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
07-05-2017, 02:03 PM
  #76
Dertell
Registered User
 
Dertell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom ServoMST3K View Post
While Bettman gets a bad rap, I really dislike the tone that Fehr puts across. He has made it seem like a fight and not a negotiation from the very beginning.
But that's a good thing, actually.

Dertell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 03:54 PM
  #77
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwag33 View Post
You're misconstruing the jobs of a NHL owner and GM.

The owners want competitive balance and a structured set of rules every team has to play by. The GM is to use whatever tools available to field the best team.

When mcdavid signs his huge deal, and he just decides to stop caring about hockey because he's set for life, it's the owners fault? Obviously no one expects that, but if it does happen you're saying its the owners/gm, not the players fault.

They are in a no win situation with guaranteed contracts. Every GM in the league signs Mcdavid to the deal he's going to get, every single one. If he doesn't he'd be fired.... but if he starts sucking who pays for it... the team, not the player.
Players will always try their hardest. Doubt there are many players who mail it in.

What GM's are failing to account for or they already have is the expected drop in play in players as they hit their mid 30's and beyond. The sedin twins truned 34 prior to the start of their current $7 million per year deals. They have completed the first ,3 years and have averaged between them a 75, 58, 47 seasons. Is that really worth $7 million per?

Same goes for the upcoming deal with burns. Is he going to play at an $8 million level in years 6-8? Unlikely. But it's the price to pay to get him signed. Taking bad years at the end to gain the benefit from the first 5 years. Up to the teams to walk away from the term.

Best value IMO is guys like MacKinnon, barkov who started their elc at 18, then signed for 6 years taking them to age 27. Max term of 8 years takes them to 35. Ideal age as that should be the end of their prime years. Same with tavares.

Some players like taraves it makes sense to go 8 years. Burns, as great as he is now, likely not going to be worth it in the final couple of seasons. Same goes for lucic. Just have to be realistic of when the drop off in okay occurs

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 08:15 PM
  #78
yukoner88
Registered User
 
yukoner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dawson City, YT
Posts: 5,122
vCash: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
What's the difference between an NTC/NMC and a player who just mails it because he doesn't like where he's being traded?
NMC= no movement clause meaning said player cant be moved anywhere period with out his consent.

NTC=no trade clause. This player has restrictions on his trade rights but has no say about being waived and getting assigned to the minors.

yukoner88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 08:53 PM
  #79
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,000
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
On an open market, Yakupov would have signed for $8m x 8 years as an 18 year old.
Can you imagine a Yak Clarkson line.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 09:50 PM
  #80
BPD Habs Fan
Enemies Everywhere
 
BPD Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 226
vCash: 50
Is there anything in the CBA that would prevent the NHL and NHLPA to start discussing now so that by 2020 we would have an agreement already in place?

I will never say never but if this comes down to another lockout or a strike I am highly unlikely to pay attention to the NHL ever again.

BPD Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 10:13 PM
  #81
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
The NHL as a whole is very profitable. All but a few franchises are also profitable.This is a healthy business that doesn't need to lock out its staff.

But by now I doubt that makes a difference. The franchise valuations have about doubled after each of the last two lockouts. It's a profitable business tactic for the NHL to lock out its players on a regular basis.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 11:33 PM
  #82
Never
Can you hear me now?
 
Never's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
This makes no sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
This does.

Never is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 06:47 AM
  #83
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwag33 View Post
You're misconstruing the jobs of a NHL owner and GM.

The owners want competitive balance and a structured set of rules every team has to play by. The GM is to use whatever tools available to field the best team.

When mcdavid signs his huge deal, and he just decides to stop caring about hockey because he's set for life, it's the owners fault? Obviously no one expects that, but if it does happen you're saying its the owners/gm, not the players fault.

They are in a no win situation with guaranteed contracts. Every GM in the league signs Mcdavid to the deal he's going to get, every single one. If he doesn't he'd be fired.... but if he starts sucking who pays for it... the team, not the player.
Completely the owner's fault? No. Partially? Yes. Not sure every GM gives him that deal. Think many have learned from the Blackhawks giving Toews and Kane $10.5MM per each and the way they scramble every year to get under the cap.

