OT: No Trade Clauses and Getting Dealt

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

Here's what it says on capgeek about Loui Eriksson's NTC:

"NTC at time of signing (not eligible to begin until 2013-14); subsequent trade may have voided clause."

The only time I've seen this be an issue was with Lubomir Visnovsky, where he contended that his NTC should have been activated before the Ducks dealt him to the Islanders.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/lubomir-visnovsky-new-york-islanders-anaheim-ducks-trade/

Now, if I were a player I wouldn't agree to a trade to any team that wouldn't in turn agree to honor my NTC from there. That would open up a situation where I could agree to go to a team like LA, who could use the waiving of the NTC to trade me to Edmonton minutes later. It seems odd to me that the NTC wouldn't be as cemented in the player's contract as the salary itself, seeing as though those clauses are sometimes used to negotiate more amiable cap numbers.

I don't mean this in the context of desiring to trade Eriksson (I don't). But I wonder... Are these NTCs a standard now to be upheld by the new clubs? Are there any examples of anything to the contrary? And as a generality, what would some like to see different when it comes to no-trade clauses?

Click to read more...

 

[LSCII]

You're pretty much all over this. It's standard in the CBA that once the person has been traded, it officially voids the NTC, but most players only waive if the NTC is reinstated once the deal has gone down. So if Erkisson had one, most likely his agent said he waive only if Boston honored the NTC. That way, the player can still maintain some leverage if their team wants to move them. Pretty common practice at this point.

 

[Danton Heineken]

I'm pretty sure the Bruins upheld Nathan Horton's, even though I don't believe it was officially reported.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

You're pretty much all over this. It's standard in the CBA that once the person has been traded, it officially voids the NTC, but most players only waive if the NTC is reinstated once the deal has gone down. So if Erkisson had one, most likely his agent said he waive only if Boston honored the NTC. That way, the player can still maintain some leverage if their team wants to move them. Pretty common practice at this point.

I would assume it's common. In fact, I'd assume it's exclusive! I can't imagine a situation where it wouldn't be.

Was curious if there were cases otherwise.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

And to add to general conversation (hopefully there will be some):

I think if you have a NTC and ask to be traded, you should have to waive your NTC.

"I demand to be traded... THERE" shouldn't be a thing that's allowed.

A couple of issues with this in the CBA that I would have liked to have seen resolved.

 

[Blitzkrug]

I'm fine with NTC's. Most of them on this team have been rightfully earned. What irks me is the fact players have the ability to choose where they go. If the team wants to trade you? Fine. You should have a say as to where you go since you might not want to leave. It's the guys like Heatley and to a lesser extent Spezza, who DEMAND (in Heater's case) a trade. If that's the case, the team should deal you wherever they see fit. By the demand logic, you want out so bad that you don't care where you go.

 

[Ratty]

We can all see the detrimental effect NTC/NMC clauses have had with this team. It restricts a General Manager, who is responsible for the NTC/NMC, from making future moves to improve his team.

I'm sure there are teams that refuse to give out these clauses. But, OTOH, it could prevent the signing of a player the team really wants. SC Champ Los Angeles has only one, Mike Richards, which it probably inherited when he was acquired. Edmonton has only one, Andrew Ference, which carried over from our GM's generosity.

As a fan, I would like to see these clauses go away. But that would take a commitment on the part of all GMs and may be in violation of the CBA as collusion. At least the clause could be written as a limit to the number of teams to which a player can refuse trade, say five.

 

[finchster]

I'm fine with NTC's. Most of them on this team have been rightfully earned. What irks me is the fact players have the ability to choose where they go. If the team wants to trade you? Fine. You should have a say as to where you go since you might not want to leave. It's the guys like Heatley and to a lesser extent Spezza, who DEMAND (in Heater's case) a trade. If that's the case, the team should deal you wherever they see fit. By the demand logic, you want out so bad that you don't care where you go.

The whole point of a no trade clause isn't to state, "I don't want to leave", it's to have control over your career and where you will play. That is specifically the reason they ask for a NTC

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I'm fine with NTC's. Most of them on this team have been rightfully earned. What irks me is the fact players have the ability to choose where they go. If the team wants to trade you? Fine. You should have a say as to where you go since you might not want to leave. It's the guys like Heatley and to a lesser extent Spezza, who DEMAND (in Heater's case) a trade. If that's the case, the team should deal you wherever they see fit. By the demand logic, you want out so bad that you don't care where you go.

