Should the NHL get rid of NTC/NMCs?

[Sens Rule]

The only problem I have with them is when a player demands to be traded. It is totally fair to me that a guy like Chris Phillips is able to refuse a trade at the deadline because wants to stay in Ottawa. That is very fair and good. Player signed a contract with the team... Maybe left money or years on the table to guarantee he won't leave.

However when a player DEMANDS a trade like St. Louis out if Tampa or Heatley out of Ottawa why should the player have the NTC leverage? St. Louis wants to leave...midseason...and he will ONLY go to the Rangers?

I understand the NHLPA is not about to give up this leverage... But it seems wrong that a player can use a NTC after demanding a trade. If a player forces a trade then they probably should be considered to have violated the NTC part of the Agreement.

 

[Captain Mountain]

There is no chance the NHLPA lets that happen, at least not without something even more significant coming back.

The NHL has little option in that.

 

[Brooklanders*]

I think it's ridiculous that these guys have the ability to pick and choose which teams they will play for after signing a contract with another team. Don't sign the dotted line if you think you're going to bail out in a couple of years. I don't just want to rag on the players as I think GM's are just as responsible. Don't give either of them the option. Get rid of the NTC!

Discuss.

Discuss?

Not much to discuss for obvious reasons which even without reading has already been stated I'm sure.

But let's say the PA actually agrees to this a player could still refuse to be traded to a certain team.

 

[Slot]

you can ask for a clause like that, but once you ask to be traded, that clause is done and you can be traded too wherever........
wasnt it danni heatly that demanded a trade from ottawa and then refused to be traded to edmondton?

Spezza most recently. I don't know if he demanded the trade but he refused a couple of trades. Bet he's kicking himself over nashville.

 

[Callista Rhian]

What is there to discuss?

It's the GMs that choose to offer NMCs/NTCs. That means that everything that follows is ON THEM. They were the ones that gave the players the power to dictate where they want to play; they were the ones stupid enough to sign a contract that would make their lives difficult should players with NTCs request trades.

Also, I don't agree that that NTCs/NMCs should be abolished; the majority of players have little enough say over their lives as it is.

 

[Brooklanders*]

The only problem I have with them is when a player demands to be traded. It is totally fair to me that a guy like Chris Phillips is able to refuse a trade at the deadline because wants to stay in Ottawa. That is very fair and good. Player signed a contract with the team... Maybe left money or years on the table to guarantee he won't leave.

However when a player DEMANDS a trade like St. Louis out if Tampa or Heatley out of Ottawa why should the player have the NTC leverage? St. Louis wants to leave...midseason...and he will ONLY go to the Rangers?

I understand the NHLPA is not about to give up this leverage... But it seems wrong that a player can use a NTC after demanding a trade. If a player forces a trade then they probably should be considered to have violated the NTC part of the Agreement.[/QUOTE
But why is it OK if teams trade players who don't want to get traded?
Don't they sign contracts?

Doesn't the team control a players fate?


They can discard players on waivers and even buy them out.

And sometimes its opportunity or lack there of.

Was Bernier given a fair shake?

He had to wait but was ready to start long before LA traded him to the Leafs.

Would you have been mad if he demanded a trade in that scenario?
I find it kinda unfair.

How about guys like Vasilevskiy (better than Nabakov right now), Gibson,Markstrom, Mrazek and Ortio?
Would you get upset if they were asking for trades?


Young yes and maybe a sense of entitlement but obvious they belong and are ready now.

But so was Nino who demanded a trade
Because he felt he belonged in the NHL.
His time was coming but he didn't want to wait a half season more.

And I don't blame him for forcing that trade.

The aforementioned could act in similar fashion and I wouldn't blame them either.

The best players deserve to play in this league.

Management gets away with this all the time. They control that players rightsvas agreed upon in the labor contract.

But if owners can control players then players should also control their fate when they are free from restrictions.
Nothing bothers me more when a team sends a better younger player whose under team control to the Ahl to accommodate a veteran because of options.
Its a two way street.

 

[alg363636]

Yay, lockouts.

Look, I hate them as much as anyone because our idiot GM can't seem to draft a contract that doesn't include a restrictive NTC even if the player is, i don't know, an overpaid fourth liner and now we're stuck and had to trade away one of our best defensemen for nothing and potentially lose our incredible third line center in the off-season.

