GDT Apr. 30, NHL Draft Lottery, 7 PM

[Commandant]

NTC and NMC should be banned. Forever.

If a player asks for a NTC or NMC, the GM should be smart enough to know that he should be getting a discount money wise in order to give that out.

Good forbid a player be willing to take slightly less money for the security of knowing he has some control over where he and his family live.

[JoeLassister]

Good forbid a player be willing to take slightly less money for the security of knowing he has some control over where he and his family live.

I don't care about that one bit. It's your job and you're getting paid about 100x more than a normal human being to do it.

I could accept partial NTC with a list of 8-10 teams where you can't be traded, but would ban everything else from NHL hockey.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I don't care about that one bit. It's your job and you're getting paid about 100x more than a normal human being to do it.

I could accept partial NTC with a list of 8-10 teams where you can't be traded, but would ban everything else from NHL hockey.

The NHLPA fought for it. It's not going away unless you want to lose another year of NHL hockey just so general managers have more control over players. I remember in 2004, Jeremy Jacobs, owner of the Boston Bruins, wanted the power to send any player he wanted to the minors for a few games as punishment (his example was Joe Thornton who was soon traded away) without possibly losing the player to waivers. That's why we have stuff like no trade clauses and waivers. Owners and GMs would be tyrants without them.

It's always armchair GMs who want them pulled away. It's never people who look at athletes as human beings. Also players only make that money because you watch. Right now there are millionaire YouTubers and videogame players because people are watching. Go grumble to a National Lacrosse League player about how Athletes make too much.

[Guest Stogey24]

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.

[KoRP]

It sure would be better for "trade deadline day" to have a ban on NTC's, but for the players, not so much.

Not that I want the owners to become more powerful, I do totally agree on what Joe says, the players are more than well compensated for their efforts, and a lot of the times, more compensated than their efforts(results) warrant.

It would make for far more "hockey trades" if there were less of these NTC's, that's for sure...

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Once the expansion draft comes in, players with NTCs will have to be protected. Players with no move clauses won't. They will be auto protected.

That's going to make the next summers interesting. Players won't want to make a multi year obligation to one team with the fear of just being left unprotected and going to Vegas in an expansion draft but teams will want to keep that possibility open as buyers remorse. You may see some top UFAs going to weak markets or bad teams because they promise a long term guarantee and the no movement to avoid playing for an expansion team.

[Commandant]

I don't care about that one bit. It's your job and you're getting paid about 100x more than a normal human being to do it.

I could accept partial NTC with a list of 8-10 teams where you can't be traded, but would ban everything else from NHL hockey.

Good thing the NHLPA doesn't give a ###### what you care about, but only what their members care about. The members indicate they are willing to take a little less money to have these protections in place.

[JoeLassister]

Good thing the NHLPA doesn't give a ###### what you care about, but only what their members care about. The members indicate they are willing to take a little less money to have these protections in place.

Fans are the losers.

NHL is boring in terms of player's movement.

GM are stuck with their dead weight because of CBA.

You can take player's side if you want, don't count on me to be happy for them about getting a NTC for giving up 5M$ on their 25M$ contract.

The NHLPA fought for it. It's not going away unless you want to lose another year of NHL hockey just so general managers have more control over players.

Since day 1 of this new CBA, I'm mentally prepared to lose another year of hockey at the end of this CBA.

Say goodbye to guaranteed contracts in a few years.

NFL style.

Watch it.

[DON]

Fans are the losers.

NHL is boring in terms of player's movement.

GM are stuck with their dead weight because of CBA.

You can take player's side if you want, don't count on me to be happy for them about getting a NTC for giving up 5M$ on their 25M$ contract.

Since day 1 of this new CBA, I'm mentally prepared to lose another year of hockey at the end of this CBA.

Say goodbye to guaranteed contracts in a few years.

NFL style.

Watch it.

Contract and CBA stuff is frickin boring. All teams got same rules, so level playing field.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Say goodbye to guaranteed contracts in a few years.

NFL style.

So owners can instead be on the hook for ridiculous bonuses? Don't count on it.

