HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Mike Brophy: Get rid of NTC/NMC

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-18-2012, 07:52 AM
  #76
Koto
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 500
they should be kept.


but if you request a trade, im not entertaining the idea unless you unconditionally waive.

Koto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 08:12 AM
  #77
ttam103
Registered User
 
ttam103's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Most people with jobs have our own version of a NTC/NMC. We agree to work for this company in this location.

Lets say something in your personal life comes up and you need to move to a city, lets say closer to your sick mother. You ask for a transfer - does that suddenly mean he can move you anywhere?

NTC/NMCs are negotiated provision by provision by lawyers and reviewed by even more of them. If they wanted a "if you ask for a trade, you waive your NTC/NMC" part, it would be in there. if teams want it, you'll have to give up something else in return.

It be interesting to see stats on how many players with NTCs actually are the ones who ask for a trade.

ttam103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 08:13 AM
  #78
kasper11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 6,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koto View Post
they should be kept.


but if you request a trade, im not entertaining the idea unless you unconditionally waive.
Agreed.

Everyone wants players who are willing to take less money to stay with their team. But is it fair for a player to take less money on a long term deal only to be traded the next year? To a team that was willing to pay more than the player signed for?

But...if I am a GM, and a player with a NTC asks for a trade, I am basically requesting a full waiver and taking the best deal or I am not bothering to make any calls. Maybe, if a player wants to go to a playoff caliber team, and there are 20 or so options, you can probably work something out.

But someone like Nash is ridiculous. I want out, but you have to trade me to one of these few teams, regardless of what they offer or I will block the trade. Its garbage. You signed the long term deal, and the team made as much of a commitment as you. Yes, the team sucks, but if Nash sucked the team would have no choice but to pay him anyway (or buy him out for 2/3). Now you not only want out but you want to pick the team like you were a free agent. Too bad.

kasper11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 08:29 AM
  #79
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,551
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackJ View Post
It's about leveling the playing field and unclogging the rosters.
If it's about leveling the playing field then players with clauses do that. Managers have had free reign to ship most anyone anywhere w/o concern for that individual. And now whenever a player may hold the right to their fate, people get all up in arms. It's hypocritical. As for unclogging the roster, there are still many players without clauses that can be shipped out at a moment's notice. And the ones that do have it are ones that were given the perk by management. They have no room to complain when they hand it out and ask the player to take less money for it.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 08:40 AM
  #80
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyH3aven View Post
Yeah, I have a problem with players who sign contracts with NTC's and then later ask to be traded, only to use their NTC clause to try restrict possible trade partners and hand cuff the organization ala Rick Nash.

Also, to the people stating "nobody says you have to offer them a NTC", you're pretty damn wrong. They're so commonplace nowadays that if you want to sign a big FA or even keep your own players, a NTC is basically a formality at this point.
Teams alays have a choice. Don't sign him. If they've become the standard, its because the players have gotten smarter.

I just have a hard time seeing why posters expect the player to commit long term, but the organization doesn't have to. Is it because we like trades and anything that limits that is seen as bad?

Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 08:45 AM
  #81
Gardner McKay
Hey Hey...
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Abingdon, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,627
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/...e_tying_hands/

Reading this I really like this idea.. players hate it obviously but to me it makes alot of sense.

Far too many players hold their teams hostage.
I don't. Players want security and I can't say I blame them. Id say get rid of the full NTC/ NMC's but still allow limited ones where players pick at least 7-10 teams they would go to.

__________________
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear or a fool from any direction."
Gardner McKay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 09:01 AM
  #82
therealkoho
Gary says it's A-OK
 
therealkoho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: the Prior
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan9191 View Post
This. This is a problem GM's have brought on themselves.

so here's the scenario

after 6 weeks the player and his agent have wrung every dollar and a term a little longer then the GM had wanted to give and then as a last kick in the yarbles the players agent says my client wants an NTC or we move on.

At this point the GM has to think to himself "do we need this guy that bad," because he knows the GM down the block will cave on it immediately.

The solution is simple, make the NTC mandatory but with a 10 team list that the player would not agree to be traded to, submitted every July 1st

therealkoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 09:02 AM
  #83
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,348
vCash: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
The real problem is players then won't come out and ask for a trade, instead they will just be jack arses forcing a Gm to trade them anyway.
re: Jeff Carter

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 09:36 AM
  #84
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Microsoft Excel View Post
Players are humans with families to think about it. Having a NTC/NMC lets them control that aspect of things.
Players are also in a line of work where certain "drawbacks" should exist while earning ridiculous amounts of money. Two of those drawbacks are the risk of injury and possible relocation. It comes with the career choice and I agree with Brophy that NTC/NMC should be officially terminated for good.