I agree. I wanna waive my NTC! But I'm not gonna waive it - waive it. I just want total control over where I go, what your return is, etc.

It's *****.

 

[LSCII]

I agree. I wanna waive my NTC! But I'm not gonna waive it - waive it. I just want total control over where I go, what your return is, etc.

It's *****.

Why is it **** though? Players have very little say in anything in this league. If they can negotiate a NTC, why not? If I ask for something in my contract, it's not like the team has to say yes just because I asked.

If anything, a NTC is a tool for both the team and the player. The team offers them out to attract a player if you're in a competitive situation. Especially since the cap limits the money teams pay these days. So if you can differentiate your deal by including one, so be it. You can't get mad at a player for wanting them either, since any reasonable person probably would if they were in the same position. If anything, get mad at the team's for giving them out so frequently now. I don't mind NTC's to top players, but I do have a problem with the bottom feeders getting them now. But again, that's not the fault of the players so much as it is the GM for agreeing to them.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Why is it **** though? Players have very little say in anything in this league. If they can negotiate a NTC, why not? If I ask for something in my contract, it's not like the team has to say yes just because I asked.

If anything, a NTC is a tool for both the team and the player. The team offers them out to attract a player if you're in a competitive situation. Especially since the cap limits the money teams pay these days. So if you can differentiate your deal by including one, so be it. You can't get mad at a player for wanting them either, since any reasonable person probably would if they were in the same position. If anything, get mad at the team's for giving them out so frequently now. I don't mind NTC's to top players, but I do have a problem with the bottom feeders getting them now. But again, that's not the fault of the players so much as it is the GM for agreeing to them.

It's a No Trade Clause.

When an NHL team wants to deal the guy they have to ask them to waive.

When a player wants to be dealt, that should be a waiving of his clause. I don't think that it's right that it's the player's right to force his team into a trade... and THEN dictate the terms.

 

[Paddington]

Ahhh I'm torn when it comes to the NTC. Generally, I'm pro-player when it comes to demands because I have no issue with an employee trying squeeze as much as they can from their employer. However, as a fan, they can be a hindrance to my team. Damn you NTC!

Also, the NTC can be (has been???) used as a negotiating tool. Player X takes less money in exchange for an NTC.

 

[finchster]

When a player wants to be dealt, that should be a waiving of his clause. I don't think that it's right that it's the player's right to force his team into a trade... and THEN dictate the terms.

That's the whole idea behind a NTC, a player being able to dictate where they will play.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

That's the whole idea behind a NTC, a player being able to dictate where they will play.

What about the first part of that statement though?

 

[finchster]

What about the first part of that statement though?

It's irrelevant, as I've stated, the point of a no trade clause isn't, "I don't want to be traded or leave X team", it's enables players to have greater control over their careers. Players and teams sign contracts with the best intentions and hope things will work out the way both parties want, but like in any business that doesn't always happen. Both parties may want to move on eventually from their commitment and a NTC gives a player career security and certainty.

Let me ask you a question, what would be the use of a NTC for a player in your scenario? It would only protect players from being traded when the team wants to move on, giving the player limited options in a rare situation. When a player wants to be traded there are a multitude of reasons why; career achievement, family, management, sponsorship etc. This is the reason players want a NTC, the ability to protect their family and career.

If John Tavares, for example, wanted to leave the Islanders because he was fed up with management, why shouldn't he have a say in where he goes? He put in five years of service, gave his all for the team and they failed him. He has a short window to make money, achieve something in his career and the team has the ability to send him somewhere ****** like Buffalo or Calgary? That's a fairly unbalanced relationship, a team can effectively ruin someone's career.

In the old days players would simply not report to teams if they had no intentions of playing for them, I think this system is better.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

It's irrelevant, as I've stated, the point of a no trade clause isn't, "I don't want to be traded or leave X team", it's enables players to have greater control over their careers. Players and teams sign contracts with the best intentions and hope things will work out the way both parties want, but like in any business that doesn't always happen. Both parties may want to move on eventually from their commitment and a NTC gives a player career security and certainty.

