OT: No Trade Clauses and Getting Dealt

[LSCII]

For the record, keep in mind that PC's love of NTC's actually helped the Bruins win the cup. Had Thomas not had one, he would have been dealt in the offseason after his hip surgery. But because he wouldn't waive, he came back in 11 and the rest is history.

 

[member 96824]

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

Ahh but you see, that's not what the lesson was to be learned there....just that having a no trade clause has not, and will never mean that a player can't/doesn't want to move like you used to imply in every trade thread.

I was being serious though, at least that was relevant to the conversation at the time...better than talking about if players have tattoos or enjoy a party.

 

[don]

I lean toward the side of: Player asks for a trade, team decides where; Team asks player to waive, player decides where (can be negotiated between player and team).

 

[Danton Heineken]

For the record, keep in mind that PC's love of NTC's actually helped the Bruins win the cup. Had Thomas not had one, he would have been dealt in the offseason after his hip surgery. But because he wouldn't waive, he came back in 11 and the rest is history.

But I thought Michael Ryder's save in the first round was the reason the Bruins won the Cup? That's what *everybody* told me.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

Well, back to an original question:

Does anyone know of a situation where a player agreed to waive the NTC for a particular team and that team in turn did NOT continue to honor the clause after joining?

 

[smithformeragent]

MMB, under your scenario, I would imagine that said team which acquires player X and then immediately deals the player would compromise itself as a destination in the future to the point where no other player with a NTC would agree to waive to go to that team.

 

[member 96824]

...

Well, back to an original question:

Does anyone know of a situation where a player agreed to waive the NTC for a particular team and that team in turn did NOT continue to honor the clause after joining?

I don't believe it's typically public information if the new team picks up their NTC or not.

For example, I don't believe Loui Eriksson still has his NTC, but there is nothing that confirms or denies that....but it's definitely in writing that a team does not have to pick up a NTC once it has been waived.

Did Jeff Carter have a NTC with Columbus? I know he had one when he signed with Philly, Capgeek does not show him having a NTC now.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

MMB, under your scenario, I would imagine that said team which acquires player X and then immediately deals the player would compromise itself as a destination in the future to the point where no other player with a NTC would agree to waive to go to that team.

It likely wouldn't happen the way I laid out.

It would however, open up the possibility FOR that situation. Even if it was a year after, it still strikes one as a bad faith deal.

What I mean to get it is, that note on capgeek that I referenced? I can't imagine it being applicable. I just think that it's all but automatic that the NTC comes with the player nowadays. I wanted to see if I was wrong.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

I don't believe it's typically public information if the new team picks up their NTC or not.

For example, I don't believe Loui Eriksson still has his NTC, but there is nothing that confirms or denies that....but it's definitely in writing that a team does not have to pick up a NTC once it has been waived.

You could be right!

I find that rather curious though, that so many things ARE made public... Obscuring that info seems rather arbitrary. I think it's more likely the "unspoken rule" now.

 

[member 96824]

You could be right!

I find that rather curious though, that so many things ARE made public... Obscuring that info seems rather arbitrary. I think it's more likely the "unspoken rule" now.

Yeah that's true.


Just added an edit on Carter. He definitely had a NTC with Philly in his extension, however...capgeek doesn't show one available now. Wonder if Columbus didn't pick it up. I'm seraching for something that suggests he had to waive for LA, but not finding anything on that front either.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Yeah that's true.


Just added an edit on Carter. He definitely had a NTC with Philly in his extension, however...capgeek doesn't show one available now. Wonder if Columbus didn't pick it up. I'm seraching for something that suggests he had to waive for LA, but not finding anything on that front either.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/04/jeff-carters-no-trade-clause-is-no-more/

This may be an example. For an added bonus, the irony of the article two Cups later!

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/04/jeff-carters-no-trade-clause-is-no-more/

This may be an example. For an added bonus, the irony of the article two Cups later!

Actually, this is an example where he was dealt BEFORE the NTC kicked in. Which (if I'm remembering right) means it automatically becomes void.

 

[member 96824]

Actually, this is an example where he was dealt BEFORE the NTC kicked in. Which (if I'm remembering right) means it automatically becomes void.

Really? Hmmm, I figured that would be the textbook situation for the receiving team having the option to pick it up or not.

Trying to think of other options, but the tough part is, not too often are players traded within the same season...so not much comes straight to mind due to the long paper trail of these damn things

 

[LSCII]

But I thought Michael Ryder's save in the first round was the reason the Bruins won the Cup? That's what *everybody* told me.

Fair Point, and I nearly forgot. Thomas may have been okay that cup run, but Michael Ryder was the main reason...

 

[LSCII]

I lean toward the side of: Player asks for a trade, team decides where; Team asks player to waive, player decides where (can be negotiated between player and team).

See, to me, it's on the team. Nobody forced the team to agree to a NTC. They knew what the deal was going in, so it shouldn't be a surprise if and when it happens...

 

[don]

See, to me, it's on the team. Nobody forced the team to agree to a NTC. They knew what the deal was going in, so it shouldn't be a surprise if and when it happens...

Neither the team nor the player can tell what the situation will be a couple years after signing. Situations do change; new coach, player family matters, etc. There may be many reasons to waive an NTC, i.e., another team may call and ask about the availability of a player and make a good offer for him so his current team tells him who and asks if he would waive so the real dickering could begin.

