Let's talk about Larkin

[Bubble4427]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

There is a big difference.
When the team asks a player to wave his NTC, many times it’s because the team sees a chance to improve the team (either short term or long term). The team is not doing it because they dislike the player.

When a player wants out….they are choosing to quit on the team because they don’t WANT to be there anymore. Parayko refused to waive his NTC, that doesn’t mean that the Blues stopped liking him as a player or person. The team saw an opportunity to possibly improve and attempted to do that. It doesn’t mean that they hate the player moving forward.

When the player wants out…they have basically stood up and said….”I hate the team/organization and I want to leave.” Big difference IMO.
Kinda tough to rally around a teammate that you KNOW doesn't want to be there.
Screw Larkin …he should sit and rot or expand his list.

Did Larkin go to the press?

It doesn’t matter who went to the press. He WANTS out.

[CheapSeat]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

I agree with most of this, but to me if you go to the team and request a trade. To me that voids the NTC/NMC. The team should be able to shop you to anyone. That at least gives the team some teeth to get fair value.

[Old_Goat]

First things first: Pull the "C" off that sweater immediately. There really is no need to explain to the him, his teammates nor the fans why. He says he wants to quit the team.

And just because NMCs are available so what, you do not have to do them, so just don't. If a player demands that, then that should give a team pause.

Huh?!?!? Goat, you make a lot of presumptions. First, how reliable is what is 'posted"? Second, rather than consider the worst, even of all is I-chatter is legit (90-plus NOT) perhaps his teammates quietly applaud for standing up? Third, please directly source when, in his words, "he wants to quit the team."

Is it a fact that he has requested to be traded? -- Yes
Has he denied that request? -- No
So, no I am not making any presumptions (guess), nor assumptions (non-factual conclusion). I'm giving my opinion. And it is formed by by a lot of experience and study of leadership and organizational development in broad array of organizations. Did he specifically say, "I quit the team?" No, but his actions and other statements are tantamount to that very same thing. He "rang the bell."
What about those teammates whom are quietly not applauding?
And for those whom do, well that could be mutiny?
Once again: You pull the "C" and keep playing him and keep paying him. And if he stops playing, then you stop paying. It is in his best interest to give a full effort on the ice to ensure that his value remains as high as possible. It's in no member of the organization's best interest to disparage the other side. No need to explain. You go about it as professionals.
In the meantime, you give the "C" to someone whom wants to be on the Team. You cannot effectively lead if you don't want to be with them.

[TheJackBurton]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

I agree with most of this, but to me if you go to the team and request a trade. To me that voids the NTC/NMC. The team should be able to shop you to anyone. That at least gives the team some teeth to get fair value.

That was my original stance on it, but the players will never agree to it, so a reasonable agreement will have to be made.

[BleedingBleu]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

There is a big difference.
When the team asks a player to wave his NTC, many times it’s because the team sees a chance to improve the team (either short term or long term). The team is not doing it because they dislike the player.

When a player wants out….they are choosing to quit on the team because they don’t WANT to be there anymore. Parayko refused to waive his NTC, that doesn’t mean that the Blues stopped liking him as a player or person. The team saw an opportunity to possibly improve and attempted to do that. It doesn’t mean that they hate the player moving forward.

When the player wants out…they have basically stood up and said….”I hate the team/organization and I want to leave.” Big difference IMO.
Kinda tough to rally around a teammate that you KNOW doesn't want to be there.
Screw Larkin …he should sit and rot or expand his list.

Did Larkin go to the press?

It doesn’t matter who went to the press. He WANTS out.

It obviously does, because no one outside of him, his agent, and the Front Offuce would even know…

[BleedingBleu]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

It’s not apples and oranges at all. It’s a contract clause that is provided. How it is used is up to the involved parties.

The team wants an asset locked up for their desired time and cap hit. The player gets security in terms of job and location. There’s nothing else to it. The NTC/NMC benefits the organization because they move value from elsewhere, and the player accepts the NTC/NMC because it gives them control over their career.

Well, here’s that control unfolding. If your an executive whining about the use of that clause they agreed to, then you only have yourself to blame.

That’s the deal. That’s the contract they agreed to. Write a better contract.

[BleedingBleu]

Steve-Y can obviously still get value. It’s his fault he’s publicly asking for Wyatt Johnston & Matthew Boldy.

[TheJackBurton]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

It’s not apples and oranges at all. It’s a contract clause that is provided. How it is used is up to the involved parties.

