thejazz97

I think the ones that are understandable are Eriksson, Edler, and Holtby. I can see the arguments for Beagle, Roussel, and Myers. There was never an excuse to give Ferland, Benn, and Hamonic anything. Especially Benn and Hamonic. Hamonic wanted to play in Western Canada... the Canucks had the leverage there. 

I don't see guys like Eriksson or Ferland using there NTC/NMC if they are traded. Ferland will be on LTIR for the rest of his contract as his career is effectively over and Eriksson will relish a new opportunity anywhere, I suspect.

@Quantum Hamonic wanted some assurances that he was staying because of his family. Ferland - who knows why?

Giving out such clauses isn't by itself terrible.....it's when the player doesn't really give up anything to be given such a clause (ie., give up SOME salary for that protection).