Talk about Capitals hockey & more! > Washington Capitals & Other Hockey Discussion
What happens now.
Surreylily:
--- Quote from: alta on Saturday June 05, 2021, 12:37:20 PM Eastern ---From what I've seen over the years, all a NTC does is keep the player in the loop for trade prospects rather than be surprised about it like Vrana was, but shouldn't have been. There have been numerous players that have NTCs that were traded, but they had to be talked to first to waive the NTC. Same for being put on waivers, per the CBA.
https://www.thefourthperiod.com/no-trade-clauses/
--- End quote ---
I have another question.... :wackysmile: (Of course I do! :uh-huh: )
Why would anybody with a NMC, also have NTC's? As per that very revealing list in your link. Thank you for that, btw. ;)
alta:
--- Quote from: Surreylily on Saturday June 05, 2021, 02:20:53 PM Eastern ---I have another question.... :wackysmile: (Of course I do! :uh-huh: )
Why would anybody with a NMC, also have NTC's? As per that very revealing list in your link. Thank you for that, btw. ;)
--- End quote ---
NTC and NMC are the same thing
Surreylily:
--- Quote from: alta on Saturday June 05, 2021, 04:11:19 PM Eastern ---
NTC and NMC are the same thing
--- End quote ---
That doesn't make sense to me at all. :huh:
If that were the case, why would any player need both?
BlackIce:
The following commentary on NTC and NMC contracts is taken from a Web page called "Winnipeg Hockey Talk."
No-Movement Clause (NMC) and No-Trade Clause (NTC) Eligibility:
Once a National Hockey League player has played seven years or reached twenty-seven years of age (Group 3 Free Agent Status) he is eligible to qualify for the NMC or NTC in his contract. These clauses can start mid-contract once the player reaches his Group 3 status. (example: in the fourth year of a seven-year deal)
There are basically two types of movement clauses NHL GMs need to pay attention to and/or work around with some players.
The No-Movement Clause:
A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless the player approves one of these moves. The player has the final say. Some players will often have a limited trade list here as well. A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.
The No-Trade Clause:
A No-Trade Clause is much less restrictive. It only places restrictions on movement by trade. A player with a No-Trade Clause cannot be traded by a team unless the player provides consent. A limited (partial or modified) No-Trade Clause is often less restrictive than a full No-Trade Clause and depends on the conditions negotiated in the player’s contracts. Often with these No-Trade Clauses, the player is asked to provide a list of teams to which he would be willing to be traded or NOT traded to. This list can change or fluctuate from season to season.
So according to this, a no-movement clause is equivalent to a complete no-trade clause (rather than a limited-list no-trade clause) plus prohibitions on waivers or send-to-the-minors. Of course, as alta has correctly pointed out, a player can always agree to void a contract clause and allow a trade/movement if he wishes. If the parties to a contract agree, ANY contract provision can be modified.
Interestingly, it appears as though a limited no-trade provision can be worked into an otherwise no-movement clause. And, a team can still buy out a player. I suppose, though, that a player could also negotiate a separate no-buyout clause into his contract if the team were willing to go along with it.
Sorry for all the and crumbs that make this difficult to read. They weren't there when I cut and pasted the article.
alta:
this platform doesn't like cut and paste, it's always a mess
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version