The team wants an asset locked up for their desired time and cap hit. The player gets security in terms of job and location. There’s nothing else to it. The NTC/NMC benefits the organization because they move value from elsewhere, and the player accepts the NTC/NMC because it gives them control over their career.

Well, here’s that control unfolding. If your an executive whining about the use of that clause they agreed to, then you only have yourself to blame.

That’s the deal. That’s the contract they agreed to. Write a better contract.

The difference being is the team isn't/wasn't the one actively pursuing the trade, the player is. He's stating that he is voiding the No trade part of his no trade clause. He shouldn't then get to dictate that he only gets to go to 2 or 3 teams.

[BleedingBleu]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

It’s not apples and oranges at all. It’s a contract clause that is provided. How it is used is up to the involved parties.

The team wants an asset locked up for their desired time and cap hit. The player gets security in terms of job and location. There’s nothing else to it. The NTC/NMC benefits the organization because they move value from elsewhere, and the player accepts the NTC/NMC because it gives them control over their career.

Well, here’s that control unfolding. If your an executive whining about the use of that clause they agreed to, then you only have yourself to blame.

That’s the deal. That’s the contract they agreed to. Write a better contract.

The difference being is the team isn't/wasn't the one actively pursuing the trade, the player is. He's stating that he is voiding the No trade part of his no trade clause. He shouldn't then get to dictate that he only gets to go to 2 or 3 teams.

Why? It’s literally in his contract. Next time, they should provide a higher percentage of teams required to be on the list.

They probably benefited with under market costs for production and they gave him a clause that allows him to control who he plays for

[Army's Mom]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

It’s not apples and oranges at all. It’s a contract clause that is provided. How it is used is up to the involved parties.

The team wants an asset locked up for their desired time and cap hit. The player gets security in terms of job and location. There’s nothing else to it. The NTC/NMC benefits the organization because they move value from elsewhere, and the player accepts the NTC/NMC because it gives them control over their career.

Well, here’s that control unfolding. If your an executive whining about the use of that clause they agreed to, then you only have yourself to blame.

That’s the deal. That’s the contract they agreed to. Write a better contract.

The difference being is the team isn't/wasn't the one actively pursuing the trade, the player is. He's stating that he is voiding the No trade part of his no trade clause. He shouldn't then get to dictate that he only gets to go to 2 or 3 teams.

Why? It’s literally in his contract. Next time, they should provide a higher percentage of teams required to be on the list.

They probably benefited with under market costs for production and they gave him a clause that allows him to control who he plays for

Them benefiting from under market costs is irrelevant, since it was negotiated and agreed to by Larkin in good faith.

They didn't give him a clause that "allows him to control who he plays for" - they gave him a clause that forbids them from trading him - something he now is asking for. The clause doesn't say "we'll trade you to whomever you wish for, whenever you wish for it, regardless of return" because that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he's asking for the "no trades" part of the clause to be voided. He shouldn't get to then dictate its only voided with regards to one team, or three teams, or five teams. Otherwise, where does it end? "Trade me, but only to a team my best buddy plays for, provided they're not trading you any of their good players, because I really want to win. And also, you must retain the maximum amount allowed of my salary, so that they have maximum cap space to sign other players to facilitate my winning, because I hate you."

Again, that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he should lose the protection of the NTC entirely. But I'm reasonable. I'd settle for half the league - let him veto rebuilding teams or the west coast or Canada.

[BleedingBleu]

Them benefiting from under market costs is irrelevant, since it was negotiated and agreed to by Larkin in good faith.

They didn't give him a clause that "allows him to control who he plays for" - they gave him a clause that forbids them from trading him - something he now is asking for. The clause doesn't say "we'll trade you to whomever you wish for, whenever you wish for it, regardless of return" because that would be silly.

The No Trade Clause forbids them from trading him… from where he doesn’t want to go. He can update to based on their contractual agreement.

Just because he asks them for a trade to somewhere doesn’t mean they are required to oblige.

By requesting the trade, he's asking for the "no trades" part of the clause to be voided. He shouldn't get to then dictate its only voided with regards to one team, or three teams, or five teams. Otherwise, where does it end? "Trade me, but only to a team my best buddy plays for, provided they're not trading you any of their good players, because I really want to win. And also, you must retain the maximum amount allowed of my salary, so that they have maximum cap space to sign other players to facilitate my winning, because I hate you."

Again, that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he should lose the protection of the NTC entirely. But I'm reasonable. I'd settle for half the league - let him veto rebuilding teams or the west coast or Canada.

The bolded isn’t remotely true. I’d love for you to spell out where in the contract language “no trades part be voided.”

