Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
- Jul 21, 2007
- 3,103
- 269
Should the NHL get rid of NTC/NMCs?
- Thread starter Back in 94
- Start date
cleveland408
Registered
- Apr 12, 2014
- 1,369
- 229
Evil Little
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2014
- 6,311
- 2,739
They exist so cash or cap poor teams can pay with a little 'loyalty' (read: leverage).
Whenever a player bends their team over with one they're really just spending the leverage they were given in lieu of money.
Whenever a player bends their team over with one they're really just spending the leverage they were given in lieu of money.
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
- Jul 21, 2007
- 3,103
- 269
All the teams that are always on them would appreciate it.
Instead let's change the lottery rules some more because it's the thing that isn't fair to every team.
Instead let's change the lottery rules some more because it's the thing that isn't fair to every team.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 79,463
- 16,898
Why?
What does one have to do with the other?
It's not like they have these lists because they're counting on getting traded. It's because they don't want to be traded, and if they were, they'd get to go to a place of their preference. Would think that's common sense.
Little Psycho
I solemnly swear I'm up to no good
aemoreira1981
Registered User
Absolutely not. Some players will trade in dollars for security in an environment with either an NTC or an NMC. A recent case in point was Curtis Glenncross...who signed for relatively cheap but got an NMC in exchange. Players on 1-year deals who can still produce late in their careers may also ask for an NMC as well.
Epsilon
#basta
The NHL and NHLPA both want them, so why would they go anywhere? The players like the location security, while the owners/GMs like being able to trade off some salary for them.
The only people who complain about them are the media and fans, whose opinions on the subject are irrelevant.
hattrick3518
Registered User
hisgirlfriday
Moderator
- Jun 9, 2013
- 16,743
- 185
No. In general, the NHL should not unilaterally eliminate something that players gained through collective bargaining. If the next CBA comes up and owners want to give players something in exchange for eliminating NTCs/NMCs and players agree to it then great.
In the meantime, GMs could always be less dumb about them.
In the meantime, GMs could always be less dumb about them.
Prairie Habs
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 12,269
- 13,420
Ah, another rule to save GMs from themselves. How about GMs just stop giving out horrible deals and crying about how unfair the world is.
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
- Jul 21, 2007
- 3,103
- 269
I'm not really sure, it's kind of a touchy subject for me. I signed a contract for my current job for x amount of years knowing that I could get sent anywhere and be away from family for months. These guys are adults, if you aren't happy with your current situation suck it up and wait till your contract expires. If you signed a long one then it sucks to be you.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 79,463
- 16,898
Oh, so you dislike the availability of trade clauses to NHL players because you're not afforded that luxury at your position.
"Suck it up" is really a great, great argument for your assertion.
This line makes absolutely zero sense. What does a player signing with a team with a NTC/NMC have anything to do with them wanting to bail out in a few years? Pretty sure the only thing it is preventing is their team from bailing out on them, not the other way around which you stated.
Teams already have enough power, no need to remove more power from the players.
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
- Jul 21, 2007
- 3,103
- 269
Sure to an extent. But I think it's ridiculous if a player can give his current GM a list of only 2 teams he can be traded to.
tsanuri
Registered User
And I bet if you could have negotiated into your deal not to be moved or have approval of where you would be moved you would have done it in a second.
Sounds like your just unhappy some players are able to get something you can't.
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
- Jul 21, 2007
- 3,103
- 269
I'm pretty sure demanding a trade and giving your GM a list of a handful of teams could be considered as bailing out on them.
tsanuri
Registered User
That's not on the player that is on whatever stupid GM agreed to let it be in the contract.
I'm of two minds on this subject. On the one hand it is a nice bit of continuity for a player, especially one with a family, to know that their future is stable. On the other, the moment a player asks to be traded then any NTC should be null and void until that player is traded.
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
- Jul 21, 2007
- 3,103
- 269
I think both parties are to blame. Why give them the option? Take it away, or at the very least let them only give them the option of a limited NTC.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Why is Crosby considered a clutch SCF performer?- Latest: Luigi Lemieux
