When did we see NMC/NTC clauses in the NHL?

[sawchuk1971]

Did these clauses arise after 2004-05 lockout?

When did they begin?

I need a history lesson on this.

 

[StreetHawk]

Did these clauses arise after 2004-05 lockout?

When did they begin?

I need a history lesson on this.

Can't recall exactly when for the NMC. I do believe a big stir came up when the Leafs threatened to place McCabe either on waivers or demote him to the A because he would not waive his NTC.

So, every time you do something, expect a counter to that later.

Saw it later with Redden getting buried in the A to avoid his big cap charge pre 2013 CBA signing. Players and agents made sure to protect themselves.

 

[rojac]

NMCs were added in the 2005. They were protection for players from being buried In the minors. Remember that from 2005-06 through 2011-12, a player’s full cap hit could be buried in the minors, but it eprequired re-entry waivers to cask them up.

NTCs were definitely around in the 70s. Darryl Sittler famously had one that prevented Ballard and Imlach from trading him away and instead trading away his friend Lanny McDonald to spite him. Apparently, Carol Vadnais had one in 1975 that he needed to waive to be included in the deal that sent Phil Esposito to New York for Brad Park. I’ve also found reference to Ottawa including a promise in King Clancy’s 1923 contract that he would not be traded or sold.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Early NHL days were the wild west. There were virtually no rules. It's just that negotiating power was so strongly in favour of the owners there was no chance of a player asking for a no-trade - the owners would just laugh in their face. It helped that there were only 6 teams for a long time, and very few NHL jobs.

I did see that reference to the Sens and King Clancy in the 1920s, but no idea if that was just one outlier or the practice was slightly more widespread.

It seems like things started to shift slightly by the 1970s and the WHA, with some players asking and getting no-trades. Then it became more common into the 1990s.

No move clauses weren't really necessary until the 2005 CBA, since before the salary cap there was no need to try and bury a contract in order to save on the salary cap.

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

I hope this is ok to post like this (I don't frequent the biz forum but happened to stumble upon this thread). This anecdote just came up in the CBJ subforum by @Jovavic :

I'm with you, and it sucks for the player being stuck in limbo. I wonder if this "scratching weeks before a trade deadline" will be a new clause that players without NTC/NMC could ask for in negotiations? Our boy, Doug MacLean, brought about the NMC when he wanted to trade Marchant to Anaheim for Fedorov, but he got blocked by the NTC he gave with that contract, so he just waived Marchant as I believe the Ducks was high on the waiver list. Other players saw that and went "naw, you ain't doing me dirty like that, how about a no MOVEMENT clause?"

Relevant news post by ESPN from Nov 21, 2005 confirms the events of this particular "trade" but not the introduction date of NMC to the CBA. Would imagine this would've definitely played a part in making players aware of the need for an NMC.

 

[mouser]

My short summary is NTC/NMCs were “standardized” and formalized in the 2005 CBA. But that contracts with no trade clauses existed well before 2005.

 

[DieSendungmitderMaus]

NMCs were added in the 2005. They were protection for players from being buried In the minors. Remember that from 2005-06 through 2011-12, a player’s full cap hit could be buried in the minors, but it eprequired re-entry waivers to cask them up.

NTCs were definitely around in the 70s. Darryl Sittler famously had one that prevented Ballard and Imlach from trading him away and instead trading away his friend Lanny McDonald to spite him. Apparently, Carol Vadnais had one in 1975 that he needed to waive to be included in the deal that sent Phil Esposito to New York for Brad Park. I’ve also found reference to Ottawa including a promise in King Clancy’s 1923 contract that he would not be traded or sold.

Kind of unrelated, but does anyone know/remember if buried players counted towards the HRR split and what side pushed for the rule that was then introduced? Back in 2012/13 I was a naive 19 year old who believed that the rule was changed to fit the spirit of the salary cap (parity). Now that I'm more cynical- did the PA push for it because they didn't want players buried (a tiny share of the union affected) or did owners push it, possibly because a salary like Redden's didn't count towards the players HRR share when he was in the AHL? I'm speculating here, so I'd appreciate if someone could shed light.

 

[mouser]

Kind of unrelated, but does anyone know/remember if buried players counted towards the HRR split and what side pushed for the rule that was then introduced? Back in 2012/13 I was a naive 19 year old who believed that the rule was changed to fit the spirit of the salary cap (parity). Now that I'm more cynical- did the PA push for it because they didn't want players buried (a tiny share of the union affected) or did owners push it, possibly because a salary like Redden's didn't count towards the players HRR share when he was in the AHL? I'm speculating here, so I'd appreciate if someone could shed light.

I think it was a mix of different things. One key factor you didn’t mention is Re-entry Waivers.

