Commandant Posted May 6, 2016 Share Posted May 6, 2016 I don't really mind about UFA age to be honest. It creates more player movement. But when a 35+ player sign a contracts, you can't save cap space by buying him out or something like that, can you ? And this rule only apply to 35+ signings, right ? This is what I'd like to replicate with NTC-NMC. Illegal before the player is 32 when he signs his deal. Period. 27 is way too soon IMHO. When you're trying to deal a player with a future NTC before he turns 27, the other GM knows about the NTC and it still is a potential obstacle on making a deal. The NHLPA gave up significant concessions, including accepting a salary cap to make the UFA and NTC age 27 (or 7 NHL seasons whatever comes first). I don't see them giving that up without some concessions back. I also don't see the owners who fought so hard for the cap to be based on 50% of HRR , increasing that 50% number. The CBA is a deal that both the owners and the players association agreed to... why should it change just cause you are bored aobut the lack of trades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 why should it change just cause you are bored aobut the lack of trades? A bigger reason with the lack of trades is being burned on a trade hurts more in the cap era than it did in the past. GMs are learning that just shuffling players willy nilly can cost your team for years. Glen Sather was one of the last of his kind. Chiarelli was comfortable trading superstars in Boston which is why he's trigger shy in Edmonton. The team is already in a bad place and moving the wrong forward could cost them a longer drought. Jim Nill has proven if you want to be an active trading GM you can be, you just have to be willing to give up picks, prospects and long time players. Nobody even remembers what he gave up for Spezza, but at the time people claimed it was a hefty price for a guy that wasn't certain to re-sign in Dallas. He had no problem trading Trevor Daley because he was ready to replace him with Kris Russell later on. A lot of other GMs, including Bergevin, are pretty scared to give up high valued prospects or first round picks to get what they want. Bergevin did it once to get Vanek. Since then he's held onto guys like Tinordi and Thomas well past their expiry date. It's not no movements that are stopping players from getting moved. It's a GM being gun shy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 The NHLPA gave up significant concessions, including accepting a salary cap to make the UFA and NTC age 27 (or 7 NHL seasons whatever comes first). I don't see them giving that up without some concessions back. I also don't see the owners who fought so hard for the cap to be based on 50% of HRR , increasing that 50% number. The CBA is a deal that both the owners and the players association agreed to... why should it change just cause you are bored aobut the lack of trades? WTF is HRR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 A bigger reason with the lack of trades is being burned on a trade hurts more in the cap era than it did in the past. GMs are learning that just shuffling players willy nilly can cost your team for years. Glen Sather was one of the last of his kind. Chiarelli was comfortable trading superstars in Boston which is why he's trigger shy in Edmonton. The team is already in a bad place and moving the wrong forward could cost them a longer drought. Jim Nill has proven if you want to be an active trading GM you can be, you just have to be willing to give up picks, prospects and long time players. Nobody even remembers what he gave up for Spezza, but at the time people claimed it was a hefty price for a guy that wasn't certain to re-sign in Dallas. He had no problem trading Trevor Daley because he was ready to replace him with Kris Russell later on. A lot of other GMs, including Bergevin, are pretty scared to give up high valued prospects or first round picks to get what they want. Bergevin did it once to get Vanek. Since then he's held onto guys like Tinordi and Thomas well past their expiry date. It's not no movements that are stopping players from getting moved. It's a GM being gun shy. NOT just Bergevin, when it comes down to it, just about every HabFans also seems uber conservative in parting with high valued prospects or players. Very quick to propose trading any player who isn't playing well or they don't personally like, but exactly which high valued Prospect/Player are you willing to part with. The list of "high-valued" asset = to a Spezza or Segain that Bergevin has to play with, is darn short. (you wanna get roasted...try suggesting trading Subban, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Pacioretty, or Price) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 NOT just Bergevin, when it comes down to it, just about every HabFans also seems uber conservative in parting with high valued prospects or players. Very quick to propose trading any player who isn't playing well or they don't personally like, but exactly which high valued Prospect/Player are you willing to part with. The list of "high-valued" asset = to a Spezza or Segain that Bergevin has to play with, is darn short. (you wanna get roasted...try suggesting trading Subban, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Pacioretty, or Price) The fans want a 'bold move' that costs no key assets, does not result in an overpaid player, and entails no NTC. And my daughter wants a pony. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 The list of "high-valued" asset = to a Spezza or Segain that Bergevin has to play with, is darn short. (you wanna get roasted...try suggesting trading Subban, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Pacioretty, or Price) The closest Dallas has come to giving up one of those guys is Eriksson, who is more like us trading Plekanec. I've been up to us trading Scherbak for a top six answer. I'd trade McCarron if the price was right. Dallas hasn't had to give up Benn to get Seguin, Spezza, or Sharp. They gave up Chiasson to get Spezza. If it cost Scherbak to get a guy like Spezza I'm at the front of the line for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link67 Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 at the time, Chiasson was a highly touted rookie who was establishing himself in Dallas with solid numbers. Scherbak is coming off a less than exciting pro debut in the minors, how exactly are we supposed to sell Scherbak to a team the same thing Dallas sold Ottawa with Chiasson? the closest thing we have to a Chiasson situation on our current team is Carr, solid numbers for his first stint in the NHL, but still not the kind of buzz around him as their was with Chiasson at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 at the time, Chiasson was a highly touted rookie who was establishing himself in Dallas with solid numbers. Scherbak is coming off a less than exciting pro debut in the minors, how exactly are we supposed to sell Scherbak to a team the same thing Dallas sold Ottawa with Chiasson? the closest thing we have to a Chiasson situation on our current team is Carr, solid numbers for his first stint in the NHL, but still not the kind of buzz around him as their was with Chiasson at the time. But if the opportunity arose that one of our young guys was putting up Chiasson Buzz, I wouldn't be against moving him. I wasn't against us moving whatshisfacenobodyremembers for Vanek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Speaking of Vanek, I read a rumor on the hockey news website that Minnesota might buy him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 WTF is HRR. Hockey related revenue. Players get paid 50% of hockey related revenue every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 The guys on sportsnet panel were saying we probably will start seeing Less and less no trade clauses. Getting rid of them helps out the Arizona's and Edmonton's of league. Most players have them on the NO list. Just FYI; http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 I thought with a no trade clause, you could still be placed on waivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 I thought with a no trade clause, you could still be placed on waivers. Correct. Fourth Period didn't realize how clunky that sentence was. That's why the oxford comma is so important. "A player with a no trade, or no movement (cannot be placed on waivers) clause must accept a move by waiving..." Or they could have just re-wrote the whole thing and explained no trade and no movement before talking about what they meant. EDIT: Plekanec's no trade clause disappears when his extension kicks in July. Emelin's no trade come July becomes limited, which I think is similar to Markov's but less teams he can say no to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 I'm not a big fan of the NTC/NMC either, but I understand why players want them. I find that it under minds the whole point of a salary cap which was brought in to help small market teams compete with the bigger market teams. You can't just out spend your opponent and buy a Cup. The problem is a lot of free agents still don't want to sign with small market teams and sometimes accept less money to sign with a big market team or a contender. Furthermore they insist on NTC/NMC which they use to avoid playing for these less fortunate teams as well. How are these small market teams supposed to get better if nobody wants to play for them? What's the point of even keeping them in the league if they are always going to be bottom feeders? Instead of banning NTC/NMC, the NHL could limit the number of NTC/NMC teams can hand out. A lot like how teams can only retain salary on 3 contracts. It would allow for more player movement, and better options for small market teams trying to improve. It would also force GMs to really think about who deserves a NTC/NMC and who doesn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 The fans want a 'bold move' that costs no key assets, does not result in an overpaid player, and entails no NTC. And my daughter wants a pony. Exactly and I also believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny AND the Great Pumpkin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 I'm not a big fan of the NTC/NMC either, but I understand why players want them. I find that it under minds the whole point of a salary cap which was brought in to help small market teams compete with the bigger market teams. You can't just out spend your opponent and buy a Cup. The problem is a lot of free agents still don't want to sign with small market teams and sometimes accept less money to sign with a big market team or a contender. Furthermore they insist on NTC/NMC which they use to avoid playing for these less fortunate teams as well. How are these small market teams supposed to get better if nobody wants to play for them? What's the point of even keeping them in the league if they are always going to be bottom feeders? Instead of banning NTC/NMC, the NHL could limit the number of NTC/NMC teams can hand out. A lot like how teams can only retain salary on 3 contracts. It would allow for more player movement, and better options for small market teams trying to improve. It would also force GMs to really think about who deserves a NTC/NMC and who doesn't. Yeah that idea I like. Limit nmc/nt clauses to 3 per team at one time. Great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Correct. Fourth Period didn't realize how clunky that sentence was. That's why the oxford comma is so important. "A player with a no trade, or no movement (cannot be placed on waivers) clause must accept a move by waiving..." Or they could have just re-wrote the whole thing and explained no trade and no movement before talking about what they meant. EDIT: Plekanec's no trade clause disappears when his extension kicks in July. Emelin's no trade come July becomes limited, which I think is similar to Markov's but less teams he can say no to. Ah, thanks for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.