And yes, he should get to dictate where he gets traded… That is what the ‘No Trade Clause’ (NTC) is. A legally-bound acceptance to where he could be traded. I assume his contract doesn’t require him place any teams on his NTC at this point of the contract if he didn’t want to.

The only way he is legally forced to provide a list is if the contract called for him to. It doesn’t appear to. It appears Yzerman is trying to coerce him to expand his list beyond what he’s legally obligated to fulfill so the Detroit Redwings could maximize the return they feel is best for them.

Dylan Larkin couldn’t give a flying F what comes back. Not his problem. That’s a Steve-Y problem.

Minnesota needs a Center. There’s a fit. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Matt Boldy. Minnesota doesn’t need to follow through with that trade. Also, Steve-Y can’t get a deal w/Florida nor Vegas. He pleads w/Larkin to expand his NTC list; which Larkin isn’t required to do.

Larkin obliged and provides Dallas to the list. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Wyatt Johnston. I imagine the Dallas GM pressed the phone receiver up to his buttock and ripped the best fart he could muster before laughing and hanging up. Dallas doesn’t need to follow through with that trade.

When does it end? Ask Pat Verbeek what happens when you’re late to the party everyone could see from a mile away. It ends when teams get smarter about their contract language.

This isn’t something new to sports. It happens all the time. A player asks for a trade and either the organization obliges or tells them to suck it up they’re under contract. It really is that simple.

[CheapSeat]

Them benefiting from under market costs is irrelevant, since it was negotiated and agreed to by Larkin in good faith.

They didn't give him a clause that "allows him to control who he plays for" - they gave him a clause that forbids them from trading him - something he now is asking for. The clause doesn't say "we'll trade you to whomever you wish for, whenever you wish for it, regardless of return" because that would be silly.

The No Trade Clause forbids them from trading him… from where he doesn’t want to go. He can update to based on their contractual agreement.

Just because he asks them for a trade to somewhere doesn’t mean they are required to oblige.

By requesting the trade, he's asking for the "no trades" part of the clause to be voided. He shouldn't get to then dictate its only voided with regards to one team, or three teams, or five teams. Otherwise, where does it end? "Trade me, but only to a team my best buddy plays for, provided they're not trading you any of their good players, because I really want to win. And also, you must retain the maximum amount allowed of my salary, so that they have maximum cap space to sign other players to facilitate my winning, because I hate you."

Again, that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he should lose the protection of the NTC entirely. But I'm reasonable. I'd settle for half the league - let him veto rebuilding teams or the west coast or Canada.

The bolded isn’t remotely true. I’d love for you to spell out where in the contract language “no trades part be voided.”

And yes, he should get to dictate where he gets traded… That is what the ‘No Trade Clause’ (NTC) is. A legally-bound acceptance to where he could be traded. I assume his contract doesn’t require him place any teams on his NTC at this point of the contract if he didn’t want to.

The only way he is legally forced to provide a list is if the contract called for him to. It doesn’t appear to. It appears Yzerman is trying to coerce him to expand his list beyond what he’s legally obligated to fulfill so the Detroit Redwings could maximize the return they feel is best for them.

Dylan Larkin couldn’t give a flying F what comes back. Not his problem. That’s a Steve-Y problem.

Minnesota needs a Center. There’s a fit. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Matt Boldy. Minnesota doesn’t need to follow through with that trade. Also, Steve-Y can’t get a deal w/Florida nor Vegas. He pleads w/Larkin to expand his NTC list; which Larkin isn’t required to do.

Larkin obliged and provides Dallas to the list. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Wyatt Johnston. I imagine the Dallas GM pressed the phone receiver up to his buttock and ripped the best fart he could muster before laughing and hanging up. Dallas doesn’t need to follow through with that trade.

When does it end? Ask Pat Verbeek what happens when you’re late to the party everyone could see from a mile away. It ends when teams get smarter about their contract language.

This isn’t something new to sports. It happens all the time. A player asks for a trade and either the organization obliges or tells them to suck it up they’re under contract. It really is that simple.

Is he asking for a trade? Than that voids the no trade clause!

[Army's Mom]

Them benefiting from under market costs is irrelevant, since it was negotiated and agreed to by Larkin in good faith.

They didn't give him a clause that "allows him to control who he plays for" - they gave him a clause that forbids them from trading him - something he now is asking for. The clause doesn't say "we'll trade you to whomever you wish for, whenever you wish for it, regardless of return" because that would be silly.

The No Trade Clause forbids them from trading him… from where he doesn’t want to go. He can update to based on their contractual agreement.

