No trade / no move clauses should be invalid in final contract years

[Matt_T83]

Although I am a Canucks fan, I can't help but feel for the Tampa Bay Lightning right now.  Here they have Stamkos, their team captain, who seems generally unwilling to sign an extension for a reasonable price.  But they can't trade him because he has a no move clause.  I get that the team signed the contract and some people may just shrug their shoulders and say "their fault", but I don't buy that crap.  

I think the NHL needs to adopt a sign or trade policy with these players in the final year of no trade clause contracts.  The team and the player meet with a mediator, and the team makes 2 or 3 reasonable offers of differing salary and term (which the mediator must approve), and then the player is given a choice: 1) pick one of the contracts and sign an extension or 2) refuse to resign and forfeit any no trade / no move clause.

The no trade clause is meant to protect a players life from being disrupted by moving teams.  However, entering the final year of their contract and refusing to resign virtually assures that they will have to move.  This proves they don't care if they have to move, and thus their right to not be moved is forfeited by their actions.

[Matt_T83]

Obviously other approaches could be taken.  For example, the NHL could require all players entering the final year of their contract with no trade / no move clauses to be automatically switched to a limited no trade clause.  In this case, any player entering the final year of their no trade clause contract would be required to submit 5 teams to which they would accept a trade.

[DIBdaQUIB]

The NHL can't "adopt" anything with contractual implications.  It has to negotiate it with the NHLPA.  Good luck getting the players on-side with what you propose.  If it were to be done, the NHL would have to give them something fairly considerable somewhere else.  There are no free rides with collective bargaining.

[Canucks Prophet]

I think Stamkos would waive his clause if Tampa Bay asked. I don't see him as that kind of person, I think he genuinely loves that city and team. It's just that things don't always go the way you want. 

Anyways, I wonder if GMs will even bother throwing trade offers. It would be better for them if they simply waited till free agency.

[Angry Goose]

7 minutes ago, Matt_T83 said:

Although I am a Canucks fan, I can't help but feel for the Tampa Bay Lightning right now.  Here they have Stamkos, their team captain, who seems generally unwilling to sign an extension for a reasonable price.  But they can't trade him because he has a no move clause.  I get that the team signed the contract and some people may just shrug their shoulders and say "their fault", but I don't buy that crap.

You are trying to forgive teams for intellectual laziness.  They signed the contract with full knowledge of the consequences.  You can't re-negotiate terms or render terms invalid merely because the contract isn't convenient in the final year.  Stamkos has a right to that protection, and what you are arguing is impinging on that.

[Shift-4]

All part of the negotiating process. 
Something the GMs should think about before agreeing to a NTC.
If anyone in this league has earned the right to control his movement it would be someone with the elite status of Stamkos.

[Matt_T83]

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

You are trying to forgive teams for intellectual laziness.  They signed the contract with full knowledge of the consequences.  You can't re-negotiate terms or render terms invalid merely because the contract isn't convenient in the final year.  Stamkos has a right to that protection, and what you are arguing is impinging on that.

Yes, yes I am.  This is the entire point of society.  People need to be protected from themselves.  This is a two way street, for both players and teams.

There's a pendulum swing right now in the NHL towards no trade and no move clauses, as more than ever are being signed.  You've got agents demanding no trade and no move clauses in any long term contract straight out of RFA status.  This isn't fair to the NHL teams, at all.  

The teams deserve to be protected from this crap.

[DIBdaQUIB]

2 minutes ago, Matt_T83 said:

Yes, yes I am.  This is the entire point of society.  People need to be protected from themselves.  This is a two way street, for both players and teams.

There's a pendulum swing right now in the NHL towards no trade and no move clauses, as more than ever are being signed.  You've got agents demanding no trade and no move clauses in any long term contract straight out of RFA status.  This isn't fair to the NHL teams, at all.  

The teams deserve to be protected from this crap.

"people need to be protected from themselves"...What a philosophy for life.  The perpetual victim syndrome.

Personally, I'm tired of having people like you, who believe that, trying to run everyone else's lives because you don't agree with their choices.

Back to hockey...Stamkos negotiated his NTC and the Lightening agreed.  It's a contract.  Get over it.

[Matt_T83]

3 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

The NHL can't "adopt" anything with contractual implications.  It has to negotiate it with the NHLPA.  Good luck getting the players on-side with what you propose.  If it were to be done, the NHL would have to give them something fairly considerable somewhere else.  There are no free rides with collective bargaining.

I am aware that any such change would be required to be agreed upon within the frame of collective bargaining.  

Again, there are many options to consider, but I think something has to be done.  For example, you could propose that players are not eligible for no trade or no move clauses until the age of 30.  Contracts signed before a player turns 30 could allow a no trade clause to kick in once the player turns 30.

The bottom line is that 22 year olds signing a contract as an RFA should never, ever be allowed to have a no trade clause in their contracts like Stamkos had.  We need to protect teams and players alike.

