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

[MK78]

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.

I agree with some control. Not FULL control, where they can hold the team hostage.

At most it should be a 5-10 team list updated every year, like some players get. Especially in long term deals.

The League stepped in before when the GM's were giving out these massive front loaded contracts that defied the idea of the salary cap. I think something needs to be done here to reign this in a little bit.

 

[MK78]

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

I am obvioulsly focused on the Leafs. But it goes back to a guy like Sundin and the Muskoka 5, where they prevented a team from getting some much needed assets to retool.

This what what, 2008? Remind me how well the next few years after that went...

The fact that RFA's coming out of ELC are getting full NMC's now now is nuts.

 

[Menzinger]

Nobody is forcing GMs ro give them out, if a team doesn't want a player to have one don't give them it, and accept the consequences that the player may just refuse the offer, or be prepared to offer them more money as a compensation

 

[57 Years No Cup]

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.

They need to go to the NFL model of guaranteed and non-guaranteed money.

 

[rojac]

So, for those of you want to get rid of or limit NMCs,, what big benefit are you going to give the players in exchange because I guarantee the NHLPA is not going to give up or limit them without a fight.

 

[thewave]

Trades are fun and entertaining. Eliminating big trades with NMC ruins that part of the sport. Players should be liquid assets and be flipped around more often. It would also grow fan interest as new toys always draw more eyes.

NMC should be gone from the game.. Free trade for all.

 

[ULF_55]

Don’t do it. Simple as that.

Perhaps we should have the players decide if the managers aren't smart enough.

 

[TakeTheBody]

Hmmm, I agree with both sides. As a fan I hate it. That being said if the teams cower and give in, it is what it is. I think Daisy Jane had a good middle ground. Restrict the number of teams not a full blown NMC. Maybe 10-15 teams.

 

[keonsbitterness]

So, for those of you want to get rid of or limit NMCs,, what big benefit are you going to give the players in exchange because I guarantee the NHLPA is not going to give up or limit them without a fight.

Therein lies the rub.

 

[Commander Clueless]

No more trading allowed. Only signings. Unlimited buyouts with no cap hits. One year contracts only.

Fun for the whole family!

 

[PromisedLand]

NMCs should come with a side of lower AAV.

Its players' right to ask for the moon; the management doesn't have to bend over they have to negotiate a deal.

Both Dubas and now Treliving (with new matthews and nylander contracts) IMO should have negotiated a lower AAV if they are getting full NMCs/NTCs which they didn't.

For comparison just see Pasta and Willy deals

Pasta: full NMC/NTC for the first 5 years and then modified conditions

Nylander: FULL NMC/NTC for all 8 years and fully front loaded compared to pasta

 

[Da Mash]

Players have the right to feel secure. If management or GM’s don’t like it because it gives the player all the control then STOP giving out NMC.

It started with highest paid players and now GM’s give it out like candy.

 

[ULF_55]

So, for those of you want to get rid of or limit NMCs,, what big benefit are you going to give the players in exchange because I guarantee the NHLPA is not going to give up or limit them without a fight.

Give players $500k in for each year remaining on their contract.
That money is reduced from team's cap for each year left on the contract.
This money is in addition to their remaining compensation.

i.e.

If player has 3 more years left and $30mm in compensation, they get $31.5mm in compensation.
If player is on last year of contract, they get an additional $500k, and that is removed from team's Cap.

There you go both benefit.

 

[Trapper]

Perhaps we should have the players decide if the managers aren't smart enough.

What could possibly go wrong.
Who is setting the standards and structure?

 

[ULF_55]

What could possibly go wrong.
Who is setting the standards and structure?

Apparently, in Toronto no one.

 

[Trapper]

Apparently, in Toronto no one.

Take Nylander for instance. I could even accept a NMC for the first 4 years of the contract. Then a limited 10 team NTC for the last 4.
You have fibre-evaluate your team every 4-5 years. Things change and you need to be able to change with them.

The only other time I would accept a full NMC is McDavid or you just won the Cup.
We give them like candy for zero playoff achievements.

 

[thewave]

Take Nylander for instance. I could even accept a NMC for the first 4 years of the contract. Then a limited 10 team NTC for the last 4.
You have fibre-evaluate your team every 4-5 years. Things change and you need to be able to change with them.

The only other time I would accept a full NMC is McDavid or you just won the Cup.
We give them like candy for zero playoff achievements.

No NMCs anymore is the only way. The compromise an owner should pitch is 3 year NMCs only. The downside is that really good players will string short deals together. No NMC LMCs are the way to go.

There will be so many trades and exciting exchanges, would really improve the sport. Luxury tax as well should be in play.

57s suggestion of NFL non guaranteed contracts should also be a thing.

 

[Trapper]

No NMCs anymore is the only way. The compromise an owner should pitch is 3 year NMCs only. The downside is that really good players will string short deals together. No NMC LMCs are the way to go.

There will be so many trades and exciting exchanges, would really improve the sport. Luxury tax as well should be in play.

57s suggestion of NFL non guaranteed contracts should also be a thing.

5 year contract max, limited NTC only and non guaranteed next CBA. I guess you have to protect the GMs from themselves.

 

[ToDavid]

Take Nylander for instance. I could even accept a NMC for the first 4 years of the contract. Then a limited 10 team NTC for the last 4.
You have fibre-evaluate your team every 4-5 years. Things change and you need to be able to change with them.

The only other time I would accept a full NMC is McDavid or you just won the Cup.
We give them like candy for zero playoff achievements.

Treliving should have simply not offered him an 8 year NMC then.

 

[Trapper]

Treliving should have simply not offered him an 8 year NMC then.

And Dubas shouldn’t have put NMC on the last year of everyone’s contract.
They can’t be trusted, hence the changes.

 

[banks]

NMCs should come with a side of lower AAV.

Its players' right to ask for the moon; the management doesn't have to bend over they have to negotiate a deal.

Both Dubas and now Treliving (with new matthews and nylander contracts) IMO should have negotiated a lower AAV if they are getting full NMCs/NTCs which they didn't.

For comparison just see Pasta and Willy deals

Pasta: full NMC/NTC for the first 5 years and then modified conditions
View attachment 891664

Nylander: FULL NMC/NTC for all 8 years and fully front loaded compared to pasta
View attachment 891666

This is the point I was coming here to make. There's nothing bad about trade clauses in player contracts. But there used to be an expectation that the AAV would be lower when a NMC was added. Like the player is buying their protection.

It makes sense for both sides. A better cap hit means the team is less likely to want to trade the player anyway. So then the move clause doesn't handcuff them.

But now it feels like it's just thrown in as often as not. I don't get it. It should be a bigger deal.

 

[ToDavid]

And Dubas shouldn’t have put NMC on the last year of everyone’s contract.
They can’t be trusted, hence the changes.

Then the team should hire better managers.

 

[Tak7]

NMCs are fine.
Handing out term is fine.
Front loading a deal is fine.
Heavy signing bonuses in a deal is fine.

These are all leverage tools, that organizations use to get favorable deals with their players.

The Toronto Maple Leafs however don't understand the word leverage, and instead hand out all of these things in the very same deals.

In what world does Chris Tanev get a SIX year deal, with trade protection, and yet his AAV still comes out at $4.5M? How much money did you truly save by acquiring his rights early, and then going super long on the term?