While I am usually a person who sides with the "players" or "working man" 95% of the time, I feel today's NHL players hold all the cards and it's not good for the league or for the financial state of NHL clubs. The owners/GMs need a little more power to make decisions that not only effect the hockey-end of their business but the financial-end as well.

As for the players..... some get paid more money in 2 weeks than middle class Americans make in a full year. A large majority of them will have the means to retire at 35 years old, and not only be financially set for life, but will be able to offer their children, their children's children, and their great, great grandchildren a financially stress-free lifestyle if they choose.

Pardon me, if they "might" have to be "forced" to earn multi-millions in Columbus instead of Montreal or Miami. I think they'll be able to sleep rather easily at night when it's all said and done.

The fact of the matter is that professional sports is a business (a huge one) and the players are assets to their employer at the end of the day..... no different than high-priced CEOs or lawyers who represent their firms. If the organization needs to trade a player to benefit their club, they should be able to without any restraint. If the player doesn't like it, they should retire and forfeit upwards of $10-$30 million dollars worth of salary in the process. It's the player's choice. This isn't the old Soviet Union here... no one can MAKE a player play if they don't want to. But I'm willing to bet NONE of them would forfeit the cash.

I'm sorry, but this whole "players are human" thing is so out of touch it's not even funny. We're not talking about people who are working 3 jobs to make ends meet that are now being tasked with uprooting their families and living in a housing project in South Central Los Angeles here. I see no problem with a player being traded and having to live in a comfortable, plush suburb of Columbus, Ohio (or wherever) while they earn a lucrative check for the next 5-10 years.

If Gretzky could get traded and Babe Ruth could be sold, Rick Nash sure as hell should be able to be moved to the highest bidder if it's in the best interest of the organization that is paying him handsomely. It's not like the player isn't going to be paid every penny owed to them.

The players shouldn't have it both ways..... if they want to reap the benefits of a lucrative business model, they should make some concessions so their owners and managers are able to thrive in their directions as well. There are policemen and firefighters ducking bullets and crawling out of house fires for $50 grand a year and Rick Nash has a "short list" of NHL teams he is "willing" to earn $7.8 million dollars a year with? What is wrong with this picture?

Boxscore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 09:44 AM
  #85
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,679
vCash: 500
The issue isn't the NTC or NMC. Players have a right to stay where they sign for a long-term contract. However, the problem arises when that player requests a trade. That should waive the NTC or NMC to allow the GM to get the most out of the asset. Both allowing players to have those clauses and determine where they go is what's killing the league. You want to leave? Don't sign that ridiculous contract - and you may see contract lengths coming down as a result as well.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 09:53 AM
  #86
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Both allowing players to have those clauses and determine where they go is what's killing the league. You want to leave? Don't sign that ridiculous contract - and you may see contract lengths coming down as a result as well.
This is another good point. The players have every right to sign a 2 or 3 year contract to better "control where" they are employed. BUT, the fact is, I'm willing to bet that when most players weigh the options, they would rather have a long-term deal that guarantees financial security in the event they suffer a career-ending injury. That said, it comes down to what the player values more....

A. Financial security (long-term, guaranteed contract)

or

B. 100% control over where they live and work (short-term contracts)

But right now players want the best of both worlds and some have it. I don't agree with it and I never did. Why? For one basic reason that players can't be "fired" if they under-perform. Some players sign lifelong contracts and get very comfortable and lose some motivation to perform. In this case (yes you Scott Gomez), the teams who are committed to these players are totally screwed and helpless. How is that fair?

I love the players, and hockey players are generally great individuals, but they are too spoiled these days IMO. They deserve every single penny they get (this isn't about the amount of money they earn) but they shouldn't be able to force the hand of their employers and control and/or limit a transaction that needs to be made in the team's best interest. I will never agree with that.

Boxscore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 10:39 AM
  #87
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
My initial reaction is, 'that's stupid'. This is a problem that the GMs have created for themselves. If you don't want your hands tied, don't hand out NTCs. Simple.


But at the same time, there's more to it than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Doesn't exactly work anymore. You don't give them you lose out on the player.
This is the issue. It's absolutely become the 'status quo' for any sought after free agent, to hand out a NTC. It's reached the point where if you want to improve your team, you have to offer these NTCs, even if you're incredibly wary of them. Either you hand out the NTC or you can't sign good players. In that sense, it certainly does hold the GMs hostage...particularly when you consider that GMs can be fired plenty easily as well if they don't get results. So if you don't hand out NTCs like candy (as all the 'cool kid' GMs are doing), you're going to have difficulty improving your team and holding on to good players...and you're going to get fired. So even if the GM makes a complete mess of things with an excess of NTCs and gets himself fired, he'd get himself just as fired by simply refusing to hand the NTCs out to improve his team. And if he's fired...the NTCs aren't his problem any more. Whatever poor sap comes along next has to mop up, but has his hands completely tied.

