NMC's, does there need to be a CBA change

[MK78]

I'm sick of the players getting full NMC's and the team being held hostage by what could be a disgruntled or just ineffective players.

Should there be a discussion before the next CBA, of some limitations to the NMC's? Like if a player requests a trade, the NMC is void, or some sort of a rule in a contract longer than 5 years the last two years there can't be any NMC's, etc....

Players already have a guaranteed money contract. Trades have always bee a part of hockey. Salary cap has diminished that big time, the full NMC's are hurting even more.

Wayne Gretzky got traded, Gilmour got traded,, Patrick Roy got traded, etc... It's time to end or limit this crap.

Click to read more...

 

[LeafsFan89]

There is no issue. Toronto management needs to build a winning culture/not offer everyone a NMC/NTC.

 

[rumman]

If you don’t give the player a no movement it isn’t a problem, it’s the stupidity of mgmt not the player. Ditto for over payments……….

 

[Kazparov]

No

 

[PromisedLand]

It is players' right to ask the AAV and other goodies like NMCs/NTCs

It is however management that agrees to it and gives it to them. If Leafs management can be shrewd and stop handing them out like Halloween candies then thats the first win.

Second, there have been cases in NHL where players have been asked to waive NTCs/NMCs too. To my knowledge from what I've seen (unless someone else has other info); Treliving did not approach Marner and Tavares to waive their NTCs/NMCs

My guess is that they are going to wait it out one more year. The issue also is that the current situation that Treliving inherited is not something he did; it was done by dubas. At the same time, the current full NTCs/NMCs given by treliving to matthews and nylander is something he owns up

 

[Trapper]

Don’t do it. Simple as that.

 

[Nineteen67]

Last I looked there were ~300 players with movement clauses. Great for the players.

 

[Woodman19]

Its rather inconvenient when you want to make trades eh? Maybe dont give them out like candy, no reason players should get full NMC, No Discounts and longest term all at once with every big contract.

 

[Jojalu]

Maybe for RFA's.

Once you become a UFA and choose the place you would like to play I think it is fair to have a no movement clause if both parties agree.

Yes you get compensated extremely well, but when you have a young family, you want some stability and security knowing you won't have to pack up and uproot them.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Second, there have been cases in NHL where players have been asked to waive NTCs/NMCs too. To my knowledge from what I've seen (unless someone else has other info); Treliving did not approach Marner and Tavares to waive their NTCs/NMCs

all Treliving said was he wasn't commenting either way.
which i feel is the smart thing to do.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Once you become a UFA and choose the place you would like to play I think it is fair to have a no movement clause if both parties agree.

honestly my issue would be - the NMC etc should be limited it shouldn't be full

 

[Budz]

Give each team the ability to offer 5 (or whatever the number is) contracts only as NMC.

 

[Darch]

No issues with NMC. GMs are the ones tying their own hands together. Add to this the fact they all hurry to spend to the cap, then are stuck there too. 1 of 32 wins, the rest just made bad moves.

 

[Buds17]

I'm sick of the players getting full NMC's and the team being held hostage by what could be a disgruntled or just ineffective players.

Should there be a discussion before the next CBA, of some limitations to the NMC's? Like if a player requests a trade, the NMC is void, or some sort of a rule in a contract longer than 5 years the last two years there can't be any NMC's, etc....

Players already have a guaranteed money contract. Trades have always bee a part of hockey. Salary cap has diminished that big time, the full NMC's are hurting even more.

Wayne Gretzky got traded, Gilmour got traded,, Patrick Roy got traded, etc... It's time to end or limit this crap.

Gretzky, Gilmour and Roy were all traded prior to the salary cap era and moved for various reasons (monetary, team rebuild and demanding a trade respectively). Easing up on NMCs will likely just result in an increase of salaries while shifting the problem from one facet to another.

 

[sxvnert]

NMC are the death of hockey. At most there should be a limited NTC with a 6-10 team limit. Add in waiver protection for good measure.