Secondly, how often does it happen? Not often enough to revamp the entire system. Just off the top of my head, guys like Daigle, Brendl. The never got the BIG contract, but the signs were there for them from the start. There is a reason why GM's are leary of players who have huge breakout seasons during the last year of their deals. Again, if he starts sucking or getting lazy, they can always buy him out. Then again, we do live in an age of overreaction. So, if a few players get their big payday and then stop caring, that means we have to completely change the rules to protect the gm's and owners from themselves.


Last edited by patnyrnyg: 07-06-2017 at 07:13 AM.
patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 06:50 AM
  #84
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
And if they don't make stupid decisions, then it's collusion. The whole point of free agency is stupid decisions. That's why the players wanted it. They know they're the talent, and all it takes is one stupid choice by a GM/owner to ruin it for everyone.
So, if the GM's realize it is crazy to offer more than 4 years to anyone but the absolute elite talents (McDavid, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, etc) then it becomes collusion? Gotchya.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 07:42 AM
  #85
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Completely the owner's fault? No. Partially? Yes. Not sure every GM gives him that deal. Think many have learned from the Blackhawks giving Toews and Kane $10.5MM per each and the way they scramble every year to get under the cap.

Secondly, how often does it happen? Not often enough to revamp the entire system. Just off the top of my head, guys like Daigle, Brendl. The never got the BIG contract, but the signs were there for them from the start. There is a reason why GM's are leary of players who have huge breakout seasons during the last year of their deals. Again, if he starts sucking or getting lazy, they can always buy him out. Then again, we do live in an age of overreaction. So, if a few players get their big payday and then stop caring, that means we have to completely change the rules to protect the gm's and owners from themselves.

I'm 100% certain every GM in the NHL signs the McDavid deal. Even the penguins, they'd figure out a way to make it work.


It happens all the time, i just used an extreme example. Yashin, Lecavalier, Richards (both of them), Gomez, Staal....

I could probably go on and on. Now you could say some of those guys overpaid and you'd be right. However no one predicted the complete tank jobs some of those players went into. So even if they were signed as fair or below market value; their stocked tanked to well below that.

A team like Carolina HAD to sign eric staal, they just had to. They have a hard enough time acquiring talent that wants to go there. If the GM operated off of your strategy, all but the richest teams would suffer since they can give away assets to eat cap costs, etc etc.

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 08:05 AM
  #86
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwag33 View Post
I'm 100% certain every GM in the NHL signs the McDavid deal. Even the penguins, they'd figure out a way to make it work.


It happens all the time, i just used an extreme example. Yashin, Lecavalier, Richards (both of them), Gomez, Staal....

I could probably go on and on. Now you could say some of those guys overpaid and you'd be right. However no one predicted the complete tank jobs some of those players went into. So even if they were signed as fair or below market value; their stocked tanked to well below that.

A team like Carolina HAD to sign eric staal, they just had to. They have a hard enough time acquiring talent that wants to go there. If the GM operated off of your strategy, all but the richest teams would suffer since they can give away assets to eat cap costs, etc etc.
Yashin, there were signs for years about his desire. Caveat Emptor.

Lecavalier, Richards, Gomez, I hardly say it was because they got lazy. Skills erode, level of play drops. Some guys "get old fast". But again, not sure how getting rid of NMC's or NTC's will solve any of these issues. Marc Staal for example, even without the NMC, what team would want him now? MAYBE a team that needs a few bloated salaries to get to the floor, but haven't checked the payrolls of enough teams to see if any are going to struggle just to get to the floor.

Players not living up to their contracts will never go away. Getting rid of NMC's won't solve it. Just like players who are far outperforming their contracts will never go away. For years, Lou Lamoriello was seen as a genius for playing hardball when the team had the leverage in negotiations. Patrik Elias took a low-ball contract when he was young because he had 2 options and Lou knew it, 1) accept the offer 2) have his Visa revoked and go back to the Czech Republic to play. When players have the upper hand, they should use it to. Or, should we just go back to the reserve clause? In this case, once a team drafts you, you are their property until they say otherwise? Just accept whatever salary and terms the team is willing to give because afterall, they are just employees and are just playing a game?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 08:23 AM
  #87
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Yashin, there were signs for years about his desire. Caveat Emptor.

