MG and the NTC/NMC myth!

[TheRussianRocket.]

...so yea, just from the general things I've been seeing on CDC the past bit, it's funny to me how much people are worried that our players have NTCs/NMCs and due to that there's no way they can be traded. At first when I saw a few people say this I thought it might possibly be a misconception/confusion but then it began to snowball and people took it to the extreme, where I think it currently stands. So because of that, I thought I'd lay that myth to rest once and for all and explain why it is false.

MG is not the only GM who gives out numerous NT/NM clause

• This is pretty common actually across the league. Currently, 10 players on the Canucks have some sort of clause. Likewise, the Bruins have 10 players with some sort of clause, Red Wings 10 players, Pittsburgh 10 players, Chicago 9 players, Washington 8 players, Tampa Bay 8 players, Toronto 7 players, San Jose 7 players, and etc. ...it's not just us guys, other teams have numerous players with NTCs and NMCs as well and it's not a horrible thing which you'll learn about below

What is a NTC/NMC?

• A no movement clause (NMC) is for those player(s) who strictly do not want to be moven in any way possible by the team. This clause isn't handed out very often and forbids a team from trading, buying out (I believe), and waiving players. This is usually given to franchise players (ex: Sedins are only ones with them here) who want to ensure 100% they are certain there is no they will be moved and it shows commitment in their part to remain here both from the players standpoint and organizations; both parties involved know that so NMC is almost never the issue.

• A no trade clause (NTC) is for players who want to be secure in regards to a possible trade. All an NTC does is allow a player to be given a heads up prior to a trade, it's all it is. Players without NTCs are not given a notice beforehand and trades come as a shock/surprise to them and there really isn't anything they can do about it. Players with NTCs have the luxury of not being surprised/shocked by a trade because management has to talk to them before ala the NTC - it gives them a notice and therefore they will always know what's going on trade wise.

What is the point of a NTC then?

• Some may question, 'if that's all there is to a NTC, then what's the point/big deal'? Again, answers right above. All an NTC does is ensure a player he will not be shocked if traded because the organization HAS to talk to them beforehand. It is then up to the players discretion if he will allow the team to trade him and that is really all there is and the only kicker. An NTC just gives security and allows players to be safe and not have to worry about suddenly being shipped to another team.

What are the chances a player declines waiving his NTC to be traded?

• If you've read this far, you might be wondering, 'if an NTC just allows a player to be given notice prior to a trade happening, what makes you so sure he'll allow to be traded'? The answer is statistically, over 90% of players who have had NTCs waived to be traded. This may come to a surprise to some and you may be thinking, 'then why did the player get a NTC in the first place if statistics say he'll waive to a trade?', and again like I've said, it's so he isn't shocked and has prior intellect so it's not a surprise. Also, another reason that 90% usually will accept to waive their clause is just so that they keep a good reputation with the organization/management/players and understand and acknowledge their needs/plans/state of the franchise and respect it. Hockey players are human and most are courteous enough to waive for the sake of not making a commotion.

• Now you might have the idea of, 'why did 10% of players not waive their NTCs'? And the answer is simply, majority of that 10% never did because they wanted to be traded to a team similar to their current one. For instance, if a player is on a contending team and has a NTC, chances are he has it to ensure he'll remain on a contender. If a trade comes up sending him to a poor team, he'll likely be part of that 10% that won't waive initially and he'll ask management to trade him to a similar team for his own convenience and desire or maybe even personal reasons and in some cases will give a list of teams he will waive to go to/a list of teams he will not waive to go to. Moreso than not, management acknowledges the players wants and that 10% who don't waive initially gets reduced quite tremendously once management makes up a new trade to that players liking.

• Then there is a very minuscule % that don't allow to be traded at all and those players are usually waived/bought out for the sake of getting them out and not making any sort of ruckus in the organization. These very few players are practically hated by the organization including fans and create a bitter relationship that will live on forever. They trap/enslave the team and don't allow them to proceed with their plans of the future and thus why are usually cut one way or another to prevent that situation from boiling over and becoming worse than it already is.

...and that's the last of it. There you have it folks, a walkthrough explanation of the myth of NTCs and that players with them will not be traded. Hopefully you were able to gain some knowledge and will now see the reality of NTCs and that majority/all Canuck players with NTCs will be traded if requested. Another thing I'll throw out there is that every trade deadline/each season, there are players with NTCs that waive to be traded annually and it's not as bad as it seems.

I hope you enjoyed this post and thank you if you've stuck along and read this far, cheers!

[Tragoedia]

Thank you for this so much. So many people are constantly complaining about this despite having no idea what actually is going on.

[Frazzy Desjardins]

Woo!! preaching to the choir bro!

Too many il-informed "fans" here all doomin' n gloomin'

[The Bookie]

Well Done!

I'm curious, where did you get the 90% waive stat from?

[TheRussianRocket.]

I'm curious, where did you get the 90% waive stat from?

Had a NHL statistics book I got from a friend of mines a year or so ago and it just had cool numbers in it. Gave various different numbers which you don't see everyday and I strongly remember the part about NTCs and stuff since it caught my attention most.

[Watermelons]

+1 Thanks for posting this! Hopefully it will clear up some of the confusion surrounding NTC's. I'd also like to add that NTC's are a way for teams to keep the cap down. Everyone wants to have a player who is signed to a "hometown discount" but the players need to look out for themselves and their families too.

Players show their loyalty to the team by signing at a discounted price and teams reward this loyalty by giving them a NTC. Sounds fair and reasonable to me.

[Schneider.Man604]

This should be pinned. Thank you sir.