But that's Chiarelli's fault. He made his bed now he has to lie in it. NTC clauses are super important to player negotiations and the PA. They can also keep price and length down (if your GM uses it properly) of contracts.

I do like the idea of if you ask to waive it, it's completely gone though. Definitely put them teams in pretty awful situations.

 

[ThatGuy22]

thats just not complicated enough man......the more horse **** the NHLPA can put in the rules, the happier they are.

but im not letting the general managers off either......if youre stupid enough to offer it too me.....ill sure as hell take it!!

how about a rule that says no player under 30 years old can get such a clause?

Players already can't get them until they reach UFA age, which is generally 27 with a handful of guys at 25 and 26.

 

[TorstenFrings]

While I get what you are saying about St. Louis type situations (demand a trade to one specific team) being infuriating to fans, the GM signed on the dotted line just as much as the player. Don't give out full NTCs, if you are going to be a dick about them later.

 

[Riddick]

Always thought that the NMC/NTC should exist to give players comfort with being where they signed. My idea tho is that if the player asks to be traded the nmc should be null/void.

Ie: player wants out of the team, they have no say where they go.

Team wants rid of the player, player chooses where to go.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I wouldn't mind seeing them better-regulated.

- Limit them to players with a certain number of years of service (measured in years in the league, or years with a certain team). Definitely unavailable on ELCs, though.
- Voided if the players demand a trade or hold out
- No "true" NTC/NMC - players must be open to trades to a given number of teams (say, three perhaps), with a list to be provided by the player on request
- Allow management to trade players with NTCs/NMCs to trade them against their wishes, but with a hefty financial penalty payable to the player (and perhaps to the player assistance fund as well)

 

[Hivemind]

The only thing I think is a little ridiculous is NMC blocking demotion to the AHL. NTC's are fine. Just don't be like Gillis and cripple your team's future by handing full NTC's out to every player on the roster. The Capitals only give out limited NTC's (even Ovechkin and Backstrom can only block a handful of teams).

 

[TorstenFrings]

What is there to discuss?

It's the GMs that choose to offer NMCs/NTCs. That means that everything that follows is ON THEM. They were the ones that gave the players the power to dictate where they want to play; they were the ones stupid enough to sign a contract that would make their lives difficult should players with NTCs request trades.

Also, I don't agree that that NTCs/NMCs should be abolished; the majority of players have little enough say over their lives as it is.

Yep. You only ever consider giving a full NMC to your absolutely franchise player. Everyone else, even the important ones, can only ever have some sort of partial NTC. You'd honestly think when a guy like Kesler (I am guessing this is who OP is mad about) has a full NMC, you'd have to consider that on the stupid GM who signed him. Not the NHL, Kesler or the existence of NTCs.

 

[BanditKeith99]

No way , think of the players families

 

[Stuzchuk]

NTC: No
NMC: Yes

 

[realgoodleafs]

They need to get rid of guaranteed contracts.

 

[Flair Hay]

Hahaha. Another rule to stop stupid teams from themselves. Sorry, but this one actually SAVES the NHL money on contract dollars. They won't be going anywhere.

Not to mention only UFA's are eligible. These guys demand them so they can plant their family in one place after putting in their years of service.

Give your players enough extra dough and they'll sign without one.

People in favour of this should feel ashamed.

 

[Flair Hay]

The only problem I have with them is when a player demands to be traded. It is totally fair to me that a guy like Chris Phillips is able to refuse a trade at the deadline because wants to stay in Ottawa. That is very fair and good. Player signed a contract with the team... Maybe left money or years on the table to guarantee he won't leave.

However when a player DEMANDS a trade like St. Louis out if Tampa or Heatley out of Ottawa why should the player have the NTC leverage? St. Louis wants to leave...midseason...and he will ONLY go to the Rangers?

I understand the NHLPA is not about to give up this leverage... But it seems wrong that a player can use a NTC after demanding a trade. If a player forces a trade then they probably should be considered to have violated the NTC part of the Agreement.

This I agree with? Demanding a trade = waived NTC. Tough to categorize though.

 

[janecky]

So again people want the league to save the GMs and owners from themselves? You don't have to give an NTC or NMC. You do it because it's worth money to the player and hence the salary and cap hit are slightly lower. It's a trade-off. No NTC/NMC, and the salary is higher.

 

[jbell886]

I think they are fine but one thing I'd like to see changed if a player requests a move the ntc is voided. If the gm decides he wants to trade him he has to abide by the rules set in the contract