[Angry Goose]

2 minutes ago, Matt_T83 said:

 

The teams deserve to be protected from this crap.

And to do that it has to be agreed to contractually.  You don't just agree to a NMC in the final year of a contract without bearing responsibility for it.  

[Matt_T83]

2 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

"people need to be protected from themselves"...What a philosophy for life.  The perpetual victim syndrome.

Personally, I'm tired of having people like you, who believe that, trying to run everyone else's lives because you don't agree with their choices.

Back to hockey...Stamkos negotiated his NTC and the Lightening agreed.  It's a contract.  Get over it.

Are you kidding me?  Are you one of these idiotic libertarians that believes everyone should be free to do whatever they want?  Go watch the Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on guns in America.  He makes an extremely compelling case why guns ownership should not be allowed.  He points out that many people can do drugs or drive their cars at high velocities just fine, but we need rules based on the weakest members of society.  

We absolutely need rules that protect us from ourselves.  If you don't understand this, then you are clearly an uneducated goof.

[DIBdaQUIB]

1 minute ago, Matt_T83 said:

Are you kidding me?  Are you one of these idiotic libertarians that believes everyone should be free to do whatever they want?  Go watch the Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on guns in America.  He makes an extremely compelling case why guns ownership should not be allowed.  He points out that many people can do drugs or drive their cars at high velocities just fine, but we need rules based on the weakest members of society.  

We absolutely need rules that protect us from ourselves.  If you don't understand this, then you are clearly and uneducated goof.

...and you have all the answers I suppose.  and how do you connect gun laws to hockey contracts. You're obviously a righteous zealot who thinks their version of how the world should work is the only way.  Sounds a lot like the thinking behind ISIL. 

 

Plenty educated enough to see you for what you are and know how futile presenting arguments/facts are..  Done with this ridiculous thread.

[Matt_T83]

2 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

And to do that it has to be agreed to contractually.  You don't just agree to a NMC in the final year of a contract without bearing responsibility for it.  

That is my entire point.  The NHL teams just can't help themselves with these contracts.  Did the Lightning make errors in Stamkos' contract?  Absolutely.  Firstly, they should have taken the path Pittsburgh did with Crosby, and insisted on signing him to a long term 12 year deal.  That would have at least locked him up into his 30's, and at a reasonable rate.  You can't help them with that mistake.  

But teams deserve protection for their lack of foresight into final contract years.  I agree that NHL teams should take note of this situation, and insist any no trade clause they agree to doesn't apply to final years, or shifts to a limited no trade in the final contract year. 

The pendulum is swinging too far in favor of the players right now.  They're making more money than ever, which they deserve.  But in return for better financial compensation, I think they need to give the NHL teams a little more protection.

[DIBdaQUIB]

8 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

And to do that it has to be agreed to contractually.  You don't just agree to a NMC in the final year of a contract without bearing responsibility for it.  

Save your breath Goose.  People are incapable of making rationale decisions and need to be protected from themselves.  Matt is a proponent of the Nanny State.  Next time you sign a contract, talk to him first and he will make sure you don't make a mistake.  He knows what's best.

[Matt_T83]

9 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

...and you have all the answers I suppose.  and how do you connect gun laws to hockey contracts. You're obviously a righteous zealot who thinks their version of how the world should work is the only way.  Sounds a lot like the thinking behind ISIL. 

 

Plenty educated enough to see you for what you are and know how futile presenting arguments/facts are..  Done with this ridiculous thread.

Righteous zealot? This is just the way the world works son.  And you're diverting the argument by trying to insinuate that I have ulterior motives for this conversation.  You essentially argued that people shouldn't be protected from themselves.  Go read your post. 

And go look at divorce case law.  Time and time again, prenup agreements are thrown out after a certain period of time.  A young woman marries a rich man, has kids with him, and 15 years later he cheats on her and they divorce.  She signed a prenup with him that sees her get nothing upon divorce.  Was that not her fault for not having any foresight?  Why should her prenup be deemed invalid?  She signed the contract, she has to live with it -- right?  Wrong.  Many court cases have seen prenups thrown out, because people deserve a chance to be protected from their own bad decisions.

This example is almost exactly in line with Stamkos contract situation, if you don't like my guns example.  

The Lightning signed a bad contract with Stamkos, agreed. But they shouldn't pay the price of being FORCED to watch him walk for nothing, just because they didn't have foresight.  The courts are against your point of view, deal with it.

And clearly you aren't plenty educated enough, because my arguments are far from futile.  You're just a forum troll that throws around tantrums/insults when you see something you don't agree with.  Go ragequit the thread, son.  Oh and don't forget to tell your mom how mean I am.

[oldnews]

14 minutes ago, Matt_T83 said:

That is my entire point.  The NHL teams just can't help themselves with these contracts.  

But teams deserve protection for their lack of foresight into final contract years. 

The pendulum is swinging too far in favor of the players right now.  They're making more money than ever, which they deserve.  But in return for better financial compensation, I think they need to give the NHL teams a little more protection.