[JoeLassister]

So owners can instead be on the hook for ridiculous bonuses? Don't count on it.

We'll see.

[Commandant]

I'm bored so players should live at team's whim and be forced to uproot their families and move across the country on a whim. Fans are losing cause this isn't happening! Damnit. Players shouldn't be able to trade off less money for more job security. Dance monkey dance for my entertainment (even though by all accounts NHL revenues continue to grow so plenty of people are entertained).

Stop for one second and think how ridiculous this sounds?

[habs rule]

If a player asks for a NTC or NMC, the GM should be smart enough to know that he should be getting a discount money wise in order to give that out.

Good forbid a player be willing to take slightly less money for the security of knowing he has some control over where he and his family live.

That sounds good in a warm and fuzzy way, but the reality is this is a business. NMC/NTC do not have to banned. The GM's simply need to say NO. The reasons for a team wanting to make a trade is to by and large improve their team. So because player A wants to be wherever, the team is unable to improve? We have watched the Danny Heatly's of the world screw teams over royally. The Edmonton's of the nhl suffer because players with nmc/ntc just simply do not want go there. (not that I blame them) It means that the playing field in not even or fair to all teams. Being traded is a fact of life in the NHL. Back in the day I worked for a national commercial lender. Being transferred was a fact of life. If you did not want to be transferred, you quit. You took your chances on getting another job. Players sign a contract and if they quit they don't play in the NHL. They can still play just not in the NHL. Seems pretty similar to me. When you decided to become an NHL player you knew that trades are simply a part of the business. If you don't want to be traded, make yourself invaluable to the team. Play like a superstar and the team won't want to get rid of you.

[habs rule]

Hey here's an idea, how about Tom Cruise decides look I will only make movies in California. No place else. I think he would be out of work a lot. He has the right to decide that, but from a business point of it would be suicide. The point being, you can't compare an actor or a hockey player or any entertainer to a regular 9-5 job. Rock bands go on the road 10 -12 months a year. They don't get to be at home. But if they want to earn a living in their chosen profession, it is what they have to do.

[JoeLassister]

I'm bored so players should live at team's whim and be forced to uproot their families and move across the country on a whim. Fans are losing cause this isn't happening! Damnit. Players shouldn't be able to trade off less money for more job security. Dance monkey dance for my entertainment (even though by all accounts NHL revenues continue to grow so plenty of people are entertained).

Stop for one second and think how ridiculous this sounds?

So what about a No Movement Clause for our soldiers then? In exchange of less money, you don't have to move from a province to another, you don't even have to go in Middle East to war, cuz hey, you have a NMC and accepted less money...

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

The players ALSO have a right to unionize and help to shape the conditions of their employment. So saying 'hey, this is the business you chose, suck it up' is mistaken. The players get a say over what that business looks like in the first place. As they should.

Joe, if soldiers were to unionize (!) they too could negotiate terms of employment, collectively. (Unless they were deemed by law to be an 'essential service,' which wouldn't prevent unionization, but would remove the hammer of a strike threat).

It's completely reasonable for the NHLPA to bargain NTCs. It's also completely reasonable for the owners to try to get rid of them in the next round of bargaining. But I for one would certainly not like to see an extended work stoppage over this issue. I was all for doing whatever it took to get a salary cap, because I HATE the model where a handful of rich teams vacuum up all the UFA talent. But NTCs are hardly the same kind of problem, because they unfold within a level playing field. All teams are equally well-positioned to extend or withhold them, depending on their GMs' intestinal fortitude and managerial competence.

Negotiating the cap was about creating a balanced league where success was based on merit rather than owner wealth. Negotiating away NTCs would be purely about protecting teams against stupid general managing - not a 'cause' for which I, as a fan, am willing to suffer through another dreary lockout.

(Beyond all that, there is a simple compromise: negotiate a partial rather than total NTC. This gives the player some control while also allowing the team flexibility. Win-win).

[JoeLassister]

Instead of banning NTC and NMC, I would probably settle down for only allowing them to players who sign new deals at the age of 32+.

