Requesting a trade should negate NTC

[thadd]

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.

Blame the GMs for signing players to NTC NMC in the first place.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

...or...





...don't give out NTC's/NMC's...

From a practical perspective that means not resigning your own UFAs, or getting UFA years in contract extensions. Are you OK with that?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree with OP in principle, there should be a clear point at which the no-trade clause becomes void.

That said, in practice a player can be perfectly clear without actually requesting a trade. So the change would just lead to a passive aggressive version of the status quo.

 

[RyCam]

I agree OP, I just think it's hard to enforce something like that. Like what if players request trades but never officially go on record to avoid voiding their NTC?

NTCs are there to provide stability for players, to demand a trade and then invoke it to control where you go is an abuse of the whole concept of it.

That said I still think that GMs hold most of the cards. GMs are free to attempt to renegotiate the clause with players in these scenarios and, if the current situation is untenable for the player(which it becomes if a trade request is made public), the player might be more motivated to waive it for a destination that was not on his list. If the GM doesn't like any trade being offered by a team on the player's list then tough luck, they need to suck it up and play out the contract or wait until the GM gets a deal that helps the team.

 

[joestevens29]

Nothing? They can ask him but he negotiated it into his contract and took less money so he could have a nmc. That's on the team. He doesn't have to waive his NMC and the team has to pay him. That is something the NHLPA has negotiated into the current agreement. Players have the ability to be protected from trades, but they don't get paid as much if they have those protections..

You get it. But others don’t.

 

[Sol]

The fact that a lot of people don’t understand the difference between being voluntarily traded vs involuntarily traded is alarming. OP makes a great point.

 

[hangman005]

Could they just bench him until he agrees to move where they want him to go? Hold him hostage like Bruce Cassidy.

I mean they could but that would likely tie up a lot of money in dead cap

 

[3074326]

I agree OP, I just think it's hard to enforce something like that. Like what if players request trades but never officially go on record to avoid voiding their NTC?

NTCs are there to provide stability for players, to demand a trade and then invoke it to control where you go is an abuse of the whole concept of it.

That said I still think that GMs hold most of the cards. GMs are free to attempt to renegotiate the clause with players in these scenarios and, if the current situation is untenable for the player(which it becomes if a trade request is made public), the player might be more motivated to waive it for a destination that was not on his list. If the GM doesn't like any trade being offered by a team on the player's list then tough luck, they need to suck it up and play out the contract or wait until the GM gets a deal that helps the team.

I would agree that it could be considered an abuse of it if there were no CBA. But they are well-within their rights to request a trade and the team is also able to not trade the player. Is what it is. This was not an unknown phenomenon last time a CBA was negotiated.

 

[Menzinger]

If GMs don't want to deal with NTCs don't offer them.

And If players really want to be traded they shouldn't expect teams to honor only trading them to a small list of teams. If not GMs are free to tell them to pound sand.

This isn't an actual problem that needs a solution.

 

[Ducks DVM]

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 isn’t, though. The players collectively bargained for these rules, and the owners agreed to said rules in order to keep player control up and compensation down. Retroactively changing that is the very opposite of fair.

As others have said, teams have the option of paying market rate instead of a NTC/NMC. Breaking the terms of a contract is also not fair.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

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.

You think any of this happens with the player saying it to the GM? Its going through an agent for a reason so the player could always say “I didn’t waive. I just said this place here, here, or here would be better for me. I never waived anything.”

You are just pissed a player want out of your team and has maximum negotiation on how it’ll happen.

 

[NJDevilsFan21]

Build it into the contract - a trade request negates the NTC, signed off by the player requesting.

 

[boredmale]

While I don't think requesting a trade should negate the contract a player requesting a trade should know that if he wants to be traded he can't just pick 3 teams he wants to go to, you should at least give a list of 10 teams

 

[Kegs]

Ntc is crazy. I’d hope they abolish them.

“I’d like a trade to one of these three teams please.”

 

[dahrougem2]

If GMs don't want to deal with NTCs don't offer them.

And If players really want to be traded they shouldn't expect teams to honor only trading them to a small list of teams. If not GMs are free to tell them to pound sand.

This isn't an actual problem that needs a solution.

I think it's a problem if a player makes it a problem.

If Larkin digs his heels in and says he's only going to accept a trade to Florida or Vegas, yeah it becomes a problem because he asked out and isn't allowing his club to get proper value for him.

Idk. I obviously don't believe in amending anything contractually because NTCs are negotiated and the GM has to agree to it. However, if you request a trade AND tell your team you will only accept 2-3 destinations... idk what to do there, really.

I hope Yzerman holds firm and Larkin is forced to accept other locations.

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

I think we could see two new contract clauses emerge because of this summer's activities.

for players a NTC with the caveat that they either have to submit a list of a certain size or the team submits a list and the player can choose out of those destinations

for coaches, a clause that guarantees them the opportunity to interview for a new job if they are relieved of their duties.

the same way the NTC became super popular after the Sens did Hossa dirty, or how the lottery protection clause became standard after the leafs gave up the seguin pick to boston.