Let me ask you a question, what would be the use of a NTC for a player in your scenario? It would only protect players from being traded when the team wants to move on, giving the player limited options in a rare situation. When a player wants to be traded there are a multitude of reasons why; career achievement, family, management, sponsorship etc. This is the reason players want a NTC, the ability to protect their family and career.

If John Tavares, for example, wanted to leave the Islanders because he was fed up with management, why shouldn't he have a say in where he goes? He put in five years of service, gave his all for the team and they failed him. He has a short window to make money, achieve something in his career and the team has the ability to send him somewhere ****** like Buffalo or Calgary? That's a fairly unbalanced relationship, a team can effectively ruin someone's career.

In the old days players would simply not report to teams if they had no intentions of playing for them, I think this system is better.

They failed him? I'm sorry, did he get paid? He's an employee! He's not bigger than the organization he works for and he shouldn't consider himself as such. Or rather, the LEAGUE shouldn't consider him as such.

An unbalanced relationship? Tavares can ruin an entire organization if he's the marketable star and demands to go to one place and no other (leaving the TEAM unable to get market value). Under your scenario, he could just honor his contract and that's not anyone screwing anyone else.

 

[finchster]

They failed him? I'm sorry, did he get paid? He's an employee!

In this hypothetical situation, money is the main focus, but winning is a big part too. During contract negotiations there is always discussion about the players role, where they see the team amongst other NHL teams, what the players want and can expect from the team to be competitive etc. If the players feel the organization isn't going in the right direction to achieve those goals, having a NTC enables them to find themselves in a better situation.

He's not bigger than the organization he works for and he shouldn't consider himself as such. Or rather, the LEAGUE shouldn't consider him as such.

Are you sure? This is the Islanders we are talking about

An unbalanced relationship? Tavares can ruin an entire organization if he's the marketable star and demands to go to one place and no other (leaving the TEAM unable to get market value). Under your scenario, he could just honor his contract and that's not anyone screwing anyone else.

The relationship between employee and employer is an unbalanced situation in the real world, it's why work place legislation exist to protect employees. In terms of the NHL, teams have the potential to make money and win from now until the NHL ceases to exist, while players have a short window. If Tavares asks to be traded, then the Islanders suck and they draft McDavid or another talent, or Wang sells the team and gets hundreds of millions of dollars and invests elsewhere. If the Islanders continue to ice a terrible team, John Tavares career and potential earnings are irrevocably damaged for the rest of his life. The players have more to lose than teams when it's all said and done.

 

[DominicT]

My personal feeling:

A team and player negotiate a NTC. A player asks for a trade. Team "we have a NTC, sorry". That's the way it should work.

If a player wants to be traded he should waive his NTC.

 

[JOKER 192]

I'm with MMB , if a player demands a trade , and in some cases such as St Louis they ask to be traded to a specific team, that totally undermines the teams ability to get fair market value for the player. A NTC should be just that, if the Team has to honor it so should the player.

 

[finchster]

If the team is willing to sign the prenup, that's their fault

 

[Lobster57]

I'm sure there are teams that refuse to give out these clauses. But, OTOH, it could prevent the signing of a player the team really wants. SC Champ Los Angeles has only one, Mike Richards, which it probably inherited when he was acquired. Edmonton has only one, Andrew Ference, which carried over from our GM's generosity.
.

Ference signed in EDM as a free agent, he had no contract with BOS.

 

[member 96824]

I miss the days when anytime you discussed any player, you had one poster come in and scream at the top of her lungs about that players no trade clause.

"HORTON HAS A NTC, HE'S NOT GOING TO MOVE HIS FAMILY!!!"

Never thought those would be the "good ol days"

 

[DominicT]

If the team is willing to sign the prenup, that's their fault

And if the player does ... ditto

 

[Artemis]

I miss the days when anytime you discussed any player, you had one poster come in and scream at the top of her lungs about that players no trade clause.

"HORTON HAS A NTC, HE'S NOT GOING TO MOVE HIS FAMILY!!!"

Never thought those would be the "good ol days"

I never knew NTCs applied to free agents. Learn something new every day.

 

[LSCII]

Personally, I'd love it if the league put an end to the NTC/NMC crap that has permeated the league in recent years, but that will never happen because the PA won't let it.