Just because he asks them for a trade to somewhere doesn’t mean they are required to oblige.

By requesting the trade, he's asking for the "no trades" part of the clause to be voided. He shouldn't get to then dictate its only voided with regards to one team, or three teams, or five teams. Otherwise, where does it end? "Trade me, but only to a team my best buddy plays for, provided they're not trading you any of their good players, because I really want to win. And also, you must retain the maximum amount allowed of my salary, so that they have maximum cap space to sign other players to facilitate my winning, because I hate you."

Again, that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he should lose the protection of the NTC entirely. But I'm reasonable. I'd settle for half the league - let him veto rebuilding teams or the west coast or Canada.

The bolded isn’t remotely true. I’d love for you to spell out where in the contract language “no trades part be voided.”

And yes, he should get to dictate where he gets traded… That is what the ‘No Trade Clause’ (NTC) is. A legally-bound acceptance to where he could be traded. I assume his contract doesn’t require him place any teams on his NTC at this point of the contract if he didn’t want to.

The only way he is legally forced to provide a list is if the contract called for him to. It doesn’t appear to. It appears Yzerman is trying to coerce him to expand his list beyond what he’s legally obligated to fulfill so the Detroit Redwings could maximize the return they feel is best for them.

Dylan Larkin couldn’t give a flying F what comes back. Not his problem. That’s a Steve-Y problem.

Minnesota needs a Center. There’s a fit. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Matt Boldy. Minnesota doesn’t need to follow through with that trade. Also, Steve-Y can’t get a deal w/Florida nor Vegas. He pleads w/Larkin to expand his NTC list; which Larkin isn’t required to do.

Larkin obliged and provides Dallas to the list. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Wyatt Johnston. I imagine the Dallas GM pressed the phone receiver up to his buttock and ripped the best fart he could muster before laughing and hanging up. Dallas doesn’t need to follow through with that trade.

When does it end? Ask Pat Verbeek what happens when you’re late to the party everyone could see from a mile away. It ends when teams get smarter about their contract language.

This isn’t something new to sports. It happens all the time. A player asks for a trade and either the organization obliges or tells them to suck it up they’re under contract. It really is that simple.

Is he asking for a trade? Than that voids the no trade clause!

Yup.

Larkin's request cant be honored without voiding the NTC (its a full ntc, not partial). Fact.

Thats what BB and others are missing. Everything after that is up for negotiation.

If you let Larkin replace his full NTC with a 28 team NTC unilaterally (which is functionally what has happened), where does it end?

Why NOT let Larkin dictate the return and salary match, if you let him dictate his new home?

The biggest difference between Verbeek and Yzerman? Yzerman SIGNED his player.

He had all the leverage. Take away the C. Larkin can sit at home not get paid. If he shows up to camp, play him every game amd bench him the millisecond he half (bleep) it.

[zamadoo]

Not sure if it's been posted, but I just read that Larkin will now accept a trade to Dallas.

[tfriede2]

Them benefiting from under market costs is irrelevant, since it was negotiated and agreed to by Larkin in good faith.

They didn't give him a clause that "allows him to control who he plays for" - they gave him a clause that forbids them from trading him - something he now is asking for. The clause doesn't say "we'll trade you to whomever you wish for, whenever you wish for it, regardless of return" because that would be silly.

The No Trade Clause forbids them from trading him… from where he doesn’t want to go. He can update to based on their contractual agreement.

Just because he asks them for a trade to somewhere doesn’t mean they are required to oblige.

By requesting the trade, he's asking for the "no trades" part of the clause to be voided. He shouldn't get to then dictate its only voided with regards to one team, or three teams, or five teams. Otherwise, where does it end? "Trade me, but only to a team my best buddy plays for, provided they're not trading you any of their good players, because I really want to win. And also, you must retain the maximum amount allowed of my salary, so that they have maximum cap space to sign other players to facilitate my winning, because I hate you."

Again, that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he should lose the protection of the NTC entirely. But I'm reasonable. I'd settle for half the league - let him veto rebuilding teams or the west coast or Canada.

The bolded isn’t remotely true. I’d love for you to spell out where in the contract language “no trades part be voided.”

And yes, he should get to dictate where he gets traded… That is what the ‘No Trade Clause’ (NTC) is. A legally-bound acceptance to where he could be traded. I assume his contract doesn’t require him place any teams on his NTC at this point of the contract if he didn’t want to.