Lecavalier, Richards, Gomez, I hardly say it was because they got lazy. Skills erode, level of play drops. Some guys "get old fast". But again, not sure how getting rid of NMC's or NTC's will solve any of these issues. Marc Staal for example, even without the NMC, what team would want him now? MAYBE a team that needs a few bloated salaries to get to the floor, but haven't checked the payrolls of enough teams to see if any are going to struggle just to get to the floor.

Players not living up to their contracts will never go away. Getting rid of NMC's won't solve it. Just like players who are far outperforming their contracts will never go away. For years, Lou Lamoriello was seen as a genius for playing hardball when the team had the leverage in negotiations. Patrik Elias took a low-ball contract when he was young because he had 2 options and Lou knew it, 1) accept the offer 2) have his Visa revoked and go back to the Czech Republic to play. When players have the upper hand, they should use it to. Or, should we just go back to the reserve clause? In this case, once a team drafts you, you are their property until they say otherwise? Just accept whatever salary and terms the team is willing to give because afterall, they are just employees and are just playing a game?


Your argument was the players are basically getting screwed by these naughty owners.... my argument is they should be happy they get guaranteed contracts.

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 10:14 AM
  #88
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwag33 View Post
Your argument was the players are basically getting screwed by these naughty owners.... my argument is they should be happy they get guaranteed contracts.
You should start a movement to have the players buy their own uniforms and make them rent ice time from the owners to practice.


MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 10:35 AM
  #89
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwag33 View Post
Your argument was the players are basically getting screwed by these naughty owners.... my argument is they should be happy they get guaranteed contracts.
Where did I say they were getting screwed? I said the last 3 CBA's were seen as huge wins for the owners. The players gave up a lot more than the owners did in the process. All 3 times the owners were whining a few years later. Then I asked, how many times do the players have to give in to the owners?

95-owners didn't want players to be UFA until age 32 and bigtime compensation for RFAs. Came down to 31 and big time compensation. Rangers gave the big offer to Sakic, Carolina did the same to Federov and then they started to whine.

2005-needed a salary cap tied to revenues, and escrow. Cap was $39MM. Revenues grew, they whined the percentage was too high.

2012- lowered percentage of revenues going to players, now whining about nmc's and ntc's.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 11:00 AM
  #90
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukoner88 View Post
NMC= no movement clause meaning said player cant be moved anywhere period with out his consent.

NTC=no trade clause. This player has restrictions on his trade rights but has no say about being waived and getting assigned to the minors.
Respectfully, you didn't really answer my question...

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 11:09 AM
  #91
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
So, if the GM's realize it is crazy to offer more than 4 years to anyone but the absolute elite talents (McDavid, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, etc) then it becomes collusion? Gotchya.
I'm sure they all realize that, but they also want to keep their jobs. To do that, they have to get talent. If you want the talent, and free agents are in limited number every summer, there's greater demand than supply. If every player was a free agent every summer, we would see fewer stupid contracts.

Collusion is almost impossible to prove, let alone do, but if GM's/owners aren't handing out contracts, to either UFA's or RFA's, then yeah, people will start asking what's going on. If a GM doesn't offer more than 4 years for a guy, not a big deal. If all of the GM's don't, and it's what should be an in-demand player, that would start to become an issue.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 11:17 AM
  #92
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Players will always try their hardest. Doubt there are many players who mail it in.

What GM's are failing to account for or they already have is the expected drop in play in players as they hit their mid 30's and beyond. The sedin twins truned 34 prior to the start of their current $7 million per year deals. They have completed the first ,3 years and have averaged between them a 75, 58, 47 seasons. Is that really worth $7 million per?
I doubt GM's fail to account for that, it's more of a matter of what choice do they have? Every player isn't available every year. Most teams aren't looking to trade a guy in his mid 20's with the great contract. GM's usually have to take what they can get, when they can get it. If Vancouver doesn't sign the twins, who are they going to get instead?

