So still think we wont move a D man?

[eco's bones]

Yes, much to my frustration, the reporters and even GeneralFanager and CapFriendly appear to get this wrong with their terminology. Tawnos and I both looked into this issue, and it seems pretty clear that you can have either a NMC or a NTC, and either one can be modified, typically to allow for limited trading.

The difference is that with a NTC, you can still be demoted, waived, exposed to an expansion draft, etc. regardless of whether it is "full" or modified; whereas with a NMC, you CANNOT be demoted, waived, exposed to an expansion draft, etc., EVEN if it is modified to allow for some form of trading. (Interestingly, however, the various sites ALSO show listings for M-NMC, which leads me to believe that there may be modified versions of NMCs that allow for, say, waiving, but not demoting - though I should point out that I don't actually know this for a fact, and am only offering conjecture on this point.)

The problem is that these knuckleheads reporting on the contractual details for some reason have difficulty understanding the basic structural differences above and insist on mangling their descriptions of a NMC that allows for limited trading by calling it a "full NMC with a limited NTC" or variations thereof.

We'll never know for certain without seeing the actual paperwork, but after wading through how the sites list him plus all the various reports in the press (and then using basic deductive reasoning) it seems pretty clear that what Girardi has is a full NMC in the first three years of his contract that then becomes modified to allow for limited trades (but still prevents him from being demoted, waived or exposed to expansion) in the last three years.

The interesting thing is that Staal's contract continues to be listed as a full NMC in the first three years and then a modified NTC in the last three. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we learn sometime in the next year or two that GeneralFanager/CapFriendly made the same mistake with him...

A very very good post. These things can be very complicated.

I think it helps to have a broad perspective of what is going on. There is the the NHL and NHLPA--their agents and lawyers before the lockout and the NHL and NHLPA and their agents and lawyers after the lockout and then the half season lockout and all the contractual issues and modifications subsequent to those events and how they inform on the CBA as it is today. It's taken a process to get to where it is now.

Ultimately the hammer rests in the hands of the owners with the NHL acting as its proxy but there are still rules that both the NHL and the NHLPA have to abide by. That's what the CBA does--it sets parameters. I loved the Union I was in before I retired but a professional sports union is quite a different animal from a normal trade union--though there are some similarities. In Girardi's or Staal's cases--their agents/lawyers etc. have really good reasons to make sure their clients aren't ****ed with by their employers. Girardi signed a 6 year contract for $33 mil total and if his agent/agency is bringing in the standard 10% to the firm that's $3.3 mil clear to the agency over 6 years which is some serious money not to mention having some control over a good % of the other $29.7 through the handling of investments and whatnot. Which is to say that players aren't represented by your usual ass-hole ambulance chasers and that when CBA's are negotiated it is done with clear intention by all parties whether they completely share those intentions with the other side or not. Anyway when the Rangers signed Girardi--they gave him the NMC as a perk to entice him to sign for less--most figured at the time he could have made more had he gone to unrestricted free agency. Looking at yesterday's bigger deals that's hard to dispute. The same **** two-three-five-ten-fifteen years ago is going on today.