Contracts

[echoison]

There are interesting point brought up in this atricle regarding the contract lengths and the no trade/movement clauses.

"No-trade and no-movement clauses suck the life out of the NHL. Big trades in the NHL used to be commonplace, but with each passing year trade deadline day becomes more and more anti-climactic. For weeks leading up to the deadline we are bombarded with potential deals that could take place (my pal Bruce Garrioch in Ottawa single-handedly trades half of the league in his daily column) only to see fewer and fewer deals of any significance consummated."

The main tone of this article in regards to the Contracts is the player has too much power. I agree to a point that the length and no movement clauses are handcuffing the GMs in what they can do but on the flip side, these are people lives we are talking about and the player just want to have some sense of security that they are not going to have to pack up and move at any moment.

I think putting a cap on the number of years could be an option, maybe 5 years. Now one of the comments posted said that the no trade/movement clauses do not need to go, and I agree, and goes on to say if the player requests the trade, there would be a time limit on the no trade teams. Now I believe that additional clauses put in to take into account who is initiating the trade is a good idea but would have to be very detailed. If the team wants to trade the player, then yes the player has his choice, however if the player requests a trade (or breaks conduct written into contract) that their no trade becomes null and void. I think this would improve the GM side of things as well as keep the security of the players in mind and provide the fans with excitement all year round.

Thoughts?

[Demonous_Xodus]

I'd have several clauses I think could be fair.

NTCs/NMCs can only be given in the case that:

1) The player is 32+ years of age/10 years in the league.

2) The player can be placed with a "franchise player tag" which means he can have an NTC, but with a (specific) hit at his salary.

Optional:

3) The player has family-related obligations. (Illness, Kids in School, etc.) These must be appealed to NHL with team.

Basically I'm saying that people coming off their ELCs shouldn't have NMCs or NTCs, it should be something you earn with age and/or experience. I like the idea of a franchise player tag (which can be placed on anyone), so basically it acts as coining one guy to be your guy. He gets an NMC, but he has to take a lower cap hit.

And if a player has children with certain medical conditions that should keep him there, then so be it. We can all be reasonable here. If your kid has cerebral palsy and needs to stay in Washington, why uproot the whole family? Sure you can re-adapt a home wherever you are going, but by god, its still hard.

With my structure:

Flames with NTCs:

Jarome Iginla

Miikka Kiprusoff

Alex Tanguay

Cory Sarich

Players who no longer have an NMC:

Matt Stajan

Jay Bouwmeester

Curtis Glencross

Mike Cammalleri

Mark Giordano

Dennis Wideman (as per CapGeek)

Anton Babchuk

[Flyerfan52]

Players usually pay for the NTC/NMC clause by taking a reduced $ contract. After years of being traded/sold @ a team's whim they want stability for themselves &/or their family. Even the single guys have been living with the fact they could have a new address tomorrow since they 1st entered junior.

Currently it doesn't kick in until about age 27 (even if the contract starts @ a lower age).

The media wants mega trades to fill their columns but that kind of trade is rare as much because the team doesn't want to trade it's givens for players they aren't sure will fit their game as it is held back by those clauses.

Claiming there is a shortage of trades is another self-serving media creation. A player that plays his entire career with 1 franchise is now a rarity (but the media get mileage pointing that out when short on column ideas).

The change I do want in NTC/NMCs is for when a player with either clause (like Heatley) demands a trade it should nullify that clause. Both sides signed with the intention the player be a member of their team for x # of years. The team having it's hands tied trade-wise by a player not living up to his end of the bargain (basically being in breach) unfairly makes only them live up to the clause.

I'd find it hard to find fault with tying eligibility to years as a member of that team (5-7 years to prove loyalty for both sides but have the clause kick in the day the papers are signed to prevent abuse by management) which effectively removes it as a bargaining chip in the case of UFAs.

Another possibility is that the team trading a player with a clause (unless instigated by a trade demand) retaining the excess $ part of the cap hit (in a case like Babchuk the 1.0 applies) but the team trading for him only credited with the true payment (2.5 on Babchuk) to prevent a GM from burying his mistakes in a cap cellar team. This would remove incentive to front load contracts). It could also be applied only to current contracts if the true $ = cap $ per season were enacted.

*As you can see I have little trust in either side (& less in the media that slants things to favor whatever they're pitching that day. *