Spotted Zebra Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 So whats the better option for a franchise when signing a player, whether it be one of their own or a free agent. If you offer a player an NTC you're likely to save anywhere from 500K to maybe 2M depending on variables. However as we've seen now a NTC can handicap the return you get if the player doesn't work out with your team. Or would you rather pay the player the extra 2M to come to your team without a NTC no strings attatched. Keep in mind that this limits who else you can target because of the increased salary, and other teams may not be so willing to trade for a guy that makes 7M as opposed to 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsiders Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Medium no trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Depends on all the things you mentioned, what team and their cap situation, so basically who knows. But I'm glad you created the thread to get specific answers to a non-specific situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory_Days Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 It will never happen, players union would never go for it...but just like they had to introduce the cap to protect moronic GM's from handing out absolutely ridiculous contracts *cough* Holik $9mil a year *cough*, I really wish they would implement a maximum allotment of NTC's that teams can hand out. Something along the lines of 6 NTC's per team. For clarification, the Canucks before we dealt Luongo had 12 NTC's, some full, some limited, last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAce Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 We should adopt a team policy with NTC's that they be limited . Either a player can submit a list of 10 teams that he wishes to be traded to or 10 teams that he can refuse. That atleast allows the team to have some flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I'd refuse to give ANY player a NTC unless it's stipulated that if the player requests a trade, he gets NO say in where he goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 NTC are franchise suicide they ruin the return of the asset. pay the player what he's worth (market value) at the time of his contract, trade to make space or trade the player in question. this best of both worlds is just plain stupid and like louie kesler and even garrison diminishes the value by a great deal. two teams bidding on a guy or 29. NTCs have and will continue to cost this franchise far more than the rewards they have produced. case and point LA kings 1 ntc to a guy they considered buying out. huh shouldn't that tell GMs something about building a winner how can you build when you can only get what a one or two other gms will give you, knowing they are your only options .and then to hand them out like candy to guys like hansen higgins hamhuis garrison ect.. wow, now that is just terrible managing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Glut of forwards now some thing will give especially if we sign a 2nd line center (stasny, richards,) and a elite winger Sedin Sedin Burrows Kassian Bonino Mattias Dorsett Kenins Lain Sestito Higgins Horvat Fox Jensen Hansen Richardson Shinkaruk Gaunce Vey 21 forwards fighting for 13-14 spots if we sign 2 freeagents. Trades are coming woot woot good bye hansen and burrows and richardson time to go young Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I have always argued more salary. A million a year extra no NTC unless its a core player. Core players go the other way. As cheap as possible but full NMC . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I have always argued more salary. A million a year extra no NTC unless its a core player. Core players go the other way. As cheap as possible but full NMC . Kesler and Lu were core players. Look how that turned out for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VforVasili Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I would argue that Gillis was proven right about NTC being a good idea. Once the team starts losing, enough of those players will want out or be willing to waive that you are golden anyway. You may say that the control that player has over a trade lowers their value. I would counter that the good value contract (due the the NTC) creates some of that value in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_19 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I would argue that Gillis was proven right about NTC being a good idea. Once the team starts losing, enough of those players will want out or be willing to waive that you are golden anyway.You may say that the control that player has over a trade lowers their value. I would counter that the good value contract (due the the NTC) creates some of that value in the first place.Before the scenario where a team can hold a player's cap space when they trade him I wold say NTC. That new policy changes a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Before the scenario where a team can hold a player's cap space when they trade him I wold say NTC. That new policy changes a lot Retaining salary in a trade is an idiotic idea anyway so that shouldn't change a thing for any GM with 2 brain cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.