THG - Do stick boys get NTC?

[bluesbro]

Hopefully it's ok to post this:
https://youtu.be/5Mj73J-n_Is?si=q4SvRAx5JkR7LpZZ

Curious to see where StL is on the listing.

[UMR-alum-05]

I watched this video this morning.

The teams are willfully entering into these agreements. I don't really understand the consternation.

[Mr Novaks]

I know that the NHL PA will fight this to the very end, but in my opinion anyone who asks for a trade automatically voids his no trade clause. Completely.

The owners need to push very strongly for this at the next CBA. Players wanting to be traded to one or two select teams is the definition of entitlement. What happens if a guy says these are the only three teams I wanna be traded to, and then all three of those teams say, sorry, not interested and don’t even consider making an offer?? Then you have a disgruntled player that is sure to cause locker room issues. Would you wanna play on a team where your star player doesn’t wanna be there?

The past couple of years I’ve seen more players requesting trades than ever before. When a lot of these NTC‘s were signed, we didn’t have 10 or 12 guys a year requesting trades.

[TheJackBurton]

I know that the NHL PA will fight this to the very end, but in my opinion anyone who asks for a trade automatically voids his no trade clause. Completely.

The owners need to push very strongly for this at the next CBA. Players wanting to be traded to one or two select teams is the definition of entitlement. What happens if a guy says these are the only three teams I wanna be traded to, and then all three of those teams say, sorry, not interested and don’t even consider making an offer?? Then you have a disgruntled player that is sure to cause locker room issues. Would you wanna play on a team where your star player doesn’t wanna be there?

The past couple of years I’ve seen more players requesting trades than ever before. When a lot of these NTC‘s were signed, we didn’t have 10 or 12 guys a year requesting trades.

I do wonder if there are actually more trade requests, or there are just more leaks. It would seem the agents are taking a much more active approach of getting their clients out of markets that either can't or won't pay the high salaries and working to get them to teams that either will or on teams where the tax liabilities and marketing opportunities are greatly increased.

The best way to poison the well is to make the request public, and then to leak the amount of teams and get public sentiment to want that player gone and essentially force the trade.

[zoiks]

The simple fix for this is give the players are higher % of league revenue. Teams can’t pay star players their entire market value in cash while having enough cap space left to fill out a roster to be a competitive team. This causes teams to have to compensate players with NTC’s instead of cash. Just pay the players their actual value.

[Army's Mom]

The simple fix for this is give the players are higher % of league revenue. Teams can’t pay star values their entire market value in cash while having enough cap space left to fill out a roster to be a competitive team. This causes teams to have to compensate players with NTC’s instead of cash. Just pay the players their actual value.

That wouldn't work. Teams will continue to spend to the increased cap and use NTCs and NMCs to give themselves a competitive advantage. This wasn't a problem when there wasnt a cap, because owners who wanted an advantage couls just outspend others. Now, they have to offer non-salary incentives instead, like trade protection and bonus structures.

The best solution to the NTC-trade-demand scenario is to specify a standard process like others have suggested (maybe the clause expires fully or becomes half as restrictive or something).

[Stlcardsblues]

Hopefully it's ok to post this:
https://youtu.be/5Mj73J-n_Is?si=q4SvRAx5JkR7LpZZ

Curious to see where StL is on the listing.

For all the griping I see about Armstrong handing them out like candy, I was amused that the Blues were among the teams giving out the fewest on his first board (didn’t watch the second board).

[UMR-alum-05]

It stands to reason that teams will start trying to negotiate out clauses into these contracts for when players demand trades.

For example, if a player demands a trade outside the base terms of his contract, the player has to provide a 20 team list or your NMC or NTC is voided completely.

Something along these lines. There has to be a minimum amount of teams you must submit if you're going to demand a trade. The trade demand should be viewed as a breech of contract so it triggers an out for the team.