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 11:20 AM
  #93
sharkhawk
Registered User
 
sharkhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Aurora, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Respectfully, you didn't really answer my question...
The way I see it.

NMC. cannot be waived. So can't be poached by other team or sent down to minors. This why players on NMC had to be protected in expansion draft.

NTC modified NTC. Full NTC cannot be traded to any other team without waiver from player. Modified list of teams the player can/cannot be traded to. Players only on a NTC contract could be placed in expansion draft since they were eligible to be placed on waivers.

sharkhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 12:48 PM
  #94
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
There is no set definition of an NMC. Each one is unique and can be worded and enforced differently. That is why the NHLPA's lawyers and League lawyers went through every contract with a clause to determine if the player could be exposed in the expansion draft. For some, the NMC means they can't be put on waivers or traded without their consent. For some, they can't be sent to the minors, but can be traded. Some, can't be sent to the minors, and can provide a list of teams to which they would/would not accept a trade.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 01:08 PM
  #95
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 patnyrnyg View Post
There is no set definition of an NMC. Each one is unique and can be worded and enforced differently. That is why the NHLPA's lawyers and League lawyers went through every contract with a clause to determine if the player could be exposed in the expansion draft. For some, the NMC means they can't be put on waivers or traded without their consent. For some, they can't be sent to the minors, but can be traded. Some, can't be sent to the minors, and can provide a list of teams to which they would/would not accept a trade.
There are three things a NMC can cover:

1) Trades
2) Waivers
3) Loans to non-NHL clubs

A full NMC covers all three. Partial or modified NMC's only cover 1 or 2 of those things.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 09:38 PM
  #96
Digital Kid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 55
vCash: 500
The best way to prevent players from signing big contracts and then being stiffs is to have all contracts guaranteed for only the following two years after the player starts a current season.

So if McDavid turns into a stiff during the 2018-19 season, the Oilers buy out only the 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons and the contract is over.

For instance.

Might solve a lot of problems.

Digital Kid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 11:59 PM
  #97
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 653
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Kid View Post
The best way to prevent players from signing big contracts and then being stiffs is to have all contracts guaranteed for only the following two years after the player starts a current season.

So if McDavid turns into a stiff during the 2018-19 season, the Oilers buy out only the 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons and the contract is over.

For instance.

Might solve a lot of problems.
1. It would kill the cap system. Teams would be able to drop big cap hits anytime they wanted after two years.

2. Hockey is still a dangerous sport and players want security that if they are injured, they will still be paid.

3. What if the player outperforms his contract? Can he opt-out and demand a more lucrative contract? Imagine the chaos that would create with up-and-coming stars.

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2017, 12:01 AM
  #98
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,000
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME View Post
1. It would kill the cap system. Teams would be able to drop big cap hits anytime they wanted after two years.

2. Hockey is still a dangerous sport and players want security that if they are injured, they will still be paid.

3. What if the player outperforms his contract? Can he opt-out and demand a more lucrative contract? Imagine the chaos that would create with up-and-coming stars.
Cap recapture should apply to all contracts regardless of length.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2017, 02:00 PM
  #99
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkhawk View Post


The way I see it.

NMC. cannot be waived. So can't be poached by other team or sent down to minors. This why players on NMC had to be protected in expansion draft.

NTC modified NTC. Full NTC cannot be traded to any other team without waiver from player. Modified list of teams the player can/cannot be traded to. Players only on a NTC contract could be placed in expansion draft since they were eligible to be placed on waivers.
My point was : if a player doesn't want to be traded, he can negociate a NMC/NTC (as of now) to make sure that he moves, but only/mostly to his conditions.

If he can not negociate NMC/NTC, that means he could be traded in conditions that he wouldn't necessarily agree with and may just start mailing it, not showing up or whatever.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2017, 02:46 PM
  #100
Esq
JSS
 
Esq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 5,235
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.
If the owners agree not to hand out NMC/NTCs, then everyone cries collusion.

Esq 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.