I think the Cap saved mgmt a ton of money but cost us some great teams. I can imagine how much we would have paid the core 4 in a no cap situation. Omg.
No more NTC's or NMC's.
- Thread starter NMacrules
- Start date
- Dec 12, 2017
- 23,540
- 13,453
Teams don’t have to use it. But again, because salaries are kept in check with low revenues and a salary cap players bargained for it as part of their compensation.
- Dec 12, 2017
- 23,540
- 13,453
MLSE was, and likely still is, a proponent of the hard cap.
- Dec 12, 2017
- 23,540
- 13,453
TMLBlueandWhite
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2023
- 1,400
- 2,758
Once upon a time these types of clauses were used exclusively for aging vets to reward them for their many years of services rendered.
For the most part it was meant to prevent a star player from being traded to a bottom feeder. Somewhere he'd have no chance at winning a cup or contend against his old team. It wasn't meant to be used to block a trade so he could stay on the team.
But rather to give some control on the final destination.
Somewhere along the way these things got abused. As is always the case with a benefit like this. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the league seems to have a NTC/NMC of some sort.
It's standard for any top six forward to have one.
Any lowering of salary as a result of receiving a NTC/NMC was only ever negligible at best and practically nonexistent these days. There is zero benefit to a team in having these anymore. But of course teams will continue to hand them out because of the mistaken belief they are saving on the cap by doing so.
It's like thinking you're saving money because you're getting 3% back on your gas when you use your 18% interest credit card instead of paying full price in cash.
For the most part it was meant to prevent a star player from being traded to a bottom feeder. Somewhere he'd have no chance at winning a cup or contend against his old team. It wasn't meant to be used to block a trade so he could stay on the team.
But rather to give some control on the final destination.
Somewhere along the way these things got abused. As is always the case with a benefit like this. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the league seems to have a NTC/NMC of some sort.
It's standard for any top six forward to have one.
Any lowering of salary as a result of receiving a NTC/NMC was only ever negligible at best and practically nonexistent these days. There is zero benefit to a team in having these anymore. But of course teams will continue to hand them out because of the mistaken belief they are saving on the cap by doing so.
It's like thinking you're saving money because you're getting 3% back on your gas when you use your 18% interest credit card instead of paying full price in cash.
Of course they probably don’t like it but that was never the point. You said they weren’t paid enough to be moved. That’s silly. These guys make millions. They’re fine financially.
You know you don't pay any interest on a credit card if you pay the bills on time, right?
I get ~1200 in cash back a year on my credit card and pay 0 interest because I pay my bills on time. If I paid in cash for everything I put on my card, I'd get 0 cash back.
- Dec 12, 2017
- 23,540
- 13,453
This is what confused me. Anyway it doesn't matter probably just a typo.
Lets just give 100% NMC's to all players. Problem solved. Then no player can be moved. This is a where to draw the line at type thing. Lets pay per line. If your production drops, then you drop a line and to a lower salary. If you get bumped to the second or first line, then that player gets a raise....only until he is dropped again. And goalies get paid on how many goals they let in.
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2016
- 4,948
- 3,129
Bottom line is the GM can control who he gives an NTC or NMC to. I'm saying stop giving them out like giving out candy. There is no rule written anywhere that forces a GM to give an NMC to anyone. Contracts aren't negotiated between the GM and player, thats between the GM and the agent. Players do not negotiate contracts, agents do.
Menzinger
Kessel4LadyByng
The core problem is that players clearly want them them a great deal and GMs have now proven they aren't willing to lose a player over them.
So I won't expect anything to change that much unless they're reexamined during the cba negotiations. But I haven't really heard much in the media about them being brought up
So I won't expect anything to change that much unless they're reexamined during the cba negotiations. But I haven't really heard much in the media about them being brought up
Giving an RFA a NMC who you have right’s on is actually so dumb.
ULF_55
Moderator
You can put players on waivers who don't have a No Movement Clause.
No Trade/Movement Clauses | Puckpedia
Players can have no trade or no movement protection in their contracts: No Trade Clause (NTC): A player cannot be traded without permission No Movement Clause (NMC): A player cannot be traded or placed on waivers without permission. Waivers are needed to send players to AHL. Modified No Trade or...
ULF_55
Moderator
There are so few offersheets. The team can just not agree to giving out a clause and odds are they won't receive an offersheet.
You can't force a player to sign a contract. If he has no contract he just doesn't play. He could go overseas though.
Now if the player is UFA, he'll just sign elsewhere.
