Salary Cap: Shady thinking....

[Inferno]

Just wondering. So you know how when you trade a player with a NMC before it kicks in, that the team that acquires him no longer has to honor the NMC?

Can 2 teams trade each other a player with a NMC, and then trade them back, therefore negating the NMCs for both players...?

Its highly unethical, and would be really contentious with the players union...but i dont see any real problem with it..i mean teams are paying their players in bonuses to make them buyout proof...why not go the other way.

So for example..rangers trade Stepan to another team with a player whose about to have a NMC kick in...then they immediately trade back...both teams now dont have to honor said NMC.

Click to read more...

 

[Crease]

Team B would not have to honor a NMC that has not vested yet. And there are no restrictions on re-acquiring a player after trading them away. But the NHLPA would be all over this and an arbitrator would justifiably find that the contract between Stepan and the Rangers contained an implied promise NOT to do this.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Nash waived his NMC to come to the Rangers and we still have to honor it..am I missing something? Or it's only before it starts?

 

[Crease]

Nash waived his NMC to come to the Rangers and we still have to honor it..am I missing something? Or it's only before it starts?

The new team has a choice only if the right hasn't vested yet.

CBA Article 11.8(a)

If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking
effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to
be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to
the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Nash waived his NMC to come to the Rangers and we still have to honor it..am I missing something? Or it's only before it starts?

No. We did not have to honor it. We decided to re-instate the clause.

 

[Miller Time NYR]

No. We did not have to honor it. We decided to re-instate the clause.

Glad we did

 

[Crease]

Nash waived his NMC to come to the Rangers and we still have to honor it..am I missing something? Or it's only before it starts?

No. We did not have to honor it. We decided to re-instate the clause.

To be clear, the NMC wasn't the issue. Nasher waived his 2011-2014 NMC to come here. But he also had a NTC that did not vest until 2015. Rangers chose to honor it.

 

[Idlerlee]

I mean, not only is this unethical, but it would make the player absolutely refusing to have anything to do with the organization. Can you imagine how angry Stepan would be if he was abused like that

 

[Krams]

No. We did not have to honor it. We decided to re-instate the clause.

To be clear, the NMC wasn't the issue. Nasher waived his 2011-2014 NMC to come here. But he also had a NTC that did not vest until 2015. Rangers chose to honor it.

Why would a team ever do this?

 

[Crease]

The most likely answer is that Nash made it a condition to his approving of the trade.

 

[Inferno]

I mean, not only is this unethical, but it would make the player absolutely refusing to have anything to do with the organization. Can you imagine how angry Stepan would be if he was abused like that

meh... teams have used other tools to get players off their rosters or to give themeselves an advantage over players...


just saying..im curious if anyone has ever though up this particular "loophole"...

its obviously highly unethical, but im just curious if that would be actually possible.

 

[Krams]

Back to OP... it's blatant circumvention that wouldn't be allowed, and it's just bush league. you wouldn't find two franchises willing to do this, it would destroy their reputation...forget about resigning your core or ever attracting a UFA again.

 

[darko]

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I would be willing to bet the "No Trade Clause" is a convoluted and lengthy part of a 100 page contract with stipulations avoiding something like the scenario you presented.

Moreover, I'm certain team lawyers looks for these type of loopholes during negotiation issues and trade deadlines, and nothing has occurred in the fashion of that scenario.

Furthermore, aside from just being unethical, if there were a loophole around the no movement clauses, I'm certain there would be a NHLPA strike.

Sorry inferno, dead weight is here for now.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Back to OP... it's blatant circumvention that wouldn't be allowed, and it's just bush league. you wouldn't find two franchises willing to do this, it would destroy their reputation...forget about resigning your core or ever attracting a UFA again.

Basically, all this. It would set an arbitration record for how fast the ruling come down in favor of the player, and the cost to the franchise in regard to both its ability to retain its own players and attract UFAs would be massive.

 

[Idlerlee]

meh... teams have used other tools to get players off their rosters or to give themeselves an advantage over players...


just saying..im curious if anyone has ever though up this particular "loophole"...

its obviously highly unethical, but im just curious if that would be actually possible.

If you disregard ethics, backlash, and intervention, then this still wont be possible. (If you have the same legal functions we do)

I'm not intimately familiar with american legislature outside of what I see on the totally real show Suits, and occasionally Judge Judy (guilty pleasure), but in Norway there are legal mechanics in place that prevents situations where you attempt to superseed an existing agreement.

Employee's are ridiculously protected. As they should be

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Why would a team ever do this?

Part of the negotiations. Player wants it reinstated otherwise he won't waive.

 

[Thirty One]

Why would a team ever do this?

It's common to. Players rarely just give up their NTCs.

Shea Weber asked the Preds to give him a NTC after signing an offer sheet with Philly, lol. In that case, they had no reason to, and of course didn't. When you're trying to trade for a player they have some leverage, though.

 

[Inferno]

i would never EVER grant a NMC if i didnt have to..just blatant stupidity. Frankly i wish gms would flat out never give them again.

its a good point on the Strike Reggie...that didnt even cross my mind.

 

[Thirty One]

The CBA does specifically say neither side can strike or lock-out within the span of the CBA. Whether that means they actually can't or not, I don't know.

 

[Inferno]

i do wonder if there will be another lockout again...i think the owners will look to get rid of NMCs and NTCs.... its ridiculous..but theyve gotten everything theyve wanted each and every time...

 

[Thirty One]

i do wonder if there will be another lockout again...i think the owners will look to get rid of NMCs and NTCs.... its ridiculous..but theyve gotten everything theyve wanted each and every time...

I'd imagine they bother GMs a lot more than owners

 

[Leetch3]

i do wonder if there will be another lockout again...i think the owners will look to get rid of NMCs and NTCs.... its ridiculous..but theyve gotten everything theyve wanted each and every time...

as long as gary bettman is breathing there will be another lockout...just a question of when and how long it lasts

on NMCs, I'd be curious to know how many players have gotten NMC since the last lockout. IMO the redden rule to prevent teams from burying guys in the AHL has made NMC pointless. the only difference between the NTC and NMC is not being able to be sent down...but any player that would get a NMC is certainly making a high enough salary that the team would never send them down anyway due to the dead cap space.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I had a very similar thought, regarding Hagelin. Rangers can't sign him, Anaheim agrees to sign him to $4+ mill, Rangers trade Hagelin to ANA and he is signed, NYR immediately trades an asset to ANA for Hagelin with money retained. Rangers pay a lesser amount, Hagelin gets his full value, ANA gets an asset for paying Hagelin.

(replace ANA with any team with cap space).

 

[Tawnos]

as long as gary bettman is breathing there will be another lockout...just a question of when and how long it lasts

on NMCs, I'd be curious to know how many players have gotten NMC since the last lockout. IMO the redden rule to prevent teams from burying guys in the AHL has made NMC pointless. the only difference between the NTC and NMC is not being able to be sent down...but any player that would get a NMC is certainly making a high enough salary that the team would never send them down anyway due to the dead cap space.

NMC also prevents a player from being waived, which is not just about demoting him. It's also about saying to the league "hey, here's a player for free!" In fact, if a player clears waivers, the team has a 30-day window to demote a player without sending him through waivers again. It can happen on day 1 after clearing, day 30, or anywhere in between. NMC prevents that process from ever even occurring.