[clemonsonroots]

I know that the NHL PA will fight this to the very end, but in my opinion anyone who asks for a trade automatically voids his no trade clause. Completely.

The owners need to push very strongly for this at the next CBA. Players wanting to be traded to one or two select teams is the definition of entitlement. What happens if a guy says these are the only three teams I wanna be traded to, and then all three of those teams say, sorry, not interested and don’t even consider making an offer?? Then you have a disgruntled player that is sure to cause locker room issues. Would you wanna play on a team where your star player doesn’t wanna be there?

The past couple of years I’ve seen more players requesting trades than ever before. When a lot of these NTC‘s were signed, we didn’t have 10 or 12 guys a year requesting trades.

Absolutely this

[bluesbro]

Hopefully it's ok to post this:
https://youtu.be/5Mj73J-n_Is?si=q4SvRAx5JkR7LpZZ

Curious to see where StL is on the listing.

For all the griping I see about Armstrong handing them out like candy, I was amused that the Blues were among the teams giving out the fewest on his first board (didn’t watch the second board).

Exactly what I wanted to know about. I was expecting alot more.
https://youtu.be/2kSPVXHBe4A?si=16ZhfDm4u5Mw2Era

[IsDurbanodoingtime]

It stands to reason that teams will start trying to negotiate out clauses into these contracts for when players demand trades.

For example, if a player demands a trade outside the base terms of his contract, the player has to provide a 20 team list or your NMC or NTC is voided completely.

Something along these lines. There has to be a minimum amount of teams you must submit if you're going to demand a trade. The trade demand should be viewed as a breech of contract so it triggers an out for the team.

In essence, the power is already there. There is nothing preventing stevie y from telling larkin you signed a contract. I am not honoring your trade request. Show up and fulfill your contract terms. Larkin is then forced with either abrogating his agreement with the wings refusing to release his rights until given proper comp or larkin agreeing to waive his ntc list. And there is nothing preventing a team from inserting a clauae nullifying a ntc list if a player asks for a trade. Just a question of bargaining power and leverage between the parties.

[UMR-alum-05]

It stands to reason that teams will start trying to negotiate out clauses into these contracts for when players demand trades.

For example, if a player demands a trade outside the base terms of his contract, the player has to provide a 20 team list or your NMC or NTC is voided completely.

Something along these lines. There has to be a minimum amount of teams you must submit if you're going to demand a trade. The trade demand should be viewed as a breech of contract so it triggers an out for the team.

In essence, the power is already there. There is nothing preventing stevie y from telling larkin you signed a contract. I am not honoring your trade request. Show up and fulfill your contract terms. Larkin is then forced with either abrogating his agreement with the wings refusing to release his rights until given proper comp or larkin agreeing to waive his ntc list. And there is nothing preventing a team from inserting a clauae nullifying a ntc list if a player asks for a trade. Just a question of bargaining power and leverage between the parties.

That's what I'm saying. Moving forward I bet you see teams write these clauses into contracts.

What Larkin did was ridiculous. He frankly embarrassed himself with his ridiculous approach. "Trade me to one of these three teams..." It's like get out of here dude. You signed the contract. If you want out of it then give the team a fair shake in the process to get appropriate value.

[zoiks]

It stands to reason that teams will start trying to negotiate out clauses into these contracts for when players demand trades.

For example, if a player demands a trade outside the base terms of his contract, the player has to provide a 20 team list or your NMC or NTC is voided completely.

Something along these lines. There has to be a minimum amount of teams you must submit if you're going to demand a trade. The trade demand should be viewed as a breech of contract so it triggers an out for the team.

In essence, the power is already there. There is nothing preventing stevie y from telling larkin you signed a contract. I am not honoring your trade request. Show up and fulfill your contract terms. Larkin is then forced with either abrogating his agreement with the wings refusing to release his rights until given proper comp or larkin agreeing to waive his ntc list. And there is nothing preventing a team from inserting a clauae nullifying a ntc list if a player asks for a trade. Just a question of bargaining power and leverage between the parties.