Under the 2005 CBA which introduced the Salary Cap:
- Redden’s full cap hit was off the books when buried in the AHL. (NHL hates, PA likes)
- Redden’s full salary was not included in the Player Share of HRR split. (NHL hates, PA likes)
- Redden couldn’t be recalled from the AHL without going through Re-Entry Waivers. Where any team could claim him for only half of his salary and cap hit. (PA hates, unsure on NHL position)

Re-Entry Waivers meant once a bad contract was buried in the AHL the team would often never recall the player due to the risk of 50% dead cap if the player was claimed on Re-Entry waivers. That’s bad for the Player as we saw with Redden as he was still a NHL caliber player, but not providing enough value relative to his cap AAV—shutting him out of the NHL.

The 2013 CBA eliminated Re-Entry Waivers, but also placed a limit on how much cap can be buried in the AHL per contract.

Overall I think the NHL “gained more” overall with the 2013 changes. But the elimination of Re-Entry Waivers was a big benefit to the PA and Players. If we still had the same rules in place today I suspect a lot more players would be buried in the AHL for cap reasons with no hope of being recalled,

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Agreed. The fact that guys playing outside the NHL but still earning their NHL salaries didn't count against the Players' Share was a huge thorn for owners once they realized 57/43 for the players was more like 60/40.

Granted, eliminating re-entry waivers wasn't a bad idea but how cap hits are now figured when guys on 1-way deals go to the minors is an inane idea. But, it's the NHL and the NHLPA and I expect when there's a "problem" to solve, they'll take the most simple solution and look for all kinds of ways to make it more complex so that it no longer solves the original problem but instead creates a new problem neither side ever thought about.

Back to NMCs: they were not mentioned in the 1995 CBA. They were mentioned in the 2005 CBA, and 11.8(b) stated that such a clause prevented "the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's buy-out and terminations rights as set forth in this Agreement." That CBA was silent, though, on whether they applied in the case of an Expansion Draft or any other reallocation draft, and even the 2013 version originally was silent on it. That had to be decided when Vegas came into the league, instead of someone using a little foresight to say this might happen, maybe we should account for it now. [Yes, I still have a list of these things that will eventually come up.]

Added tidbit: until recently, if a player was traded before his NTC took effect, it was not binding on the acquiring team. That was specifically mentioned in the 1995 CBA and then repeated in the 2005 and 2013 CBAs. The 1995 CBA stated the acquiring team could separately agree to a NTC; the 2005 CBA stated the acquiring team could choose to be bound by the un-vested NTC. [Which makes sense, seeing as how contract renegotiations were prohibited starting in 2005, and agreeing to a different NTC would effectively be re-negotiating the contract.]

 

[Jets4Life]

Teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton are at a huge disadvantage due to NTC/NMC. I've heard most NHL stars have Winnipeg as the #1 destination for NTC.

 

[rojac]

Teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton are at a huge disadvantage due to NTC/NMC. I've heard most NHL stars have Winnipeg as the #1 destination for NTC.

Then perhaps those owners should move their teams to somewhere players want to go.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton are at a huge disadvantage due to NTC/NMC. I've heard most NHL stars have Winnipeg as the #1 destination for NTC.

That's true of course, but what are you going to do?

Teams like Florida are often seen as desirable by players, but hasn't led to much on-ice success.

Trying to get rid of NTC/NMCs would be a massive battle, likely another labour stoppage - and I suspect the majority of the league doesn't have an issue with them anyways.

 

[Jets4Life]

That's true of course, but what are you going to do?

Teams like Florida are often seen as desirable by players, but hasn't led to much on-ice success.

Trying to get rid of NTC/NMCs would be a massive battle, likely another labour stoppage - and I suspect the majority of the league doesn't have an issue with them anyways.

On the flip side, we can look at Tampa Bay, and the success they have had for over a decade. Players will always want to play in either large American cities, and especially states with hardly any income tax like Nevada, Florida, and Texas.

The NTC/NMC are definitely hurting Canadian teams due to the higher tax rates in Canada. Many players in Edmonton and other cities commented on their dislike of "being under the microscope" in many Canadian cities. Outside of Buffalo, that simply is not the case in the USA.

 

[Jets4Life]

Then perhaps those owners should move their teams to somewhere players want to go.

Like Kitchener-Waterloo?

To think, you guys nearly had a team in 2009. Balsillie just didn't play his cards right, while True North did.

 

[rojac]

I’m a third generation Leafs fan on both sides of my family, dating back to the 1930s. I have no interest in seeing a second team in Southern Ontario.

 

[patnyrnyg]

As a side, Eddie Collins the 2B for the famous 1919 White Sox had written into his contract at some point that he could not be transfered without his approval. When the Whte Sox wanted to buy him from the A's (I believe he was with the A's at the time) Collins would only approve with a new contract. When I learned this, it made me wonder if he had the first "NMC" in pro sports history.

 

[Saskatoon]

On the flip side, we can look at Tampa Bay, and the success they have had for over a decade. Players will always want to play in either large American cities, and especially states with hardly any income tax like Nevada, Florida, and Texas.

The NTC/NMC are definitely hurting Canadian teams due to the higher tax rates in Canada. Many players in Edmonton and other cities commented on their dislike of "being under the microscope" in many Canadian cities. Outside of Buffalo, that simply is not the case in the USA.