[Red Light Racicot]

Cool, thanks very much. So that's all there is to it? Surprising to me.

[Baggins]

• A no trade clause (NTC) is for players who want to be secure in regards to a possible trade. All an NTC does is allow a player to be given a heads up prior to a trade, it's all it is. Players without NTCs are not given a notice beforehand and trades come as a shock/surprise to them and there really isn't anything they can do about it. Players with NTCs have the luxury of not being surprised/shocked by a trade because management has to talk to them before ala the NTC - it gives them a notice and therefore they will always know what's going on trade wise.

You're sugarcoating the reality. It gives the player complete veto power over any trade. The two most common cases of players waiving ntc's are when the player is a pending ufa on a non-playoff team and when the player himself asks to be moved because he's no longer happy with his situation. And even in those cases the player can veto proposed trade partners. Which is far more control than a simple "heads up" prior to being traded.

[LostViking]

The OP is bang on. Trading a player with an NTC is like firing an employee who you have no cause to fire. Sure, they have certain legal rights, but how hard is it to pressure them into leaving? No one wants to work somewhere they are hated or mistreated, especially not a pro athlete who 1) is used to being catered to 2) has to deal with work (fans) in public and 3) has limited time and health available in their career.

Their is only the illusion of an NTC providing veto power, it is a courtesy and little else. You simply cannot look only at the legal clauses between two parties when one party (team) has so much power over the other (player). No different than a judge getting caught speeding, the law says one thing, what actually happens is something else.

[Baggins]

Their is only the illusion of an NTC providing veto power, it is a courtesy and little else.

Keep telling yourself that....

"He advised us that he's staying where he is, which is his contractual right, and that at this time he's not interested in entering into a deal for next year,'' Fletcher, in Toronto, told The Canadian Press on Sunday night.

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mats-sundin-refuses-to-waive-no-trade-clause-1.278585

[Maniwaki Canuck]

What a bunch of droolers. Of course an NTC gives a player a veto.

[Hairy Kneel]

Mom - "Johnny why don't you go outside and play?"

Johnny- " hm..nope."

[Green Building]

Good post OP, I figure about %90 of CDC will continue on as usual though.

Well Done!

I'm curious, where did you get the 90% waive stat from?

Had a NHL statistics book I got from a friend of mines a year or so ago and it just had cool numbers in it. Gave various different numbers which you don't see everyday and I strongly remember the part about NTCs and stuff since it caught my attention most.

I would like to know the name of that book.

[Gollumpus]

Mom - "Johnny why don't you go outside and play?"

Johnny- " hm..nope."

Succinct. Funny.

An NTC just gives security and allows players to be safe and not have to worry about suddenly being shipped to another team.

And, assuming the player agrees to be traded, it allows a certain amount of control over the destination.

By saying a "certain amount of control" I mean that the player may supply a list of teams to which he'd agree to be traded. But what if none of those teams want him for the asking price, or they just don't want the player, regardless of the offer? If the team were the ones instigating the trade, then they're kind of hooped. If the player is the one who wants out, he then has to broaden his horizons and expand his list. In each case, the destination is something which is in the player's hands.

regards,

G.

[Gustavo Fring]

The difference between all the teams who have the same amount of NTC/NMC contracts as us?

They all have cups.

[cbdoubleu]

The difference between all the teams who have the same amount of NTC/NMC contracts as us?

They all have cups.

So what you're saying is, the Canucks are guaranteed a cup by following the blueprint of past winners? Excellent.

[Quint]

Well Done!

I'm curious, where did you get the 90% waive stat from?

87% of statistics are made up on the spot. It's true!

[Monty]

Great post. The only thing I believe you neglected to mention, which Baggins did mention, is that the player has complete veto power over any trade.

So yes, 90%+ of players with a NTC get traded. However, how many of those deals were the best deal available? For example, the Jarome Iginla trade last season:

"Chiarelli said he would have sent defenceman Matt Bartkowski and forward Alexander Khokhlachev of AHL Providence, along with a first-round draft pick, to the Flames." (as per the National Post) In the end, Iginla decided to veto that trade and opt for Pittsburgh, which netted the Flames Ben Hanowski, Kenny Agostino and a 2013 first-round draft pick.

Which trade will end up better for the Flames long term? Only time will tell. However, Calgary didn't get the deal that they originally thought was better at the time.

So while players with NTC's aren't exempt from being traded, history has not shown that the team traded said player ends up winning the trade long term.

[TheRussianRocket.]

You're sugarcoating the reality. It gives the player complete veto power over any trade. The two most common cases of players waiving ntc's are when the player is a pending ufa on a non-playoff team and when the player himself asks to be moved because he's no longer happy with his situation. And even in those cases the player can veto proposed trade partners. Which is far more control than a simple "heads up" prior to being traded.

As I said further down in the post, then they have the option of waiving the no trade clauses or not which = in your case/words "veto power over any trade". Really isn't that big of a deal and is the simple reality.

Veto thing is pretty common sense, it's what I'm trying to explain that isn't a big deal really, basically this post:

What a bunch of droolers. Of course an NTC gives a player a veto.

Good post OP, I figure about %90 of CDC will continue on as usual though.

I would like to know the name of that book.

I'll try getting the name of it from my friend but nonetheless it isn't a really public book. He went down to NY last year to take a break from school, saw a NHL workshop poster, and went there a few days after. ..Shanny was there and he says a few other NHL figureheads and it was just for the public exposure and that's where he got the book. It really is a 'NHL' statistics book and not like a actual book-book meant to be publicized.