Requesting a trade should negate NTC

[Esq]

The Larkin situation had me thinking — why should Larkin get to keep the benefits of a NTC when he’s publicly requested that the Wings trade him? The concept of a NTC is that the player can veto a trade destination when the team seeks to move the player. When the player is demanding a trade — which already hamstrings his existing team — seems like the NTC should dissolve to allow the team to get proper value for the player.

I know the NHLPA would never go for this, but seems fair to me.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Its called contract negotiations. You dont like it blame your GM for signing off on it.

 

[Killer Orca]

The Larkin situation had me thinking — why should Larkin get to keep the benefits of a NTC when he’s publicly requested that the Wings trade him? The concept of a NTC is that the player can veto a trade destination when the team seeks to move the player. When the player is demanding a trade — which already hamstrings his existing team — seems like the NTC should dissolve to allow the team to get proper value for the player.

I know the NHLPA would never go for this, but seems fair to me.

I think that would be a brilliant idea. However GM's could just stop handing them out like candy too.

 

[Breakers]

I mean........ I dont hate the idea


Edit: Yup I actually like it. Like if you have him on record confirming he is asking for it. Seems fair

 

[Dr Pepper]

Its called contract negotiations. You dont like it blame your GM for signing off on it.

Sure, and that gives the player security as long as he wants to remain with his team.

The minute he DOESN'T want to remain on the team? So long security.

Wishful thinking though, the PA would shit a brick if this was even considered.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nah.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Sure, and that gives the player security as long as he wants to remain with his team.

The minute he DOESN'T want to remain on the team? So long security.

Wishful thinking though, the PA would shit a brick if this was even considered.

If you are trying to bake in that wording into a contract, good luck getting the player to sign off on that. Its a UFA deal, player holds all the cards, including the option to hand pick his new team.

 

[nogatco rd]

Sounds like you’re advocating for a new KIND of NTC.

There’s no incentive for the NHLPA to agree to changing ALL NTC’s to the benefit of the owners and the detriment of its constituency.

 

[Bouboumaster]

I agree with OP

If a player don't want to Honor his Contract to the end, it should become partly or totally void

 

[StreetHawk]

I agree with OP

If a player don't want to Honor his Contract to the end, it should become partly or totally void

And when a team goes to a player with a NTC, what would the player get?

 

[Raistlin]

sure, you can add that clause to your future contracts. The player CAN demand a trade, the team doesn't have to honor it legally. In reality, if the relationship with management is that frayed that its gone public, then whats the point of keeping him around? You have to ask what the GM did to alienate the face of the franchise or vice versa.... these things should never have gone public to hamstring the team.... see the favorable parting of ways in the Quinn Hughes trade.

 

[nogatco rd]

The concept of a NTC is that the player can veto a trade destination when the team seeks to move the player. When the player is demanding a trade — which already hamstrings his existing team — seems like the NTC should dissolve to allow the team to get proper value for the player.

Honestly kind of astonished a lawyer would consider this a logical argument. Are you a Detroit or Toronto fan?

 

[DaveG]

management is free to make an offer to any team in the league, he just has every right to reject the destination.

 

[Stephen]

That makes sense to me from a legalese situation. A player has a NTC, NMC. This has to be rescinded to facilitate a trade.

 

[Ambisextrous]

requests are too informal. if it was refusing to play for the team I'd say yeah

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

The Larkin situation had me thinking — why should Larkin get to keep the benefits of a NTC when he’s publicly requested that the Wings trade him? The concept of a NTC is that the player can veto a trade destination when the team seeks to move the player. When the player is demanding a trade — which already hamstrings his existing team — seems like the NTC should dissolve to allow the team to get proper value for the player.

I know the NHLPA would never go for this, but seems fair to me.

Then there’s gotta be a monetary competent to waiving the NTC. It’s generally valued somewhere between 1-2mil per year discount that the player takes in order to ge the NTC

 

[Regal]

You can ask to be traded but they can also refuse. I don’t believe a request should negate your no trade clause as long as you’re willing to fulfill your contract should they not find a deal. If a player was refusing to play until he was traded, then sure

 

[MoneyManny]

I think that would be a brilliant idea. However GM's could just stop handing them out like candy too.

If it's in the CBA players will use it in negociations, as they should. It's really not as simple as you make it look.

 

[VaporTrail]

I agree with you OP but it will never happen...Players nowadays are too coddled.

 

[Canovin]

That's actually a good point

 

[MoneyManny]

Then there’s gotta be a monetary competent to waiving the NTC. It’s generally valued somewhere between 1-2mil per year discount that the player takes in order to ge the NTC

That's a good idea.

 

[theVladiator]

The Larkin situation had me thinking — why should Larkin get to keep the benefits of a NTC when he’s publicly requested that the Wings trade him? The concept of a NTC is that the player can veto a trade destination when the team seeks to move the player. When the player is demanding a trade — which already hamstrings his existing team — seems like the NTC should dissolve to allow the team to get proper value for the player.

I know the NHLPA would never go for this, but seems fair to me.

It does seem fair. However, how practical is it?

For instance, what constitutes requesting a trade? Does "play me or trade me" outburst count? Or does it have to be submitted in writing? What about telegraphing a message by just being a general sourpuss to the media or half-assing it on the ice? I feel this proposal just doesn't lend itself well to legalese, even if it feels very reasonable.

 

[Avs44]

Why would players formally request a trade, then? They could easily indicate in dozens of non-official ways that they want out and then…what? You’re now going to a mediator / judgment panel to prove that their actions, such as intentionally dogging it, sulking, poisoning the dressing room, infinite leaks to the media in which the source can’t be proven, etc. rise to the level of formally wanting out? It would be an arbitrary mess. Sound idea on paper; impossible in reality.

GMs should hand out fewer clauses.’only solution if they don’t like it.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

This is probably the only thread where I think “wow this is something I’ve never heard of or thought of but I actually love it” … great idea

 

[Beerz]