In that sense, the risk/reward factor for most GMs in this current climate essentially rewards the handing out of NTCs with reckless abandon. There's no real comparative upside to NOT handing them out, when refusal to do so will cause you to miss out on good free agents to improve your team...getting you fired. Either way you're going to end up fired...but if you DO hand out the NTCs to half your roster, there's at least a small chance that you won't look like a buffoon in a handful of years...so why not take that risk with upside, rather than 'sticking to your principles' and missing out on all of the best free agents...getting yourself fired?


It's a sticky situation, and i can see the benefits of getting rid of these NTCs, or at least limiting the scope of them in some way.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 10:55 AM
  #88
LordsCup*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Who the hell is mike brophy?

And they should be kept. If the GM doesnt like them then dont offer it to the player, its that simple.

LordsCup* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 11:14 AM
  #89
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,701
vCash: 500
GM's agreeing to *NEVER* do "sign & trade" deals would likely cut-down the use of these clauses.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 11:37 AM
  #90
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,656
vCash: 13357
While I can appreciate having them. The moment a player demands a trade, such a clause should be nil and void. I have no respect nor desire to witness another Heatley debacle. Even Nash could become problematic for Columbus if he refuses to open up his list and those teams choose not to bite.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 11:44 AM
  #91
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,656
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
But right now players want the best of both worlds and some have it. I don't agree with it and I never did. Why? For one basic reason that players can't be "fired" if they under-perform. Some players sign lifelong contracts and get very comfortable and lose some motivation to perform. In this case (yes you Scott Gomez), the teams who are committed to these players are totally screwed and helpless. How is that fair?
This here is an excellent point I wish to highlight. Players who underperform have real consequence beyond a demotion and that only would suffice if they held a sense of pride or care. Gomez is an arguable example of this. While I do believe he cares to a certain extent. His performance is worthy of being "fired" in any typical mainstream work environment. If I recall, the NFL employs a "cut" system that allows teams to essentially "cut" a player from their roster, thus terminating the contract. It would be something to consider, although I doubt the NHLPA would allow its implementation.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 11:49 AM
  #92
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
you have to offer these NTCs, even if you're incredibly wary of them. Either you hand out the NTC or you can't sign good players.
THIS is exactly why they shouldn't be permitted in NHL contracts. Because, since they are permitted, GMs MUST offer them in order to compete..... the same way they would offer players a Ferrari, an extra $5 mil in cash in a metal briefcase, and a 3rd home in the Caribbean if they legally could. Teams will do anything to close a deal if they are desperate. But the GM who signs the deal ends up handcuffing the next GM who comes in to put his stamp on the team. If you outlaw NTC/NMC.....

1. Players will either sign short-term or become more valuable commodities to their clubs.

2. Players will have more incentive to produce at a top level on a regular basis.

3. Teams will have more flexibility to improve their club.

4. More "important" trades will happen, which will generate more excitement among fans. More excitement = more dollars spent.

5. "Playing hockey" will once again become the priority and not the "business end" or "mud-slinging in the media" which happens when two sides are coming to a messy divorce. Do you think what is happening now is fair for the Blue Jackets fans who committed their hard-earned money for tickets?

The ONLY "negative" to outlawing NTC/NMC would be that players may occasionally get moved to a team or situation they potentially don't like as much. To this I say, oh well. It's part of professional sports and always has been. If a player signs a short-term deal, they will only be "stuck" in that situation for a few years (max) and will get to control their destiny once again shortly.

Boxscore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 12:03 PM
  #93
Kannu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
General Managers trade off perks such as NTCs/NMCs in exchange for reduced dollars on the contracts. Players want them because they, quite rightly, feel that if they are going to commit a considerable number of years to being with a team, they should have some degree of certainty they will actually stay there. Also, no one is forcing GMs to give them out, they do so of their own volitions.

Would you prefer if all players were signing 1-2 year deals, and either going for the top dollar or ring chasing every time they reached free agency again? Somehow, I suspect you and many other fans would call them mercenaries and decry them for their lack of "loyalty".



Forcing teams to honor the contracts they agree to is "holding them hostage"?

Far too many fans and media types seem to believe players are nothing more than chattel for their teams.
Couldn't say it better Epsilon.