No team wants a player on the team that has publicly stated they don’t want to be there. The player will not give anywhere near max effort, and the effect that has on the rest of the team all but guarantees a bad team. Unless owners collude, which is illegal, the players have all the power in pro sports. No fan is paying money due to interest in an owner or front office, so the players should have all the power, as they’re the product.

Voiding a NTC when a player with one requests a trade also accomplishes nothing as no team is going to trade for a player that doesn’t want to play for their team.

The only fix for the NHL’s current issue is to greatly increase the % of revenue the players can receive. Teams could pay top players their actual market value in cash while still being able to fill out a roster for a contender without having to give NTC’s as incentives in place of cash.

[dhsux]

Yep GM's need to look at their guy and tell them sorry the value isn't there and we have a contract to pay you and for you to play hockey.

Or they can work it out like DA did with Vlad, who remained reasonable with patience.

It won't take many of these stars to get "stuck" where they are to counter the leverage they seem to be presently holding over management....imo.

[dhsux]

It stands to reason that teams will start trying to negotiate out clauses into these contracts for when players demand trades.

For example, if a player demands a trade outside the base terms of his contract, the player has to provide a 20 team list or your NMC or NTC is voided completely.

Something along these lines. There has to be a minimum amount of teams you must submit if you're going to demand a trade. The trade demand should be viewed as a breech of contract so it triggers an out for the team.

In essence, the power is already there. There is nothing preventing stevie y from telling larkin you signed a contract. I am not honoring your trade request. Show up and fulfill your contract terms. Larkin is then forced with either abrogating his agreement with the wings refusing to release his rights until given proper comp or larkin agreeing to waive his ntc list. And there is nothing preventing a team from inserting a clauae nullifying a ntc list if a player asks for a trade. Just a question of bargaining power and leverage between the parties.

No team wants a player on the team that has publicly stated they don’t want to be there. The player will not give anywhere near max effort, and the effect that has on the rest of the team all but guarantees a bad team. Unless owners collude, which is illegal, the players have all the power in pro sports. No fan is paying money due to interest in an owner or front office, so the players should have all the power, as they’re the product.

I disagree.

i think your version does indeed play out in enough cases but the alternative version would resonate with fans if enough GM's do it.

[zoiks]

It stands to reason that teams will start trying to negotiate out clauses into these contracts for when players demand trades.

For example, if a player demands a trade outside the base terms of his contract, the player has to provide a 20 team list or your NMC or NTC is voided completely.

Something along these lines. There has to be a minimum amount of teams you must submit if you're going to demand a trade. The trade demand should be viewed as a breech of contract so it triggers an out for the team.

In essence, the power is already there. There is nothing preventing stevie y from telling larkin you signed a contract. I am not honoring your trade request. Show up and fulfill your contract terms. Larkin is then forced with either abrogating his agreement with the wings refusing to release his rights until given proper comp or larkin agreeing to waive his ntc list. And there is nothing preventing a team from inserting a clauae nullifying a ntc list if a player asks for a trade. Just a question of bargaining power and leverage between the parties.

No team wants a player on the team that has publicly stated they don’t want to be there. The player will not give anywhere near max effort, and the effect that has on the rest of the team all but guarantees a bad team. Unless owners collude, which is illegal, the players have all the power in pro sports. No fan is paying money due to interest in an owner or front office, so the players should have all the power, as they’re the product.

I disagree.

i think your version does indeed play out in enough cases but the alternative version would resonate with fans if enough GM's do it.

MacKinnon is paid $12.6m with a full NMC for instance. There is no way you’ll convince me his actual cash market value isn’t more than twice that amount. The players, and never the owners or front office, are the only people being forced to take pay cuts in order to put together a contending team.

So if a player like MacKinnon has given up a lot of cash compensation and taken a NMC instead, why shouldn’t he be able to leverage the NMC in any way he wants?