Voilà.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Instead of banning NTC and NMC, I would probably settle down for only allowing them to players who sign new deals at the age of 32+.

Voilà.

32 is a bit old, but the idea of affixing NTCs to age is a good one.

What would you be willing to give the NHLPA in return for this concession? A higher cap?

[JoeLassister]

32 is a bit old, but the idea of affixing NTCs to age is a good one.

What would you be willing to give the NHLPA in return for this concession? A higher cap?

I'm not a NHL franchise owner, but I could see the ownership give up a slightly higher salary cap if it means allowing their gm more flexibility to improve their teams.

[dlbalr]

32 is a bit old, but the idea of affixing NTCs to age is a good one.

They already do that now. 27 is the age requirement. Players that sign extensions before that can get them but they only kick in once they actually turn 27.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

They already do that now. 27 is the age requirement. Players that sign extensions before that can get them but they only kick in once they actually turn 27.

Huh. I knew there was often a delay between an extension and the NTC clause ''kicking in," but somehow failed to realize that it was age related! Thanks, Brian.

I think Joe's idea was that some similar principle should also apply to UFA contracts - ? And of course he would, I assume, bump the age well past 27.

[JoeLassister]

They already do that now. 27 is the age requirement. Players that sign extensions before that can get them but they only kick in once they actually turn 27.

Huh. I knew there was often a delay between an extension and the NTC clause ''kicking in," but somehow failed to realize that it was age related! Thanks, Brian.

I think Joe's idea was that some similar principle should also apply to UFA contracts - ? And of course he would, I assume, bump the age well past 27.

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.

[Commandant]

That sounds good in a warm and fuzzy way, but the reality is this is a business. NMC/NTC do not have to banned. The GM's simply need to say NO. The reasons for a team wanting to make a trade is to by and large improve their team. So because player A wants to be wherever, the team is unable to improve? We have watched the Danny Heatly's of the world screw teams over royally. The Edmonton's of the nhl suffer because players with nmc/ntc just simply do not want go there. (not that I blame them) It means that the playing field in not even or fair to all teams. Being traded is a fact of life in the NHL. Back in the day I worked for a national commercial lender. Being transferred was a fact of life. If you did not want to be transferred, you quit. You took your chances on getting another job. Players sign a contract and if they quit they don't play in the NHL. They can still play just not in the NHL. Seems pretty similar to me. When you decided to become an NHL player you knew that trades are simply a part of the business. If you don't want to be traded, make yourself invaluable to the team. Play like a superstar and the team won't want to get rid of you.

Thats fine, if the GMs say NO... as long as its not collusion... then they have the right to say no.

But banning them isn't the answer.

And like I said, NHL players who get NMCs/NTCs should be taking less money as part of that negotiation. If the GM is giving them out without asking for a cheaper salary, then he's an idiot.

[Commandant]

Hey here's an idea, how about Tom Cruise decides look I will only make movies in California. No place else. I think he would be out of work a lot. He has the right to decide that, but from a business point of it would be suicide. The point being, you can't compare an actor or a hockey player or any entertainer to a regular 9-5 job. Rock bands go on the road 10 -12 months a year. They don't get to be at home. But if they want to earn a living in their chosen profession, it is what they have to do.

And if Tom Cruise has two job offers on the table and one job offer guarantees he only works in California but pays him less money (lets say an arbitrary 10%) than the second movie that makes him go all over the world, he can very easily choose to shoot the movie that lets him stay close to home.

Thats what the player is doing, taking less money to get limits on where they can be traded to.

[Commandant]

So what about a No Movement Clause for our soldiers then? In exchange of less money, you don't have to move from a province to another, you don't even have to go in Middle East to war, cuz hey, you have a NMC and accepted less money...

If your employer agrees to the compromise of paying less money to give away such rights; then that is the contract between you and the employer.

Seems to me the government here would be the employer and unwilling to sign such a contract.

In the NHL, both parties agree to the NMC/NTC. Its a fair contract between two sophisticated parties making a contract under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, tell me again why these should be banned. Why should we limit two parties options in the type of contracts they want to draft?