Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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


Matt_T83

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Matt_T83 said:

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.

First guns, now matrimonial law, and you say I am deflecting the issue.

I can't understand why the billionaire Tampa owner did not consult with you before making such a careless contractual commitment.  Perhaps it was that without the NMC, Stamkos would not have signed? In that case, Tampa would not have had his services at all.

Tampa got Stamkos' services for the term of the contact for the price paid.  Stamkos has fulfilled his obligations and so have Tampa.  Had Stamkos refused to play, then a breach of contract case would be justified.

As for calling me "son", judging by your writing, I likely have sperm older than you.  I've signed thousands of contracts in my career...some I regretted most not but I honoured them all.  That is the world I believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes 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 an uneducated goof.

You're talking about protecting millionaires who work for billionaires. I don't know what point you're trying to make by bringing up up the weakest members of society. "Protect us from ourselves?" You improve by living through poor decisions and gaining insight and wisdom from the experience, not by never having to be challenged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm a GM, I wouldn't even offer my own drafted players a NTC or NMC until they reach pending UFA status.   If I want to keep my own UFA, by then, only I would offer that clause to any pending UFA for next contract and demand 4+ years contract for that NTC/NMC that the player wanted.  if he refused to agree to that demand, I can easily trade that player to a playoff team for any significant return on the pending UFA at trade deadline.  

If Stamkos was a RFA, I would not sign or agree to any demand for NTC or NMC to be included to protect my assets.   If he refused to sign, I can easily take him to arbitration and request for two year deal and sign him to any contract that was awarded by arbitration and trade him at end of the trade deadline if he is a pending UFA unless his still a RFA and I can always request for another two-years deal. That's the way to protect my asset.   Whoever signed Stamkos to a long term deal and NTC or NMC when he was a RFA is dumb enough to give that to him because it could come back and bite so hard where he could refuse to be traded and screw us in the end.  

The only NTC or NMC I would offer to any player is if I wanted to sign any UFA to entice him to play for us and I gained something, I lose nothing out from even if he refused to waive a NMC or NTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.  

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.

The funny thing is, if the Lightning wanted to deal him, they could have sent him to any team they wanted before July 1st. Stamkos literally has a 1-year NTC. My guess is he asked for that, so if the Bolts were contending, he couldn't be dealt away and not have his shot at a Cup or he'd get to pick his spot if they weren't. 

My guess is, if you went to Stamkos and asked him if he'd accept a deal to a contender, ie, Montreal, Washington, Dallas, LA, St. Louis or Chicago he'd approve it. 

Not every player is a baby like Kesler. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

If I'm a GM, I wouldn't even offer my own drafted players a NTC or NMC until they reach pending UFA status.   If I want to keep my own UFA, by then, only I would offer that clause to any pending UFA for next contract and demand 4+ years contract for that NTC/NMC that the player wanted.  if he refused to agree to that demand, I can easily trade that player to a playoff team for any significant return on the pending UFA at trade deadline.  

If Stamkos was a RFA, I would not sign or agree to any demand for NTC or NMC to be included to protect my assets.   If he refused to sign, I can easily take him to arbitration and request for two year deal and sign him to any contract that was awarded by arbitration and trade him at end of the trade deadline if he is a pending UFA unless his still a RFA and I can always request for another two-years deal. That's the way to protect my asset.   Whoever signed Stamkos to a long term deal and NTC or NMC when he was a RFA is dumb enough to give that to him because it could come back and bite so hard where he could refuse to be traded and screw us in the end.  

The only NTC or NMC I would offer to any player is if I wanted to sign any UFA to entice him to play for us and I gained something, I lose nothing out from even if he refused to waive a NMC or NTC.

I believe you can't give out a NTC until a players UFA years. Stamkos didn't have a NTC for the first seven years he was in the NHL, year eight (this season) is his first UFA year, therefor he can ask to have a NTC put into the deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with buying one year of UFA, I would rather 4+ years of NMC, rather than one year of NMC on his first UFA year.  Tampa is now trapped with Stamkos considering his prime years coming up.   That is the problem here.   Tampa will lose their best asset for no return if he refuse to waive a NMC.  Like I said, you lose your asset before 27 years old is a bad thing.   Also, what's more, who in their right mind would sign him a long term when he was 20 to his second year of UFA when Lightning has had leverage in term of cap hit and years of RFA available where they can control his contract?   I would sign him 4 to 5 million for 4 years then see if I can get him locked up long term on final summer of RFA and even then I would request for a 2-year deal on a arbitration despite  he's UFA the next off-season and with that 2-year contract awarded, there won't be any NMC or NTC on that contract, can be easily moved on this year trade deadlines if I could not lock him up for a long term contract with 4-year NMC if I am able to successfully lock him up.  I would not even give a younger player below 23 years old a long term contract seeing I have some leverage and if there's offer sheet, I have the first right on making a match.  

I personally feel that RFA system is broken because most players become a UFA at age of 25 and RFA years are too short and compensation system causing the usage of offer sheet a rare commodity being used because of arbitration system, once you file for that, other teams cannot offer sheet that player for that year.  Young player is worth more than most of UFA players nowadays.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.  

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.

Bullcrap!!! The owners locked out the players in 94/95, 04/05, and 12/13. They did this to force the players to cave in to their demands. Now you want to change the CBA to take away a right that was bargained for during the last lockout? The owners got their share of profits and free agent rights were part of the deal. They have to live with that just as the players have to live with the profit sharing formula. Expecting fans to boo-hoo on behalf of the owners is asinine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matt_T83 said:

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.

Well of course this would be unfair to the TBL if true but at this point it is just speculation, probably because right now Stamkos holds all the cards.  No doubt other GM's see exactly what is happening here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NTC,s and NMC's should not exists period.

Can't believe how the NHL has let this stupidest of all clauses to creap into their league.Only a handful of players have these clauses in the NBA and NFL. When guys like Higgins have a NTC you know there's something wrong which needs to be corrected.

Good Luck getting the PA to agree to a change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-01-08 at 0:12 PM, 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 an uneducated goof.

Using gun ownership to make a case for billionaire owners approving contracts their millionaire GMs are negotiating with millionaire athletes?  Yah.  That's a relevant argument.

While we're at it, let's get he NHLPA to agree to ridding the guaranteed contracts and installing team option to extend.

If teams don't want to offer NTC/NMC as part of the package, they shouldn't offer it.  It's a bargaining chip...called negotiations between able minded owners/management and able-minded agents/players.  No one is being taken advantage of and no one needs protection.  It's a free market and as a player, you get what you can negotiate.  Same rules apply to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest, can a team team offer a contract where the NTC/NMC clause changes in the final year?

For example - an $11 million, 4 year contract structured as follows:

  1. $2,500,000 + NMC
  2. $2,500,000 + NMC
  3. $2,500,000 + NMC
  4. $3,500,000 + Limited NTC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was this posted somewhere else on CDC but I would like to see NHL teams have the ability to terminate contracts.

It should he in the writing that when you sign the contract you are expected to keep up a certain level of play. If not you can renegotiate or say bye bye. 

Of course the NHLPA would never agree to this but it's way too easy for a player to sign a contract and then just not performs because they're guaranteed money for X amount of years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...