Requesting a trade should negate NTC

[jMoneyBrah]

"I'm not supporting owners, I'm just supporting limiting or removing of players collectively bargained rights for the sake of the owners."

Nope, for the sake of having the best team possible. What benefits the owner is not my concern. The fact that you can't tell the difference is insane. Your hammer and sickle is showing.

How're those boots tasting bud?

It’s not so much that fans are supporting the owners. It’s that, on this topic, fans and ownership are aligned in their preference that players could be treated as entirely fungible assets they can maximally leverage to the benefit of their collective interest; at the expense of the agency of an actual human being specifically for the purpose of dictating where they practice their vocation, and without regard for the impact on the player’s, and their families, lives.

The only difference between the owners and fans is the motivation, though only to a degree. Fans want to maximize the competitiveness of the team by ensuring their team can realize full value for players as it most benefits their team. In theory owners want the same, but are further incentivized by the increased profitability of a more competitive and successful team***

It looks and feels the same, but for the fans the currency is exclusively wins and losses instead of capital and profits.

***I suspect this is not as big a motivator for some owners as it is others. As a Sharks fan I would say their owner, Hasso Platner, comes across as genuinely a huge hockey nerd, and beyond expecting the team to be within striking distance of profitability, hasn’t behaved in a way that suggests maximizing the team profits is a guiding principle for him. But here I go white-knighting for a billionaire.

 

[VainGretzky]

Make all contracts modified no trade with a choice of 16 teams a player can refuse to go . get rid of all other conditions

 

[kingsholygrail]

He demands a trade? So what? Is he going to refuse to play if he doesn't get traded?

 

[nogatco rd]

But there's also no evidence that what he does has anything to do with labor law. I took a lot of classes in business school that doesn't make me an expert in every category of business.

Not so much a question of labor law as it is about contract law. Everyone who goes to law school learns contracts.

 

[nogatco rd]

He demands a trade? So what? Is he going to refuse to play if he doesn't get traded?

Demanding and requesting are two very different things

Since he didn’t “demand” a trade, I wouldn’t expect him to sit out, unless that’s something the team asks him to do while they work out the details.

Sources: Dylan Larkin requests trade from Detroit

Elliotte Friedman reports that centre Dylan Larkin, after 11 years with the Detroit Red Wings and just one playoff appearance, has requested a trade from the team.

www.sportsnet.ca

 

[kingsholygrail]

Demanding and requesting are two very different things

Sources: Dylan Larkin requests trade from Detroit

Elliotte Friedman reports that centre Dylan Larkin, after 11 years with the Detroit Red Wings and just one playoff appearance, has requested a trade from the team.

www.sportsnet.ca

Fair enough. lol

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Because I believe that players shouldn’t be vilified for exercising their contractually bargained-for rights.

I have family members that played pro football, baseball, basketball, tennis, so I understand players are human beings with a job to do like anyone else.

If a guy doesn’t want to live or work somewhere and has the option not to (like Fox in Calgary/Raleigh) then I’ll always support that.

If it hurts my team, so be it. It’s on the GM to manage that situation the best they can.

Players aren’t property of their teams, this isn’t the USSR.

This is super on point. Beyond the contractual obligations, it’s not like there isn’t the ability for the player and management to find a mutually acceptable solution. In most cases as long as the initiating party approaches the other in good-faith and the readiness to be somewhat flexible things can be worked out amicably.

If a team wants to move on from a player with clauses, usually they can, as long as they are flexible on timelines and aren’t going to try to force the player somewhere they don’t want to go just to maximize the return. As a Sharks fan, I can think of the Karlsson, Burns, and Hertl trades as all examples of this.

If a player wants out, it seems like it should be doable as long as again they are flexible on timelines, and can give their team at least some reasonable flexibility to explore different destinations.

In all cases, the team, and fans, shouldn’t be expecting to maximize the returned value; because the leverage to fully extract that value was ceded the moment the contract was signed.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

These are the Reddit-types who think every job should pay $100k per year with unlimited PTO and if that hurts the business ‘just hire more people’ or ‘you don’t deserve to operate a business if you can’t do that’

The truth about NMC is that it hurts the league to not allow management to make hockey trades with other teams. If it was 1 player or maybe 2 on a team it wouldn’t be that bad but way too many players have them. Why does f***ing Larkin have a NTC? He’s mid at best, not a superstar, he is not deserving of a NTC to begin with.

The result of this for the league has been that there is now only 1 way to improve your team and that’s to tank and draft talent. The environment that used to exist where you could use trades to become a better team is long gone.

Go look at the roster of the two Stanley Cup teams and report back about how the current climate of the league, as it relates to a lack of trading, has curtailed their ability to build a winning team.

In case you’re too lazy to do so, or aren’t interested in undermining your asinine point: both teams are largely constructed of players they traded for or acquired outside the draft. Further, NTCs have actually done little to prevent teams from trading players. Time and again players with NTCs have been traded; the only thing you’re really upset about is that teams aren’t able to extract the full value of the player when they do so.

And as someone who apparently believes themselves so in tune with how business works, you sure as shit don’t understand a market. The reason why Larkin “deserves” an NTC has nothing to do with if he is a superstar player or not, it’s simply because that was what the market was willing to bear when it came time to sign his contract, you absolute dunce.

If Detroit wanted to ensure they would never be in this situation, that they would always be able to extract full value for their players, they could have negotiated with Larkin to not include the NTC; they could have offered him more salary and/or better signing bonuses, or even a more permissive NTC. And if that doesn’t do it, they can risk that no other team will offer trade protection; or hope that Larkin wants to stay in Detroit so badly he’ll choose to forgoe the NTC. They didn’t do those things, because they determined the value of having non-superstar Larkin on their team at that particular AAV was worth the backside risks implied by an NTC.

That’s how the market works.

 

[Peat]

You don't think that limiting NTCs benefits your team? NTCs do absolutely nothing positive for teams or their fans. They're 100% for the players. I'm not supporting owners, I'm supporting getting the best trade capital possible if my team wants to trade a player. I couldn't give two shits where the player wants to live. Someone making 10 million a year isn't exactly an every man. I'm not ignoring some dude making minimum wage. Every other league trades players freely.

NTCs are part of CBAs that get settled quickly and easily without lockouts. No lockout and hockey getting played is the biggest positive of all, for all.

I don't see any point in disturbing that just to give selling teams a lever that may or may not actually help them. Looks like the teams didn't in the last CBA either.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

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 the crux of your argument is entirely flawed. Why are teams that sign NTCs with their players entitled to “proper value” for them? The inclusion of the NTC, the right for the player to have agency over when and where they will practice their vocation, is a form of compensation that has monetary value.

The player is exchange greater salary and/or more favorable bonus structure for control of how, when, and where their contract can be traded. The team is already extracting “proper value” by paying their player less that they would otherwise be worth over the duration of the contract.

GMs are aware of the risks when offering NTCs, and are explicitly signing up for them when they include them in contracts. The lack of control and ability to extract “proper value” is literally what they are signing up for.