No Movement Trade Clause
- Thread starter Gordon112358
- Start date
hockeyarena
Registered User
No Move clauses should be banned.
No Trade clauses should have at least 5 tradeable teams on them.
There should be no guaranteed contracts ever.
The on-ice product would be unbelievable as guys would constantly have to try.
No Trade clauses should have at least 5 tradeable teams on them.
There should be no guaranteed contracts ever.
The on-ice product would be unbelievable as guys would constantly have to try.
I posted this in another thread but it also fits here.
Trade restrictions are popular with players and can only be changed through collective bargaining. You would have to offer the players something they want more, and we know they aren't going to be offered a bigger piece of the financial pie. I've never had a problem with trade restrictions though we are probably the team most impacted. If you get to a point in your career where you can leverage your skills to restrict being relocated against your wishes IMO is a fair trade off for having to play the 1st 7 years of your career with no such protections. By that point for the most part these guys got families. Wives with their own careers. Kids in school. A home set up etc.
Bottom line is the NHL can't unilaterally change collectively bargained work conditions. If the issue is important enough to the NHL, which I highly doubt, they can bring it forward during negotiations on the next CBA in exchange for something the players see as more important to them.
Trade restrictions are popular with players and can only be changed through collective bargaining. You would have to offer the players something they want more, and we know they aren't going to be offered a bigger piece of the financial pie. I've never had a problem with trade restrictions though we are probably the team most impacted. If you get to a point in your career where you can leverage your skills to restrict being relocated against your wishes IMO is a fair trade off for having to play the 1st 7 years of your career with no such protections. By that point for the most part these guys got families. Wives with their own careers. Kids in school. A home set up etc.
Bottom line is the NHL can't unilaterally change collectively bargained work conditions. If the issue is important enough to the NHL, which I highly doubt, they can bring it forward during negotiations on the next CBA in exchange for something the players see as more important to them.
How about you limit the amount of players that can have any one city league wide by seniority. Say 21 roster spots 21 players allowed to restrict movement to that city. Not hard to manage by making players rank the teams on a ntc. You could move those numbers around say 34 teams 34 players. Might be a way to appease older players split the membership somewhat on the issue.
Would be nice to know the numbers on all the trade clauses and amounts on specific franchises. Make them public post them on the NHL web site.
Would be nice to know the numbers on all the trade clauses and amounts on specific franchises. Make them public post them on the NHL web site.
JetsFan815
Replacement Level Poster
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,696
- 25,793
NTCs and NMCs should be banned and should have no place in the NHL. I am not just saying this because I'm a fan of a small market team. I'd say this even if I was a fan of the Rangers/Kings. As fans we want to see trades and these things prevent trades and make the league more conservative and cut out the creativity.
Additionally these players are making millions and millions, being traded once in a while should be seen as part of the job. There are people who work completely normal jobs with normal pay like truck drivers and oil rig workers who stay away from their families and have to move around a lot. If they can do it so can pampered millionaires. Ofcourse you can have reasonable protections and clauses that a player can only be traded once in year or so so that you don't have guys who are getting uprooted every 3 months but blanket NTC/NMCs have got to go.
I would also like the league to rollback UFA status to age 31 like it used to be (and in exchange introduce arbitration at an earlier age and more generally so that guys are not getting fleeced).
I would also support the owners locking out the players to get these things if needed.
Additionally these players are making millions and millions, being traded once in a while should be seen as part of the job. There are people who work completely normal jobs with normal pay like truck drivers and oil rig workers who stay away from their families and have to move around a lot. If they can do it so can pampered millionaires. Ofcourse you can have reasonable protections and clauses that a player can only be traded once in year or so so that you don't have guys who are getting uprooted every 3 months but blanket NTC/NMCs have got to go.
I would also like the league to rollback UFA status to age 31 like it used to be (and in exchange introduce arbitration at an earlier age and more generally so that guys are not getting fleeced).
I would also support the owners locking out the players to get these things if needed.
jokesondee
I’m not fat. I’m cultivating mass.
Or limit the amount of players per team that can have a NTC/NMC. Like say 3 per team?
tbcwpg
Moderator
- Jan 25, 2011
- 16,685
- 20,172
NMC and NTC are things the players have for some control over their place of employment. Feels unfair an employer can sign a player for a period of time with the player expecting to play the contract and then be moved at any time. It gives the player some more control.
It's also something that they players need given the hard cap environment in the NHL. If there was no hard cap, I doubt these clauses would be needed because it would allow players to sign for teams that they want to, provided that team pays the salary tax or whatever system they have - eg. the NBA has that.
It's also something that they players need given the hard cap environment in the NHL. If there was no hard cap, I doubt these clauses would be needed because it would allow players to sign for teams that they want to, provided that team pays the salary tax or whatever system they have - eg. the NBA has that.
I like it but this puts the onus on teams might be a harder sell as you're pissing off players and some teams.
JetsFan815
Replacement Level Poster
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,696
- 25,793
It also feels unfair that fans spend millions in tickets and concessions yet have to watch their franchise screwed over due to these clauses. For example how ridiculous it is that Patrick Kane, literally one of the highest paid players in the league who is by no means underpaid was able to screw over Chicago fans from not being able to get assets for their future by forcing a trade to just one team rather than letting the org get market value!
razorsedge
Registered User
Gaurenteed contracts/money is better than what most proffesional athletes in other leagues get.