 

[capfit9]

I'm sick of the players getting full NMC's and the team being held hostage by what could be a disgruntled or just ineffective players.

Should there be a discussion before the next CBA, of some limitations to the NMC's? Like if a player requests a trade, the NMC is void, or some sort of a rule in a contract longer than 5 years the last two years there can't be any NMC's, etc....

Players already have a guaranteed money contract. Trades have always bee a part of hockey. Salary cap has diminished that big time, the full NMC's are hurting even more.

Wayne Gretzky got traded, Gilmour got traded,, Patrick Roy got traded, etc... It's time to end or limit this crap.

100%. The origins of NMC clause was due to the Wade Redden contract with the NYR & essentially burying his entire $6m cap hit in Hartford with zero consequences on their cap space. This is no longer an issue in the league. I would be fine with a full NTC or a modified NTC.

 

[keonsbitterness]

If the league wants more superstar player movement and the publicity that comes with it, the answer is yes. But the NHL has always been a conservative league.

As for just saying no to NMCs, that ship has sailed. You'll just end up losing too many good players to other teams.

 

[Schennanigans]

Management has to just grow a pair and not hand them out like water.

 

[ACC1224]

I'm sick of the players getting full NMC's and the team being held hostage by what could be a disgruntled or just ineffective players.

Should there be a discussion before the next CBA, of some limitations to the NMC's? Like if a player requests a trade, the NMC is void, or some sort of a rule in a contract longer than 5 years the last two years there can't be any NMC's, etc....

Players already have a guaranteed money contract. Trades have always bee a part of hockey. Salary cap has diminished that big time, the full NMC's are hurting even more.

Wayne Gretzky got traded, Gilmour got traded,, Patrick Roy got traded, etc... It's time to end or limit this crap.

You realize this stuff is negotiated by both sides? What significant change to the CBA would the Owners give up to make these changes to the NMC?

You'd see way more trades by removing the salary cap than removing NMC/NTC.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Don't really see the need, doubt it would change much, and it won't be a battle that the NHL considers worth fighting.
People on here just need to accept that their trade ideas are bad.

Maybe for RFA's.

They're already restricted to UFA years only.

 

[BertCorbeau]

NHLPA won't allow it. GM's did it to themselves once they started to hand them out.

Realistically they give players some control on where they would like to go if traded.

 

[LeafGrief]

GM's want players, so GM's offer the players what they want. It's a competitive process, so GM's write cheques they can't cash. Salaries and trade protection balloon out of control. Owners lock out the players to get things under control. GM's want players, so the cycle repeats.

Ultimately, this is the fault of management, but I feel that the CBA should protect management from themselves in several ways, because it is the fans who lose out when a weak GM hamstrings his team for half a decade. Limits to NMC's and compliance buyouts would make for a better product.

 

[Kazparov]

Where there needs to be a CBA change is the salary cap based on net income and not gross taxable.

Cap was supposed to be a level playing field. It's not. Some jurisdictions have a clear advantage.

As the cap continues to grow that advantage becomes larger and larger.

The league will be forced to deal with it at some point.

 

[francis246]

Maybe for RFA's.

Once you become a UFA and choose the place you would like to play I think it is fair to have a no movement clause if both parties agree.

Yes you get compensated extremely well, but when you have a young family, you want some stability and security knowing you won't have to pack up and uproot them.

RFA’s cannot get NMC’s

 

[Ianturnedbull]

I'm sick of the players getting full NMC's and the team being held hostage by what could be a disgruntled or just ineffective players.

Should there be a discussion before the next CBA, of some limitations to the NMC's? Like if a player requests a trade, the NMC is void, or some sort of a rule in a contract longer than 5 years the last two years there can't be any NMC's, etc....

Players already have a guaranteed money contract. Trades have always bee a part of hockey. Salary cap has diminished that big time, the full NMC's are hurting even more.

Wayne Gretzky got traded, Gilmour got traded,, Patrick Roy got traded, etc... It's time to end or limit this crap.

Are you sick of players, or are you just focusing on one particular player?