You're losing an interesting point that could be worked into contracts in the future - by stating your point in unrealistic and borderline ideological ways.

People are right to call out management and ownership for stupid decisions, a lack of foresight, and refusal to take responsibility for their own irresponsibility.

 

There is no easier and simpler case in point than what the Minnesota Wild did on the eve of the new CBA - on the one hand one of the more vocal hardliners whining about the terms of the former CBA and calling for a lockout - on the other, jumping in before the new limits to sign a pair of UFAs to ridiculous terms- essentially an 11th hour circumvention of what they knew was coming.   Sheer and utter hypocrisy - so you'll have to spare some of us the sympathy song you're strumming for NHL management.  They make their own beds.

These aren't naive mom and pop operations - they are billionaires with huge real-world economic empires - propping them up as deserving "protection" is pretty naive.

A very good point getting lost in the tone of an unfortunate squabble.

The idea of a clause that could be negotiated into limiting clauses is a pretty good one otherwise - if it weren't wound up in an unfortunate players vs ownership ideological battle that is pretty much irrelevent really.   

[Matt_T83]

17 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

And to do that it has to be agreed to contractually.  You don't just agree to a NMC in the final year of a contract without bearing responsibility for it.  

That's where I'd disagree.  If you read my response to DIBdaQUIB above, read the example of divorce prenup agreements.

Judges have thrown out prenups after 15-20 years of marriage.  If a young woman signs a prenup with a rich man and he cheats on her 15 years later, should her prenup be valid?  Some people might argue that she signed the contract and has to live with it.  However, many court cases have disagreed with this sentiment.  They choose to decide that people should be protected from their unwise decisions after a period of time.

NHL teams almost never consider what will happen at the end of a contract.  The Lightning were essentially in love with Stamkos.  They couldn't possible conceive of him not resigning with them.  And now they're in a situation where their own unwise decisions  could cost them dearly.  I think the Lightning deserve some protection from their poor decisions.

[Angry Goose]

8 minutes ago, Matt_T83 said:

 

And go look at divorce case law.  Time and time again, prenup agreements are thrown out after a certain period of time.  A young woman marries a rich man, has kids with him, and 15 years later he cheats on her and they divorce.  She signed a prenup with him that sees her get nothing upon divorce.  Was that not her fault for not having any foresight?  Why should her prenup be deemed invalid?  She signed the contract, she has to live with it -- right?  Wrong.  Many court cases have seen prenups thrown out, because people deserve a chance to be protected from their own bad decisions.

 

Well there is a difference here, that being when the prenup was signed it was reasonable to expect that what comes with marriage i.e. fidelity should be upheld.  Since the husband decided to have an affair it can be reasonably argued that he acted beyond the grounds of their relationship, of which the prenup pre-supposes.  

 

I don't think TB or Stamkos have done anything which could invalidate their current contract to each other

[Matt_T83]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

These aren't naive mom and pop operations - they are billionaires with huge real-world economic empires - propping them up as deserving "protection" is pretty naive.

A very good point getting lost in the tone of an unfortunate squabble.

The idea of a clause that could be negotiated into limiting clauses is a pretty good one otherwise - if it weren't wound up in an unfortunate players vs ownership ideological battle that is pretty much irrelevent really.   

That's true, I am detracting from my point by engaging in a petty squabble with someone who is clearly a forum troll.

I still maintain that NHL teams deserve protection.  For one, the General Managers have a lot of leeway.  A bad contract can be signed by a bad GM, who later gets fired.  But the team is still stuck with his contracts.  

And you are correct, perhaps one interesting point of this conversation is that NHL teams should investigate the use of clauses limiting other clauses.  I wouldn't be surprised if this Stamkos situation was a wake up call for teams around the league.  We may very well see teams allowing at most limited trade clauses in the final years of players contracts.

[Matt_T83]

6 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Well there is a difference here, that being when the prenup was signed it was reasonable to expect that what comes with marriage i.e. fidelity should be upheld.  Since the husband decided to have an affair it can be reasonably argued that he acted beyond the grounds of their relationship, of which the prenup pre-supposes.  

I don't think TB or Stamkos have done anything which could invalidate their current contract to each other

And therein lies my motivation behind this post.  I didn't really want to get into this, since it is just rampant speculation.

There have been a lot of insinuations that Stamkos has engaged in backdoor talks with the Maple Leafs, which are clearly disallowed under the CBA.  He cannot in any way shape or form negotiate directly or indirectly with the Leafs while under contract with the Lightning.  This is essentially the hockey version of cheating.

Who knows what will happen.  Maybe Stamkos really will re-sign with the Lightning, and this entire conversation is moot.  

However, if Stamkos refuses trades and then signs with the Leafs next year, the Lightning should file a grievance with the league to demand compensation from the Maple Leafs.  That would all but confirm that Stamkos engaged in illegal backdoor negotiations with the Leafs.