Salary Cap: Shady thinking....

[Barnaby]

1. The union cries foul. It's highly likely to be considered circumvention. Whether that means a team gets penalized, or they just can't do it... I don't know.

2. Your word pretty much becomes mud to any pending or current UFA's. I can't imagine players wanting to sign with that organization.

3. That player and his teammates likely get peeved. I'm not sure what that'll mean, but it can't help.

 

[bernmeister]

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.

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.

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.

concur w/these responses to the OP, and I am not sure about something...
Stepan has another 5 or so years, whatever,
we trade him now to team "A"
A ships him back to us in exchange for a prospect middle of next year.

He is operating on an extension, or more accurately a continuation of the original deal with that NMC clause.

The trade to A did not eliminate the NMC clause, only defeat its effectiveness pro tempore.
That specific NMC clause was negated cause Stepan was no longer on NYR, and the contract addressed that specific condition/situation.
However, if it is the very same contract, and there is no change by BOTH player and club to modify the already existing and initially effective NMC clause, then...

then Stepan's return would wake up the original NMC, and have it kick in.

Only way to defeat that, IMO
team A would have to allow NYR permission to negotiate w/Stepan before trade
consent to old contract being voided BY PLAYER, voluntarily
then NYR + Stepan must agree on a new deal w/out any NMC

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

concur w/these responses to the OP, and I am not sure about something...
Stepan has another 5 or so years, whatever,
we trade him now to team "A"
A ships him back to us in exchange for a prospect middle of next year.

He is operating on an extension, or more accurately a continuation of the original deal with that NMC clause.

The trade to A did not eliminate the NMC clause, only defeat its effectiveness pro tempore.
That specific NMC clause was negated cause Stepan was no longer on NYR, and the contract addressed that specific condition/situation.
However, if it is the very same contract, and there is no change by BOTH player and club to modify the already existing and initially effective NMC clause, then...

then Stepan's return would wake up the original NMC, and have it kick in.

Only way to defeat that, IMO
team A would have to allow NYR permission to negotiate w/Stepan before trade
consent to old contract being voided BY PLAYER, voluntarily
then NYR + Stepan must agree on a new deal w/out any NMC

This is not the NFL

 

[bernmeister]

This is not the NFL

I agree.

I'm just saying unless the original contract is no longer in effect, you can't get around the NMC WHENEVER the guy is with that club, whether before being dealt or if returned.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I agree.

I'm just saying unless the original contract is no longer in effect, you can't get around the NMC WHENEVER the guy is with that club, whether before being dealt or if returned.

But the contract will be in effect, unless he is bought out. Teams cannot restructure contracts. As I said, this is not the NFL

 

[Mikos87]

You honor the terms of the contract. The team accepting the player via a trade with NMC, carries on it's NMC.

This throws people off because of Dany Heatley. Who the Sharks would only accept if Dany agreed to removing his NMC as a prerequisite for the trade.

Heatley had asked out of two teams prior to arriving in SJ.

 

[bernmeister]

But the contract will be in effect, unless he is bought out. Teams cannot restructure contracts. As I said, this is not the NFL

Again, we agree to agree here.
BECAUSE the (original) contract REMAINS in effect the binding provision that was TEMPORARILY AND CONDITIONALLY voided because the NMC was binding ONLY on the team that offered the contract, but is only optional for the 2nd club acquiring the player and that contract, IMO.

That acquiring club who re-sends Stepan back to Rangers in the hypothetical can only speak to their choice to opt to honor the NMC or not as to their club. It can not speak as to the NMC, which is now suddenly again applicable if Stepan is retraded to Rangers.

You honor the terms of the contract. The team accepting the player via a trade with NMC, carries on it's NMC.

This throws people off because of Dany Heatley. Who the Sharks would only accept if Dany agreed to removing his NMC as a prerequisite for the trade.

Heatley had asked out of two teams prior to arriving in SJ.

My understanding is this is not a binding obligation on the acquiring team.
It is their option to honor or not.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Again, we agree to agree here.
BECAUSE the (original) contract REMAINS in effect the binding provision that was TEMPORARILY AND CONDITIONALLY voided because the NMC was binding ONLY on the team that offered the contract, but is only optional for the 2nd club acquiring the player and that contract, IMO.

Dude, you are just making up rules which directly contradict the CBA!

 

[Crease]

There's some confusion in the thread.

If a player waives a no-movement clause or no-trade clause so that he can be traded, the clause still binds the acquiring team. The exception is if the player agrees to waive it for the duration of the contract. I don't know any player who has done that.

The rule is different for clauses that have not yet come into effect when the player is traded. The acquiring team is not bound by these clauses and holds the option of whether to honor them.

Nash is a good example of the distinction. Nash had a no-movement clause from 2011-2014. He also had a no-trade clause from 2015 on. He was traded in 2012. He temporarily waived his no-movement clause, meaning the Rangers were bound to it after acquiring him. The Rangers opted to honor the not-yet-vested no-trade clause (probably because honoring it was a condition precedent to Nash approving the trade).