How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

[DawgDad]

I'm speechless, which in this case is probably a good thing.

[somni]

I'm speechless, which in this case is probably a good thing.

I tried. But then I remembered Bomac saying the Parayko wanted to move back to his "home" in Edmonton and his deal was a "sign and trade".
It's easy to make up cr@p in order to drive a point.

[sdaltons]

Now it's a "time bomb" that he heard "in the news" that Kyrou would accept a trade to Montreal. Literally no reputable sources are talking about this and it is absolutely not worth any real attempt at a discussion, at least until that happens.

He also has no clue how NTCs work but often tries to educate us on what's going on.

[Plagers4Ever]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

I will admit that I have never actually read the rules related to this matter. But, I have heard in the past that Option 2 can occur IF, and only if, the club who currently owns the player's rights, at their sole discretion, grant the player written (and recorded with the NHL) permission to discuss contract terms with one (or more?) designated teams (but no others). Maybe this was incorrect, but I thought there were some "trade and sign/extend based upon previously unofficially negotiated terms" transactions completed using this method. Anyone else ever hear this?

[bluetunehead]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

I will admit that I have never actually read the rules related to this matter. But, I have heard in the past that Option 2 can occur IF, and only if, the club who currently owns the player's rights, at their sole discretion, grant the player written (and recorded with the NHL) permission to discuss contract terms with one (or more?) designated teams (but no others). Maybe this was incorrect, but I thought there were some "trade and sign/extend based upon previously unofficially negotiated terms" transactions completed using this method. Anyone else ever hear this?

Yes, teams can grant their player/agent permission to talk to other teams at their discretion. You see it come up with trades for guys nearing free agency sometimes. This was reportedly why we only ever traded Shattenkirk as a deadline rental to Washington and not to Edmonton for Taylor Hall as was the reported offer. When presented with the scenario Shattenkirk made it clear he would not sign an extension with Edmonton, so they didn’t make the deal.

But to be clear, the team has to give permission first. Any confirmed contact between the player/agent and the other team without permission would be considered tampering.

[a smell of green grass]

It seems to me that the execution of a NTC needs to be kept extremely confidential. Trades abandoned because of a NTC would generate a lot of angst and turmoil on the player bench as well as among the fans. Further, trades that "don't happen" should never become public knowledge. All of this can really harm a team's chemistry and cohesiveness.

And then along comes Kyrou's NTC, and somehow we all find out that Kyrou wouldn't mind being a Montreal Canadien. This stinks to high heaven. It hurts the teams chances of ever trading Kyrou (if that is what they want to do). It hurts the Blues chances of trading any player with a NTC. What team would want to deal with the Blues when loose lips can expose a failed trade?

Blues fans should demand to know how the rumor started, and if Kryou had anything to do with it.

[sdaltons]

Except we didn't find that out. Some rando speculated it and you took the bait. This really isn't this hard.

[bluetunehead]

It seems to me that the execution of a NTC needs to be kept extremely confidential. Trades abandoned because of a NTC would generate a lot of angst and turmoil on the player bench as well as among the fans. Further, trades that "don't happen" should never become public knowledge. All of this can really harm a team's chemistry and cohesiveness.

And then along comes Kyrou's NTC, and somehow we all find out that Kyrou wouldn't mind being a Montreal Canadien. This stinks to high heaven. It hurts the teams chances of ever trading Kyrou (if that is what they want to do). It hurts the Blues chances of trading any player with a NTC. What team would want to deal with the Blues when loose lips can expose a failed trade?

Blues fans should demand to know how the rumor started, and if Kryou had anything to do with it.

Nobody has ever said this but Montreal fans. There is no reputable source for this.

[Red7]

On the off chance he’s asking a serious question: NTC are not ironclad. They don’t mean the player can never be traded. It just means they have to consent to a trade. Often times, that consent is open to a price. For instance, even though Arenado wanted out of Colorado and wanted to come to the Cardinals, he was able to extract a guaranteed option year and another opt out. Some contracts have that compensation already built in. I’m not too familiar with the NHL cap rules and CBA. I don’t know what kind of compensation can be offered.

In the example above, let’s say the Blues and Canadiens have worked out a deal. The Blues CAN allow Kyrou and his representatives work something out. What that would look like under the NHL’s CBA, I don’t know.

[bluetunehead]

On the off chance he’s asking a serious question: NTC are not ironclad. They don’t mean the player can never be traded. It just means they have to consent to a trade. Often times, that consent is open to a price. For instance, even though Arenado wanted out of Colorado and wanted to come to the Cardinals, he was able to extract a guaranteed option year and another opt out. Some contracts have that compensation already built in. I’m not too familiar with the NHL cap rules and CBA. I don’t know what kind of compensation can be offered.

In the example above, let’s say the Blues and Canadiens have worked out a deal. The Blues CAN allow Kyrou and his representatives work something out. What that would look like under the NHL’s CBA, I don’t know.

NHL contracts cannot be reworked the way MLB contracts can. Once you sign it, you're stuck with it unless the team buys you out or you agree to mutually terminate the deal. So Kyrou couldn't agree to waive his NTC for any kind of financial incentives (unless you're talking about him discussing a new contract extension, but in his case he's years away from that possibility).

[TAFKAP]

On the off chance he’s asking a serious question: NTC are not ironclad. They don’t mean the player can never be traded. It just means they have to consent to a trade. Often times, that consent is open to a price. For instance, even though Arenado wanted out of Colorado and wanted to come to the Cardinals, he was able to extract a guaranteed option year and another opt out. Some contracts have that compensation already built in. I’m not too familiar with the NHL cap rules and CBA. I don’t know what kind of compensation can be offered.

In the example above, let’s say the Blues and Canadiens have worked out a deal. The Blues CAN allow Kyrou and his representatives work something out. What that would look like under the NHL’s CBA, I don’t know.

NHL contracts cannot be reworked the way MLB contracts can. Once you sign it, you're stuck with it unless the team buys you out or you agree to mutually terminate the deal. So Kyrou couldn't agree to waive his NTC for any kind of financial incentives (unless you're talking about him discussing a new contract extension, but in his case he's years away from that possibility).

This. The NHL killed that [shirt] years ago in the CBA. Isn't that why Oates got traded? He wanted to renegotiate his deal because others were getting more?