Atleast it should be amended to only be available for players who have 10 years experience or are over the age of 30. At that stage of their careers/age, they'll have family's.
Atleast it should be amended to only be available for players who have 10 years experience or are over the age of 30. At that stage of their careers/age, they'll have family's.
seriously boo hoo. ntc/nmc are a part of NBA, NFL. the problem is GMs in the NHL hand them out like candy when a player gets UFA status.
list of players: No-Trade/No-Move Clauses — The Fourth Period
if they did some sort of restriction or criteria. ie: X amount of NMC/NTC per team, or you have have a certain AAV/X amount of signed years for one, or a home-grown drafted player, or only top 10 picks are allowed, or only in the first/last X amount of years of a new contract.......something like that.
i do think elite players with years of experience deserve to have some sort of leverage. but when you solid but non-superstar guys like Larsson, Oleksiak... seriously? (just picking on SEA here). A guy like Patrick Kane though, ok i understand. he's one of the GOATs with a highly decorated career and earned a large pay-day along with some sort of say in his career.
also i can do without the 7-8 year contracts as well. that'll make FA and trades much more compelling.
list of players: No-Trade/No-Move Clauses — The Fourth Period
if they did some sort of restriction or criteria. ie: X amount of NMC/NTC per team, or you have have a certain AAV/X amount of signed years for one, or a home-grown drafted player, or only top 10 picks are allowed, or only in the first/last X amount of years of a new contract.......something like that.
i do think elite players with years of experience deserve to have some sort of leverage. but when you solid but non-superstar guys like Larsson, Oleksiak... seriously? (just picking on SEA here). A guy like Patrick Kane though, ok i understand. he's one of the GOATs with a highly decorated career and earned a large pay-day along with some sort of say in his career.
also i can do without the 7-8 year contracts as well. that'll make FA and trades much more compelling.
Last edited:
tbcwpg
Moderator
- Jan 25, 2011
- 16,685
- 20,172
Depends who you sympathize with, I guess. I tend to sympathize more with the labour side than the owner side.
bustamente
Fraud Supporter
NTC NMC are never going away, players have the right to play where they and their family want to play and if a team give him this perk then that's just the way it is. Yes it effects the Jets most of all and certain trades will never happen which makes drafting the right players even more important to the success of the team cause top notch free agents are never coming here and veterans with this clause more certainly have the Jets on their no fly list.
I'd like to see a cap hit penalty for nmc/ntc...if a player has one, say a 10m aav...the cap hit is increased against the team signing them to that clause... making it harder to fill out the roster with more quality players...it could be a percentage of the salary, say 10% for ntc, 15% for nmc...so that players caphit is now 11.5m for a nmc etc I don't know...just a thought
You're gonna have a tough time convincing players it is in their interest to limit the amount of money available to them under the cap.
yea patrick kane really screwed over chicago
who is the one that gave him the contract.guy played 1200+ games there (PO and regular season), put his body through various injuries and championed the team to 3 cups. ya poor chicago fans.
JetsFan815
Replacement Level Poster
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,696
- 25,793
It is millionaires vs billionaires. I sympathize with fans who are mostly middle class and deserve to see as good a product in front of them as possible for the money the shell out. All the changes in the league that I want to see are to increase fan entertainment and very often it is the owners whose incentives most closely align with those of the fans. I don't see this as "labor" vs "souless big business" battle, both sides are so well off that it is not worth picking a dog in that fight and instead best to root for the most pro-fan outcomes.
100% of the players want it as an option.....and 75% of the teams want it as an option (because they benifit)....so how exactly is this going to get changed? 
None
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 11,847
- 17,541
I'd argue from the perspective that the GMs with short shelf lives are screwing these teams over more than anyone else. Shortsightedly signing players and undervaluing trade protections in the overall value of the contract hurts teams a lot and more often than probably anything else. Salary can be retained to make trades more palatable but you can't force someone to waive their trade protections. The GM often doesn't care about trade protections 8 years down the line because it probably won't be their problem.
I think GMs need to start considering that aspect when negotiating and stop just adding trade protections into every single contract. A full no move clause should easily be worth 2-3 million a year given that a player of Patrick Kane's caliber only managed to return a conditional 1st/2nd with 75% of his contract retained. The dollar value difference between a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick is probably in that ballpark.
- Nov 24, 2006
- 8,461
- 15,717
You can't unbrush your teeth.
I'd love to see all of these clauses removed, Winnipeg would be the biggest benefactor of this. But once given under the CBA, it won't be taken back, unless - as someone else said above - there's something the players want more than NMC/NTC clauses that can be included at the cost of them giving up NMC/NTC.
I'd love to see all of these clauses removed, Winnipeg would be the biggest benefactor of this. But once given under the CBA, it won't be taken back, unless - as someone else said above - there's something the players want more than NMC/NTC clauses that can be included at the cost of them giving up NMC/NTC.
jetsforever
Registered User
- Dec 14, 2013
- 28,032
- 24,528
I'm fine with them - I'd rather see relative player stability than the craziness of the NBA these days
Stumbledore
Registered User
And he did it for free?
I think most guys would put their body through various injuries for several million dollars. Every year.
Of course not. And most guys aren't of a high caliber of player to earn his contract. He championed the team to 3 cups and earned that deal.
The point was Kane didn't screw over the fans. The org gave him that contract and clause. Maybe they shouldn't hand them out so willingly if they know its gonna bite them in the ass later down the road.
