Potential CBA sticking point??

Heard last night there is serious thought to the owners pushing for a standard NMC/NTC. Really it would amount to NMC disappearing as they are looking at modifying the ability for teams to send UFA/RFA signed players to the minors to remove their salary from the cap. Assuming sending players to the minors is to remove their salary from the teams cap, then really there wouldn't be a need for NMC. They are looking at applying it to UFA and RFA players to keep teams from over spending during free agency and then trying to bury their mistakes.

As for the NTC, the propsal has a standard set where any player given a NTC would only be allowed to select a number of teams they will not accept a trade to.

Rather than in the case of Heatley the teams he will only go to, it will be that he could provide a list of 5-10 teams (the numbers vary based on who I talk to but the general thought is between 5 and 10) that he will not accept a trade to.

They are also pushing for a maximum number of NTC per team, and maximum NTC per player per career (ie Heatley can only have 2 contracts with NTC). Useless in my opinion as they are signing these bozos to 10 + year contracts.

Take it for what it's worth. It's just a whisper movement right now but it seems to be growing fast.

Changing NTCs into limited NTCs has merit, but don't they already have that in place? Really, it's just the GM's that have to stop giving these things away like food samples at Costco.

As for the part about NMCs, since it effectively allows a GM to circumvent the cap and their own stupidity, I see the NHLPA fighting this tooth and nail and winning.

If i were the owners, I'd play the start the upcoming negotiations like this. To me, with all of the big issues that will be on the table, this one, I would think, would be the smallest to the owners, but a big one for the players. I think the owners are trying to get the players to react heavily to this in order to get them to "compromise" on the other aspects of the CBA. The owners will bang this drum pretty loudly as the negotiations rev up and then at the 20th hour they'll say "Fine you can have your NTC/NMC, but We get (what they really wanted in the first place)" and the NHLPA will say "Fine, Deal!" and then we all live happily ever after

wprager wrote:Changing NTCs into limited NTCs has merit, but don't they already have that in place? Really, it's just the GM's that have to stop giving these things away like food samples at Costco.

As for the part about NMCs, since it effectively allows a GM to circumvent the cap and their own stupidity, I see the NHLPA fighting this tooth and nail and winning.

I'd be happier if they gave away as many food samples at Costco as they have been giving NTC/NMCs lately - it'd save me a ton on feeding my boys.

Amnesia021 wrote:If i were the owners, I'd play the start the upcoming negotiations like this. To me, with all of the big issues that will be on the table, this one, I would think, would be the smallest to the owners, but a big one for the players. I think the owners are trying to get the players to react heavily to this in order to get them to "compromise" on the other aspects of the CBA. The owners will bang this drum pretty loudly as the negotiations rev up and then at the 20th hour they'll say "Fine you can have your NTC/NMC, but We get (what they really wanted in the first place)" and the NHLPA will say "Fine, Deal!" and then we all live happily ever after

The old bait and switch routine eh?

Sneaky.

I brought this up weeks ago as a item the Owners might push for. My idea was that a player can have a limited NTC, but that is automatically void if the player requests to be moved.

Amnesia021 wrote:If i were the owners, I'd play the start the upcoming negotiations like this. To me, with all of the big issues that will be on the table, this one, I would think, would be the smallest to the owners, but a big one for the players. I think the owners are trying to get the players to react heavily to this in order to get them to "compromise" on the other aspects of the CBA. The owners will bang this drum pretty loudly as the negotiations rev up and then at the 20th hour they'll say "Fine you can have your NTC/NMC, but We get (what they really wanted in the first place)" and the NHLPA will say "Fine, Deal!" and then we all live happily ever after

I'm not so sure this is a "small" point.

Look at the damage that Heatley has caused around the league; every GM is going to look at that and ask themselves "what if I end up in that situation" or "what if I inherit a player who does that?"

Flexibility with the NMC/NTCs give all sorts of maneuverability when it comes to cap space; I'd suspect that the "tag-on" will be that the trading of cap-space will begin to come into play as well - possibly as a counter offer by the players - as it would make it easier to move disgruntled players to destinations of their choosing.

I'd like to see a clause introduced called the "Heatley clause" that says that when a player with a NTC requests a trade, his NTC is dissolved and he can be moved anywhere... or they submit a short list of teams they DON'T want to be traded to but the rest are fare game.

shabbs wrote:I'd like to see a clause introduced called the "Heatley clause" that says that when a player with a NTC requests a trade, his NTC is dissolved and he can be moved anywhere... or they submit a short list of teams they DON'T want to be traded to but the rest are fare game.

AT the very least, every GM should just make it a point to demand that as part of the contracts that have the NTC/NMCs.

In fact, don't even bother bringing it up as a discussion point - just don't offer the clauses unless you get the built-in waivers.

Exactly. No GM should ever again award an NMC that doesn't immediately convert to a limited NTC for any player requesting a trade. This has been an absolute clusterfuck and has robbed virtually all power from Murray in any attempted dealings.

Then it's settled.

Keep moving at this pace, and there won't be a need for them to negotiate the CBA, we'll have it all solved.

hemlock wrote:I brought this up weeks ago as a item the Owners might push for. My idea was that a player can have a limited NTC, but that is automatically void if the player requests to be moved.

I think my answer to that was why wait for the CBA to be changed. Start writing it into player's contracts.

Well said gang. I think re-structuring NTC/NMCs to include the complete waiver of said rights upon the player's request to be traded should become standard.

As it is, these NTCs and NMCs only protect the players from being traded but don't protect the franchises who invest big money in these players. Seems like it's a bit of an unfair playing ground to me.

TheAvatar wrote:

hemlock wrote:I brought this up weeks ago as a item the Owners might push for. My idea was that a player can have a limited NTC, but that is automatically void if the player requests to be moved.

I think my answer to that was why wait for the CBA to be changed. Start writing it into player's contracts.

That may work for a guy like Filip Kuba, but not for a superstar like Dany Heatley imo. Teams will still pander to the superstars. If the Owners push for, and get what I suggested, then the superstars really have no leg to stand on.

This is something I see the PA accepting pretty quickly, if it means gaining something in another area. NMC/NTC are for the most part to protect the player from being traded at the team's whim, not so the player can hold a team hostage.