And instead of playing in sunny Cal, he could have been stuck going somewhere he has on his NTC. Which is a shame I guess. Forced his hand to choose Anaheim.
I dunno. The franchise did okay when they got Peter Forsberg, who turned out to be the best player in the deal.Wait. There’s folks on the players side? Putting aside the fact that Trouba is a POS. NHL players are the top 1% of 1% of hockey players paid millions to play the game. It’s a privilege and a dream to play in this League. And they have the balls to whine about what City they play in?
You want to be on the side of the “little guy” in this situation? The little guys are not these primadonna millionaires and it’s definitely not the teams. The little guys are the fans.
Ask Nordiques fans how they felt when Lindros rejected their entire City and wasted their 1st OA pick and a year of trash fire hockey.
They lucked out and did well, and Colorado and not Quebec got the benefits.I dunno. The franchise did okay when they got Peter Forsberg, who turned out to be the best player in the deal.
Quebec City's problem wasn't that Eric Lindros screwed them; Marcel Aubut did.
The team left before they saw the end result.
I was gonna say...Players can choose to hold out and go public to force trades. I don't see what the big deal is for a team to do likewise to force a player out.
Trouba did the same to the Jets years ago and got a taste of his own medicine by the Rangers. Don't feel top bad for him.
Jeff Skinner is a great example. A good but not a great player in his career and he's been in the league for over 10 years now. Got bought out last summer and will likely be team hopping for the next few seasons (so lots of moving) until retirement.
His career earnings to date.
$92,494,445
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.
That franchise made out like bandits from that trade and won the cup a few years later as a direct result. Hard to imagine things working out any better had they actually kept him.Ask Nordiques fans how they felt when Lindros rejected their entire City and wasted their 1st OA pick and a year of trash fire hockey.
It's yesterday's news and will have no impact on signings with or by Chris Drury and/or the Rangers. Ever.But this whole scenario depends on the player having little to no trade value. It's not like the waivers are a free way of circumventing the NTC.
I really can't imagine that being too big of an issue for the players. I mean the majority of NHL players doesn't ever sniff an NTC, so are they really willing to fight and give up concessions (it's a negotiation after all) for the increased comfort of their overpaid colleagues? Now obviously the stars of the league have an increased say in it, but there already is a solution, so I don't think they care that much either.
In the end the next bigger UFA could take note of this and refuse to sign with the Rangers/Drury without an NMC, but other than that I can't imagine this being too important for the players, since it is just a niche scenario.