Serious question - did Tampa attract a lot of big name people via free agency?

In my head Tampa was built mostly through the draft and trades.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton are at a huge disadvantage due to NTC/NMC. I've heard most NHL stars have Winnipeg as the #1 destination for NTC.

That's just how it goes. Those owners can try and push to have no trade clauses removed or restricted in the next CBA (for instance, in the NBA a player needs to have spent 8 years in the NBA and at least 4 years with the team he is signing with in order to be eligible for a no trade clause) but the players won't be happy and the owners would have to give something else up.

 

[Jets4Life]

Serious question - did Tampa attract a lot of big name people via free agency?

In my head Tampa was built mostly through the draft and trades.

It's very easy to convince a player to sign with a team in a state (especially southern US), with low tax rates). I guarantee that teams like Vegas, Tampa, Florida, Dallas, and Carolina are not on many players list of teams not to be traded to. Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Buffalo, and Calgary are not so lucky.

 

[jetsmooseice]

Maybe the number of NTC destinations should be restricted? I get if a player has a specific, valid reason to not want a certain team or two, but I get the impression that a lot of players just NTC everywhere that gets snow and maybe the California teams (taxes). Which is bogus IMO. There should be a level playing field.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Maybe the number of NTC destinations should be restricted? I get if a player has a specific, valid reason to not want a certain team or two, but I get the impression that a lot of players just NTC everywhere that gets snow and maybe the California teams (taxes). Which is bogus IMO. There should be a level playing field.

Let's face it - even if there's a limit on the number of teams that can be on a no-trade list, Winnipeg is still going to come close to the top of that list.

But I don't know sometimes how much effect having a NTC (or not) really is. Let's think back to Jacob Trouba - he didn't have a no trade list. But teams only wanted him if he would sign long-term, and his agent let it be known he'd only sign long-term in New York.

 

[jetsmooseice]

Let's face it - even if there's a limit on the number of teams that can be on a no-trade list, Winnipeg is still going to come close to the top of that list.

But I don't know sometimes how much effect having a NTC (or not) really is. Let's think back to Jacob Trouba - he didn't have a no trade list. But teams only wanted him if he would sign long-term, and his agent let it be known he'd only sign long-term in New York.

I agree Winnipeg will always get the short end of the stick, but even so... I don't know that lazy, blanket "no Canada and Buffalo" type NTCs are exactly good for the game. I mean, growing the game is a two way street, how many decisions have been made with a view to promoting hockey in Raleigh or Sunrise or whatever... that should extend to Calgary and Winnipeg too.

Not much that can be done regarding the second point, someone like Pierre Luc Dubois seems like he's in a similar situation being dead set on becoming a Hab. But that's his prerogative and that's fine, that's not related to NTCs.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I agree Winnipeg will always get the short end of the stick, but even so... I don't know that lazy, blanket "no Canada and Buffalo" type NTCs are exactly good for the game. I mean, growing the game is a two way street, how many decisions have been made with a view to promoting hockey in Raleigh or Sunrise or whatever... that should extend to Calgary and Winnipeg too.

Not much that can be done regarding the second point, someone like Pierre Luc Dubois seems like he's in a similar situation being dead set on becoming a Hab. But that's his prerogative and that's fine, that's not related to NTCs.

Remember how Evander Kane was dead set on getting out of Winnipeg - and now he's gone and signed in Edmonton. Winnipeg (and Ottawa, and Buffalo, etc.) being the cities that they are is just something those teams have to deal with.

If you can build a team with good culture and success on the ice players will come. Maybe not all of them, but you only need to fill a 23 man roster. Remember Paul Stastny agreed to come to Winnipeg twice, waiving a NTC each time.

 

[Jets4Life]

Maybe the number of NTC destinations should be restricted? I get if a player has a specific, valid reason to not want a certain team or two, but I get the impression that a lot of players just NTC everywhere that gets snow and maybe the California teams (taxes). Which is bogus IMO. There should be a level playing field.

California actually has less taxes than New York, and NYC is one of the top destinations for players. I have a feeling that it's a combination of things that attract players to a certain market. Warm weather, low taxes, big cities, anonymity....things that small market Canadian teams are lacking.

Remember how Evander Kane was dead set on getting out of Winnipeg - and now he's gone and signed in Edmonton. Winnipeg (and Ottawa, and Buffalo, etc.) being the cities that they are is just something those teams have to deal with.

In fairness, after the COVID-19 vaccination fiasco in San Jose,. Kane did not really have much say on where he wanted to go. The Oilers took a chance on him, and so far things have worked out for him.

 

[patnyrnyg]

That's just how it goes. Those owners can try and push to have no trade clauses removed or restricted in the next CBA (for instance, in the NBA a player needs to have spent 8 years in the NBA and at least 4 years with the team he is signing with in order to be eligible for a no trade clause) but the players won't be happy and the owners would have to give something else up.

I can see the owners actually getting this. How many players have NTC/NMC? Maybe ~100 league wide? Think most of the rank and file would be fine with it.