Kannu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 12:37 PM
  #94
Finnish your Czech
Jermain Defriend
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 43,359
vCash: 50
Why would the Owners care about this (other than using at as a negotiation tactic). In the end it doesn't change the amount of money they are paying (which is all they care about).

Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 01:08 PM
  #95
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,609
vCash: 500
I think that they should replace the NTC/NMC clauses in general and replace them with the 10/5 NMC rule where a player earns a NMC automatically once they have 10 years in the league with the past 5+ being with their current team.

WhoIsJimBob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 01:14 PM
  #96
LSnow
Registered User
 
LSnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
THIS is exactly why they shouldn't be permitted in NHL contracts. Because, since they are permitted, GMs MUST offer them in order to compete..... the same way they would offer players a Ferrari, an extra $5 mil in cash in a metal briefcase, and a 3rd home in the Caribbean if they legally could. Teams will do anything to close a deal if they are desperate. But the GM who signs the deal ends up handcuffing the next GM who comes in to put his stamp on the team. If you outlaw NTC/NMC.....

1. Players will either sign short-term or become more valuable commodities to their clubs.

2. Players will have more incentive to produce at a top level on a regular basis.

3. Teams will have more flexibility to improve their club.

4. More "important" trades will happen, which will generate more excitement among fans. More excitement = more dollars spent.

5. "Playing hockey" will once again become the priority and not the "business end" or "mud-slinging in the media" which happens when two sides are coming to a messy divorce. Do you think what is happening now is fair for the Blue Jackets fans who committed their hard-earned money for tickets?

The ONLY "negative" to outlawing NTC/NMC would be that players may occasionally get moved to a team or situation they potentially don't like as much. To this I say, oh well. It's part of professional sports and always has been. If a player signs a short-term deal, they will only be "stuck" in that situation for a few years (max) and will get to control their destiny once again shortly.
You think GMs would risk 2 year deal with someone like Stamkos? "Atleast i didnt get handcuffed" Then he leaves as UFA and team gets screwed.. Or signs 4-5 year deal, but theres no "Long term contracts" so his cap hit instead of 8 mil is 12-14 and theres no money left for everyone else. Biggest peril of banning these LTC is that to sign superstar only to his prime will bring the caps hit ridiculously high..

LSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 01:57 PM
  #97
cassius
Registered User
 
cassius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,874
vCash: 500
I'm sure the players association would be delighted to go ahead with that change........

cassius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 02:30 PM
  #98
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,083
vCash: 500
What about players who sign those contracts and don't live up to them?

What's good for one side should be good for the other. It's a two way street.

If the player doesn't live up to his end of the bargain he shouldn't have the right to choose or hold a GM hostage to where he'll be traded. The NMC/NTC should be null and void if the player doesn't hold up his end of the bargain.

Ugene Malkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 06:22 PM
  #99
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSnow View Post
You think GMs would risk 2 year deal with someone like Stamkos? "Atleast i didnt get handcuffed" Then he leaves as UFA and team gets screwed.. Or signs 4-5 year deal, but theres no "Long term contracts" so his cap hit instead of 8 mil is 12-14 and theres no money left for everyone else. Biggest peril of banning these LTC is that to sign superstar only to his prime will bring the caps hit ridiculously high..
I'm not saying Long-term contracts shouldn't be permitted... they are still legal, but a player signs them at his own risk.... knowing IF the team needs to trade him, they can at any time. The Lightning can offer Stamkos a 15 year deal worth $100 million. If Stamkos accepts it, he is guaranteed $100 mil over the next 15 years even if he suffers a career-ending injury the following year. BUT, with the plus that comes with being "guaranteed $100 million dollars" the only negative that exists is that IF Tampa needs to trade Stamkos for any reason, they can do so and he needs to play wherever he is traded. To me that doesn't seem like an unreasonable trade-off to be guaranteed $100 million. So what if during year 7 Tampa decides to trade him to Nashville? So Stamkos has to earn the rest of his contract in Nashville. Stamkos can still sign long-term OR he can sign short-term and risk suffering a tragic injury that cuts his career extremely short after his initial contract.... that is totally up to him.

Boxscore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2012, 06:59 PM
  #100
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,551
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
What about players who sign those contracts and don't live up to them?

What's good for one side should be good for the other. It's a two way street.

If the player doesn't live up to his end of the bargain he shouldn't have the right to choose or hold a GM hostage to where he'll be traded. The NMC/NTC should be null and void if the player doesn't hold up his end of the bargain.
And if a team signs a player to a contract, they should have to live up to that and shouldn't be allowed to trade the player either without his approval regardless of clauses.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.