NTC

[CatScrap]

I think that players should have to sign contracts with teams and then after the contract is signed they can "purchase" a no trade clause or no movement clause for 500k a season off of the value of the contract. This way the teams would get a break in the amount they would have to pay a player as well as 500k off the cap.

If a player wants to bind himself to a team it should cost the player a bit and benefit the team a bit. These NTC and NMC are getting out of hand.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

It usually does during the negotiations. See Matt Cooke. They take less to stay but want to ensure that they are not going to play for less for another team.

 

[Dupster]

Doesn't really matter, I think it's more a bargaining chip than anything. Players get asked to (and do) waive their ntc many a time. Doesn't work all the time, but, it's not a set in stone type thing at all.

 

[HonusWagner66]

I don't have a problem with NTC too much. It is odd to see things like the Devils giving Hedberg a NTC as a backup goaltender, but whatever. If you made players pay 500k for a NTC, they'd just demand 500k more on their contract so that doesn't matter...

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

It is essentially a player saying:

"Look, I will play for you guys (insert name of contender or home team here) for this price, but I am not about to go play for Florida or Atlanta for this price so you can make a deadline move."

It makes sense on some level.

 

[evolver115]

It usually does during the negotiations. See Matt Cooke. They take less to stay but want to ensure that they are not going to play for less for another team.

I don't have a problem with that, either. If a guy is coming in to an organization that has a legitimate shot at a title at the time of the signing, and player X joins the club with those intentions in mind, I see nothing wrong with him asking for a NTC in the contract. Simply because he joined up thinking he has an opportunity to win, but if by the deadline his current squad considers moving a contract to make room for someone else, and player X is relegated to Edm. or a Atl... who has no shot in the near future, a NTC protects him.

Speaking of Matt Cooke... I took a bunch of flak on here when he signed his new contract for 1.8 per at 3 years, and I defended it as a resonable contract. Then, Colby Armstrong goes out and gets 3.0 per @ 3 years.... Cookie looks like quite the bargain.

BTW, Armstrong scored 15 G and had 14 A last year, while Cooke had 15 G and 15A.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I don't have a problem with that, either. If a guy is coming in to an organization that has a legitimate shot at a title at the time of the signing, and player X joins the club with those intentions in mind, I see nothing wrong with him asking for a NTC in the contract. Simply because he joined up thinking he has an opportunity to win, but if by the deadline his current squad considers moving a contract to make room for someone else, and player X is relegated to Edm. or a Atl... who has no shot in the near future, a NTC protects him.

Speaking of Matt Cooke... I took a bunch of flak on here when he signed his new contract for 1.8 per at 3 years, and I defended it as a resonable contract. Then, Colby Armstrong goes out and gets 3.0 per @ 3 years.... Cookie looks like quite the bargain.

BTW, Armstrong scored 15 G and had 14 A last year, while Cooke had 15 G and 15A.

I loved the Cooke signing, and he is now THE ONLY PENGUIN that I am happy for when they win

 

[evolver115]

I loved the Cooke signing, and he is now THE ONLY PENGUIN that I am happy for when they win

I knew it was a good deal. Others tried to tell me Cooke was overpaid, but then you look back over some of the contracts that were handed out yesterday, and some that will be signed over the summer, Armstrong being the strongest example... I have a pretty strong feeling that Cooke most likely would have received more on the open market if he'd have waited.