HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Dreger: NMC, NTCs could be major sticking points for next CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-03-2017, 08:24 AM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,777
vCash: 500
Dreger: NMC, NTCs could be major sticking points for next CBA


LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 08:27 AM
  #2
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
 
Pantokrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Semmes, Alabama
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 4,890
vCash: 2974
Ugh, I dread lockouts. I wish they could get this done before it expires.

Pantokrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 08:34 AM
  #3
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 59,073
vCash: 500
NHL GMs: "We need the owners and players to save us from our poor decision-making and negotiating abilities!"

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 08:41 AM
  #4
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,167
vCash: 868
Teams want the players, and they want the reduction that a NMC/NTC will give them when signing that player. Then they won't like the fact they can't trade him for the best value 2 years later because he has a NTC. Yeah, well...

Far too many players have these clauses, but how do you limit it? They aren't going to go away and they are already limited to a players UFA years.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:42 AM
  #5
donghabs98
Moderator
 
donghabs98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,880
vCash: 1782
What would the incentive be for the players to remove NTC/NMCs? It seems like a petty issue for the owners to get worked up over considering it's their side that hands them out.

donghabs98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:43 AM
  #6
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 67,777
vCash: 500

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:43 AM
  #7
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,524
vCash: 50
If you don't want your team's players to have NTC/NMCs then don't give them out. Problem solved. They want to keep the benefits of the clauses in contract negotiations without actually having to honor them which is a self-created problem.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:45 AM
  #8
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
If you don't want your team's players to have NTC/NMCs then don't give them out. Problem solved. They want to keep the benefits of the clauses in contract negotiations without actually having to honor them which is a self-created problem.
Here is the problem, say Team X adopts that policy, how many players will they lose out to other teams that don't? Personally I think the league should allow NTC but not NMC

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:46 AM
  #9
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
So, the owners will want the players to give up something else. Players will not want to. League will lock-out. Everyone on here will blame the players.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:48 AM
  #10
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
So, the owners will want the players to give up something else. Players will not want to. League will lock-out. Everyone on here will blame the players.
here is the thing only a small percentage of player benefit from NMC/NTC clauses so the league can try get the lower level players to fight against the higher level players

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:57 AM
  #11
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,115
vCash: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
Here is the problem, say Team X adopts that policy, how many players will they lose out to other teams that don't? Personally I think the league should allow NTC but not NMC
Yeah it's really a prisoners dilemma situation here. I'm not saying that players should or shouldn't have NTC's/NMC's but when there's so many teams competing to sign the players they're going to get there way. It's easy enough to say avoid the big dumb UFA signings, but gets much trickier when a team is trying to retain their own core players and need to offer competitive market value.

RandV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 10:59 AM
  #12
dechire
Janmark Enthusiast
 
dechire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: inconnu
Posts: 13,524
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
here is the thing only a small percentage of player benefit from NMC/NTC clauses so the league can try get the lower level players to fight against the higher level players
It's not a small percentage. I just checked the Stars, Sharks and Bolts and all three have 8 players each with clauses on their contracts(24 of 62 players). If that ratio holds for the entire league then there could be over 30% of the NHLPA with a clause.

dechire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 11:03 AM
  #13
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechire View Post
It's not a small percentage. I just checked the Stars, Sharks and Bolts and all three have 8 players each with clauses on their contracts(24 of 62 players). If that ratio holds for the entire league then there could be over 30% of the NHLPA with a clause.
51% trumps 49% in a vote. So you only need to do something to please the 70-80% that don't have NMC/NTC. As I stated above I don' think the NTC are a problem, to me the real problem is NMC.

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 11:11 AM
  #14
Acesolid
The Illusive Bettman
 
Acesolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,265
vCash: 500
That makes sense. Altrough it's the GM's fault for handing no-trade clauses like candy.

But right now so many players have them it's starting to be ridiculous.

Acesolid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 11:11 AM
  #15
Guffman
Unregistered User
 
Guffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by donghabs98 View Post
What would the incentive be for the players to remove NTC/NMCs? It seems like a petty issue for the owners to get worked up over considering it's their side that hands them out.
It's a competitive disadvantage for a team to adopt a policy of not giving these out if other teams are giving them out. Is it better collectively for all teams to not have these provisions? Yep. It's not really fair that NTCs create a have/have not situation based on desirability of certain cities.

I would be OK with a clause that bumps up a salary on a trade to preserve the notion of "home town discount".

Guffman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 12:00 PM
  #16
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Signing bonuses should definitely be discussed, if only because we're seeing incidents where the current implementation may be bending the intended functioning of the cap. i.e. players traded after their bonus is paid on July 1st to lower the actual salary for the acquiring team.

Problem is if you invert that so the team that pays the bonus takes the full cap hit for it then you open up a new exploit for the team acquiring the player to be on a significantly reduced cap hit.

Two possible solutions come to mind:

a) Make signing bonuses pro-rated, just like cap hit is, for mid-season trades. e.g. Player with a $2m signing bonus is traded from Team A to Team B exactly 25% of the way through the season. Team A retains a $500k cap hit, Team B gets a $1.5m cap hit (note: this is standard already), however Team B has to pay Team A $1.5m for their pro-rated portion of the signing bonus. Likewise if a player with a signing bonus is traded after July 1st but before the start of the season then the acquiring team is responsible for paying 100% of the bonus.

b) Impose a limit on what % of a player's annual compensation can be in signing bonuses. And/or impose a limit on what % of a contract AAV can be disproportionately paid due to signing bonuses in a midseason trade. This doesn't eliminate the issue, but could keep it within a defined limit.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 12:14 PM
  #17
TorstenFrings
lebenslang grünweiss
 
TorstenFrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bremen
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
here is the thing only a small percentage of player benefit from NMC/NTC clauses so the league can try get the lower level players to fight against the higher level players
Is that large percentage of lower level players better served by the high level ones all taking the absolute max percentage of the salary cap they can get instead of taking an NTC though?