 

[DominicT]

...

Well, back to an original question:

Does anyone know of a situation where a player agreed to waive the NTC for a particular team and that team in turn did NOT continue to honor the clause after joining?

Most recent scenario is Ryan Miller.

Blues did not renew the limited NTC and even shopped his rights prior to the draft.

 

[JOKER 192]

See, to me, it's on the team. Nobody forced the team to agree to a NTC. They knew what the deal was going in, so it shouldn't be a surprise if and when it happens...

why is it on the team ? It's a contract binding two parties, written in the interest of both not just the player.

 

[finchster]

why is it on the team ? It's a contract binding two parties, written in the interest of both not just the player.

Because giving a NTC is strictly in the interest of the player as it enables him to have further control over his career? It's not about leaving the team, it's about control over where you will play.

Again, why would a player want a NTC to only protect him in the event the team wants to trade him? If a team no longer wants your services, the best thing to do is leave and remove yourself from a situation that could become bad, who would want to stay if your company says, "We don't want you anymore"?

 

[ODAAT]

I`d welcome a trade from my employer 8 days a week

 

[DominicT]

Because giving a NTC is strictly in the interest of the player as it enables him to have further control over his career? It's not about leaving the team, it's about control over where you will play.

Again, why would a player want a NTC to only protect him in the event the team wants to trade him? If a team no longer wants your services, the best thing to do is leave and remove yourself from a situation that could become bad, who would want to stay if your company says, "We don't want you anymore"?

Not entirely correct finchster.

Plenty of players have taken less $$$ or longer/shorter term so they can get that NTC. It is as much negotiated as the dollars and the term of the contract.

The CBA even calls it Individually Negotiated Limitations On Player Movement

So why should a team be bound to uphold their end of the bargain and a player not? Yes there are instances where a team asks a player to waive and they work with that player or even get their agent to work out a trade. But the player holds all the cards.

So why can a guy like Marty St Louis demand a trade to only one team?

I'm willing to bet, that in the life of this current CBA, that there will eventually be another St Louis incident and that team will (it is their right now) file a grievance and take it to an arbitrator.

 

[finchster]

Not entirely correct finchster.

Plenty of players have taken less $$$ or longer/shorter term so they can get that NTC. It is as much negotiated as the dollars and the term of the contract.

The CBA even calls it Individually Negotiated Limitations On Player Movement

You have illustrated that teams use it to to gain more favorable terms for the team. As I've stated before, a NTC clause would not be as valuable to players if it only blocked when a team wanted to trade.

So why should a team be bound to uphold their end of the bargain and a player not? Yes there are instances where a team asks a player to waive and they work with that player or even get their agent to work out a trade. But the player holds all the cards.

Because the bargain is not, "You will not be traded, here is a NTC", the bargain is, "you will have control over where you will play." In that case, the player is indeed holding his end of the bargain, he took less money and longer/shorter term than he wanted for the benefit of the team, in exchange for the ability to control where he plays.

So why can a guy like Marty St Louis demand a trade to only one team?

Because the team agreed to give him that right for something they wanted in the contract.

 

[Alan Ryan]

Not entirely correct finchster.

Plenty of players have taken less $$$ or longer/shorter term so they can get that NTC. It is as much negotiated as the dollars and the term of the contract.

The CBA even calls it Individually Negotiated Limitations On Player Movement

So why should a team be bound to uphold their end of the bargain and a player not? Yes there are instances where a team asks a player to waive and they work with that player or even get their agent to work out a trade. But the player holds all the cards.

So why can a guy like Marty St Louis demand a trade to only one team?

I'm willing to bet, that in the life of this current CBA, that there will eventually be another St Louis incident and that team will (it is their right now) file a grievance and take it to an arbitrator.

Using the term NTC is flawed. It would be better to call it an LTC--Limited Trade Clause.

 

[DominicT]

Using the term NTC is flawed. It would be better to call it an LTC--Limited Trade Clause.

What do Martin St Louis, Jason Spezza and Ryan Kesler have in common?

All 3 wanted more term and a NTC and agreed to less $$$ to do so and all 3 said they wanted to finish their careers with their respective teams. Then all 3 demanded trades while holding their respective teams hostage.

"Now the goal is to lead the Lightning back towards the top of the NHL while finishing my career here. My family and I would like to thank Steve and Mr. Vinik for giving us that opportunity. I will not let them or our fans in Tampa Bay down.

http://lightning.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=533410

 

[DominicT]

You have illustrated that teams use it to to gain more favorable terms for the team. As I've stated before, a NTC clause would not be as valuable to players if it only blocked when a team wanted to trade.


Because the bargain is not, "You will not be traded, here is a NTC", the bargain is, "you will have control over where you will play." In that case, the player is indeed holding his end of the bargain, he took less money and longer/shorter term than he wanted for the benefit of the team, in exchange for the ability to control where he plays.


Because the team agreed to give him that right for something they wanted in the contract.

No sir. The player wanted the NTC hence he was willing to take less money to get that. The team did not give him the right to demand a trade to only one team. They agreed they wouldn't trade him because he didn't want to be traded. In St Louis case, he was adamant he wanted to retire in Tampa and that's why he asked for a NTC. Team abided because they had no intentions of ever trading him