The only way he is legally forced to provide a list is if the contract called for him to. It doesn’t appear to. It appears Yzerman is trying to coerce him to expand his list beyond what he’s legally obligated to fulfill so the Detroit Redwings could maximize the return they feel is best for them.

Dylan Larkin couldn’t give a flying F what comes back. Not his problem. That’s a Steve-Y problem.

Minnesota needs a Center. There’s a fit. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Matt Boldy. Minnesota doesn’t need to follow through with that trade. Also, Steve-Y can’t get a deal w/Florida nor Vegas. He pleads w/Larkin to expand his NTC list; which Larkin isn’t required to do.

Larkin obliged and provides Dallas to the list. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Wyatt Johnston. I imagine the Dallas GM pressed the phone receiver up to his buttock and ripped the best fart he could muster before laughing and hanging up. Dallas doesn’t need to follow through with that trade.

When does it end? Ask Pat Verbeek what happens when you’re late to the party everyone could see from a mile away. It ends when teams get smarter about their contract language.

This isn’t something new to sports. It happens all the time. A player asks for a trade and either the organization obliges or tells them to suck it up they’re under contract. It really is that simple.

Is he asking for a trade? Than that voids the no trade clause!

Yup.

Larkin's request cant be honored without voiding the NTC (its a full ntc, not partial). Fact.

Thats what BB and others are missing. Everything after that is up for negotiation.

If you let Larkin replace his full NTC with a 28 team NTC unilaterally (which is functionally what has happened), where does it end?

Why NOT let Larkin dictate the return and salary match, if you let him dictate his new home?

The biggest difference between Verbeek and Yzerman? Yzerman SIGNED his player.

He had all the leverage. Take away the C. Larkin can sit at home not get paid. If he shows up to camp, play him every game amd bench him the millisecond he half (bleep) it.

Larkin isn’t dictating anything. He requested a trade, and Yzerman is under no obligation to oblige. And functionally reducing his full NTC to a 28-team NTC is a benefit to Yzerman, not the other way around because, again, the Wings aren’t being forced to do anything.

Look at it this way. A player can hold a full NTC, allowing the player to veto any trade request put before him; if the GM still wants to trade said player, the player must approve. However, a team ALWAYS holds its own full NTC - the team must approve any trade request from a player. Larkin is free to ask, and Yzerman is free to reject; just like Yzerman is free to ask Larkin to be traded, and Larkin is free to reject. If a player holds a full NTC but the GM still tries to trade said player, does that request now void the team’s NTC and allow the player to force the team to trade him anywhere he wants? No…so why would it follow that Larkin’s trade request voids his NTC?

[moose-and-squirrel]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

It’s not apples and oranges at all. It’s a contract clause that is provided. How it is used is up to the involved parties.

The team wants an asset locked up for their desired time and cap hit. The player gets security in terms of job and location. There’s nothing else to it. The NTC/NMC benefits the organization because they move value from elsewhere, and the player accepts the NTC/NMC because it gives them control over their career.

Well, here’s that control unfolding. If your an executive whining about the use of that clause they agreed to, then you only have yourself to blame.

That’s the deal. That’s the contract they agreed to. Write a better contract.

The difference being is the team isn't/wasn't the one actively pursuing the trade, the player is. He's stating that he is voiding the No trade part of his no trade clause. He shouldn't then get to dictate that he only gets to go to 2 or 3 teams.

Why? It’s literally in his contract. Next time, they should provide a higher percentage of teams required to be on the list.

They probably benefited with under market costs for production and they gave him a clause that allows him to control who he plays for

Them benefiting from under market costs is irrelevant, since it was negotiated and agreed to by Larkin in good faith.

They didn't give him a clause that "allows him to control who he plays for" - they gave him a clause that forbids them from trading him - something he now is asking for. The clause doesn't say "we'll trade you to whomever you wish for, whenever you wish for it, regardless of return" because that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he's asking for the "no trades" part of the clause to be voided. He shouldn't get to then dictate its only voided with regards to one team, or three teams, or five teams. Otherwise, where does it end? "Trade me, but only to a team my best buddy plays for, provided they're not trading you any of their good players, because I really want to win. And also, you must retain the maximum amount allowed of my salary, so that they have maximum cap space to sign other players to facilitate my winning, because I hate you."

Again, that would be silly.

By requesting the trade, he should lose the protection of the NTC entirely. But I'm reasonable. I'd settle for half the league - let him veto rebuilding teams or the west coast or Canada.

this is an interesting, and reasonable, take. you want a NTC, fine. you got it.

you want to be traded, also fine. but now the terms are different.

wonder how many players would request a trade under these circumstances