The question would be about how to define the precise point at which a player is officially "nowhere near meeting their contractual obligations". I suppose you could do something akin to player bonuses, but in reverse in a sort of way, but I'm not sure how well that would work.
Honestly, you talk as though Eriksson is a jerk to everyone and beats his wife. The guy hasn't played well. Doesn't mean we have to inflict every poison on him imaginable to make his life miserable.
A NMC kills this proposal. 0% chance we take a NMC before the expansion draft unless it's an insanely good deal for us.
EDIT: His NMC contract ends right at the expansion draft, so it's irrelevant for that purpose.
Would you be a proponent of avoiding shot blocks all-together? Is it Tanev's perceived fragility that implores you to plead for him not to block shots or just the danger of blocking shots in general?
Honestly, aside from two bad games a while back, Marky has still played very well recently, which is amazing given his current situation with the passing of his dad. Hats off to you, Marky.
Really too bad he had to go out like that. I don't like his stuff anymore, but he's a Canadian icon and ideally should've just retired, but to be fair, he should've retired on his own about 5 years ago.