TorstenFrings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 12:55 PM
  #18
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
I will motivate you!
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Signing bonuses should definitely be discussed, if only because we're seeing incidents where the current implementation may be bending the intended functioning of the cap. i.e. players traded after their bonus is paid on July 1st to lower the actual salary for the acquiring team.

Problem is if you invert that so the team that pays the bonus takes the full cap hit for it then you open up a new exploit for the team acquiring the player to be on a significantly reduced cap hit.

Two possible solutions come to mind:

a) Make signing bonuses pro-rated, just like cap hit is, for mid-season trades. e.g. Player with a $2m signing bonus is traded from Team A to Team B exactly 25% of the way through the season. Team A retains a $500k cap hit, Team B gets a $1.5m cap hit (note: this is standard already), however Team B has to pay Team A $1.5m for their pro-rated portion of the signing bonus. Likewise if a player with a signing bonus is traded after July 1st but before the start of the season then the acquiring team is responsible for paying 100% of the bonus.

b) Impose a limit on what % of a player's annual compensation can be in signing bonuses. And/or impose a limit on what % of a contract AAV can be disproportionately paid due to signing bonuses in a midseason trade. This doesn't eliminate the issue, but could keep it within a defined limit.
Solution A seems to be the least path of resistance and most plausible

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 01:50 PM
  #19
hockeyfanatic89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Halifax NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,351
vCash: 500
How legit is a full season lockouts come fall 2019?

hockeyfanatic89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 02:14 PM
  #20
Tom ServoMST3K
PAINT LIVES!
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,209
vCash: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfanatic89 View Post
How legit is a full season lockouts come fall 2019?
Full season: Very Unlikely, and would mean I would really slack up spending on the NHL. I think most fans understood why we lost a whole season, and accepted it.

A partial lockout is all but confirmed IMO. At the very least a shortened training camp.

Tom ServoMST3K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 02:16 PM
  #21
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 18,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfanatic89 View Post
How legit is a full season lockouts come fall 2019?
2019 is the deadline to decide, but a lockout wouldn't happen until 2020.

I'm really not sure. The PA has made the most noise about opting out, however I'm skeptic they'll get happy solutions to their issues in a new CBA.

The NHL so far as I'm aware hasn't tipped their hat whether they would opt out. The offer to the PA to extend the CBA in exchange for Olympic participation suggests the NHL doesn't see an urgent need to opt out of the current CBA.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 04:21 PM
  #22
my name is Bob
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,184
vCash: 500
If NMC/NTC is one of the major issues, I can't see a full season lockout happening.

my name is Bob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 04:36 PM
  #23
Nino33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
So, the owners will want the players to give up something else. Players will not want to. League will lock-out. Everyone on here will blame the players.
The players are MASSIVELY compensated for their services
I don't see how all the hassles caused by NT/NM contracts makes the game any better at all (I think they hurt the sport myself)

If the contracts worth many millions weren't guaranteed I might care, maybe others feel similar...how can you blame them?

I think you're taking "hard to care/feel sorry for them" as being "against" the players when it's not

Nino33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 04:39 PM
  #24
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
That makes sense. Altrough it's the GM's fault for handing no-trade clauses like candy.

But right now so many players have them it's starting to be ridiculous.
You'd think GMs would limit them to only their core players. I have seen too many players who are what I would call role players get them too.

If you divide the standard 20 man roster into quarters you would have:

Core Players - 5 of: #1 goalie, top 1 to 2 Dmen, top 2 C, top winger or 2.
Secondary Players - 5 of: remainder of 2 of above, plus your #3D, #4D, and 2 of your 3C or both 2nd line wingers.
Role Players - 5 of: 2 of the who didn't make the Secondary group, plus your #5D maybe #6D, both 3rd line wingers, 4C.
Depth Players - your backup goalie, both 4th line wingers, and whomever didn't make the Role player list (either 4C, 1 third line winger, 6D).

So, a team like Chicago, NTC/NMC should have been given to Toews/Kane/Hossa/Keith/Seabrook. Everyone else doesn't get one. Maybe, 1 of your Secondary guys get one, but you have to limit them.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2017, 04:49 PM
  #25
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
2019 is the deadline to decide, but a lockout wouldn't happen until 2020.

I'm really not sure. The PA has made the most noise about opting out, however I'm skeptic they'll get happy solutions to their issues in a new CBA.

The NHL so far as I'm aware hasn't tipped their hat whether they would opt out. The offer to the PA to extend the CBA in exchange for Olympic participation suggests the NHL doesn't see an urgent need to opt out of the current CBA.
The 2 sides will fight over how to divide up the pie.

1) Refine definition of what makes up HRR.
2) Argue over split of HRR
3) Agree to formula on how to determine the cap ceiling and floor
4) Limit on escrow - good luck to the players to get that. They would need to accept a flat cap for a couple of years in order for escrow to decrease.
5) Contract length
6) % of contract paid as signing bonus
7) NMC/NTC provisions - Teams don't have to hand out full NTC for the duration of the contacts. A 6 year deal can have a full NTC in the first 3 years, then drops to a M-NTC with a 10 or so trade list in years 4-6 or whatever.
8) Buyout percentages - been 2/3 of remainder of contract since the salary cap (1/3 if under 26).
9) UFA age -
10) Schedule - will either side want it reduced?
11) International competitions

Goes on and on..... You have to give to get.

Street Hawk 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 03:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.