Exactly and correct me if I am wrong, but the number of NMC has fallen since the Vegas expansion draft as teams have learned that it can be a big burden having to protect guys that might no longer be worth protecting. Players like them and teams like them as they can sometimes convince a player to take less cap money or whatever for that control.
Should the NHL get rid of NMC’s?
- Thread starter JungleBeat
- Start date
Exactly and correct me if I am wrong, but the number of NMC has fallen since the Vegas expansion draft as teams have learned that it can be a big burden having to protect guys that might no longer be worth protecting. Players like them and teams like them as they can sometimes convince a player to take less cap money or whatever for that control.
I think NMC are fine.
They protect players interests, while also being a negotiating tool to lower their cap hit for GM's.
This is especially important for parents with kids in school.
You can't just uproot and relocate your family during a school year, or not watch your kids grow up for several months.
They protect players interests, while also being a negotiating tool to lower their cap hit for GM's.
This is especially important for parents with kids in school.
You can't just uproot and relocate your family during a school year, or not watch your kids grow up for several months.
Imo all contracts should be reduced but come with performance bonus'.
Instead of players getting an 8 x 6 deal and then just coasting for the next 6 years they would get 4 x 6 with an extra 4- 6 million in bonuses each season based on a set criteria.
Would make the league more competitive imo.
Instead of players getting an 8 x 6 deal and then just coasting for the next 6 years they would get 4 x 6 with an extra 4- 6 million in bonuses each season based on a set criteria.
Would make the league more competitive imo.
Players and teams should be able to negotiate buy outs for NMCs and NTCs with the buy out counting against the cap.
NMC were never a thing until the Bryan McCabe situation where it was either Toronto/Fla at the time wanted to demote him to the A because he had a NTC and wouldn't waive it or something?
Once other players and agents saw what was happening to McCabe, they moved to protect themselves on their next contracts.
Jeune Poulet
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2019
- 1,675
- 3,801
They already do. There are other leagues out there. Don't let the door hit you on the way out if the NHL doesn't treat you well enough...
Jeune Poulet
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2019
- 1,675
- 3,801
I used to think performance might be a good idea but over time, I've really took the opposite stance.
Performance bonuses based on collective achievements (making the playoffs, winning the SC) bring the risk of seeing more players sign only with contenders.
As for individual performance bonus, I think there are too many ways to contributes that are hard to quantify and turn into bonuses. I also think in some cases it has perverse effects of turning players even more individualistic.
I definitely think the way to go is short contracts. 3 years max, with signing an extension being possible during your 3rd year.
TheGreenTBer
shut off the power while I take a big shit
- Apr 30, 2021
- 9,156
- 10,668
It's not that simple. This isn't like you or I choosing where to work. The NHL operates using a collective bargaining agreement that was ratified by both the player's union and team ownership, and said agreement dictates the terms of employment under any and all NHL franchises, which can be considered a single unit in some ways.
The NHLPA would undoubtedly demand a big concession on the part of ownership if movement clauses were restricted and/or eliminated in the next CBA, and rightfully so. Seeing that veteran players would not benefit from a 25/5 rule, and that said players often take leadership roles within the NHLPA, my guess is that they'd rather have NTC/NMC's still be allowed than to give those up and decrease the years of team control by two. But that's just my hypothesis.
I definitely think if you want to give rid of NMC, giving out Player or Team Options in contracts like for example a 6 year contract with an opt-out after Year 4 or 5 year contract with an team option for a 6 year is my best idea in place on NMC.
Last edited:
McShogun99
Registered User
It will never happen. NMC's are a big deal for older players with families. If anything they should just shorten contracts from 8 to 5 years.
Just Linda
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2018
- 6,652
- 6,539
That's the thing, they aren't NHL employees. They are employed by the teams. The fact that it's NHL or door is monopolistic, even then transfer agreements limit the option on where they can play even further.
93gilmour93
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2010
- 18,763
- 21,280
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 28,700
- 10,557
Hockey fans logic: Hey if a player knowingly chooses to engage and fights and has his brains turned to mush.... that's his problem, he's a big boy and makes his own decisions knowing the risks.
Also Hockey fans logic: Please someone protect GMs from making bad decisions as adults that they willfully enter into knowing the risks.
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 28,700
- 10,557
Alternate option: there should be no salary cap and players should be UFA as soon as their first contract expires.
Bouboumaster
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2014
- 9,711
- 7,773
One Winged Angel
You Can't Escape
Just get rid of the salary cap and raise the cap floor significantly. Make owners like Melnyk actually spend on keeping talent around and/or to bring in talent.
Iapyi
Registered User
So you want to take away players' collectively bargained NMC's AND their guarenteed contracts?
Why don't you also take their children and teeth?
What are you paying them to forfeit all these contractually protected rules?
While not the same as getting rid of NMCs, which NHLPA would object to....What about the idea of making buyouts less painful to the team? Don't think players would object to it (they still get their money) and I don't think it would hurt the league. Maybe owners' pocket books a bit more. Not to the point that teams would abuse it by signing 8x10 year deals with the intention of buying out years 5-8 or something but when a player shits the bed ability-wise due to injury or age and drops from 95 to 65 skill level and you're stuck on the hook for 9m a season...
Honestly it makes teams not want to pay anyone over 30 long term anymore. Not sure how much it could/should be adjusted just another thought as to the viability to address the same issue as OP but in another direction.
Honestly it makes teams not want to pay anyone over 30 long term anymore. Not sure how much it could/should be adjusted just another thought as to the viability to address the same issue as OP but in another direction.
Iapyi
Registered User
What in the world does the media have to do with anything? For you to specify "Canadian" media speaks volumes. Why do you hate Canada so much? Hypocrisy is seldom cute.
Huh, I didn’t any of that. In fact Player Options give players more control as they can get more money potentially if they outperform their contract or they use as leverage to get a bigger contract if they decide to opt out.
Team Option gives the team the opportunity to either keep a player for another year or let them go if they see fit a year earlier. My point was that might be a compromise if NMC are eliminated
To be fair I think there were some spelling errors in your post. It was difficult to understand.
But If what you're saying is add a player option in exchange for taking away NMC, I don't think it's enough.
I live in Canada. The media can be brutal towards hockey players. It's not fair at all. Guys want to avoid that, so they have nmcs to avoid playing up here.
cleveland408
Registered
- Apr 12, 2014
- 1,369
- 229
