NMC's your thoughts

[JP51]

NMCs seem to come up alot in discussion... just looking to see if folks are fine with it, think it should change, or some kind of hybrid...    I am in between the if you dont like that people wont come to you do better... and putting some kind of age minimum in there... but  just interested in peoples thoughts...

[ponokasabre]

I personally believe there should be a minimum per team. Say 1 forward, 1 defense, 1 goalie, and then one for one other player could be any position. That I think would keep it interesting and fair. Those positions would be full no moves and then you would have no partial or 10 team no trades.

 

I do understand the players want no trades because they don't want to uproot there family or play for teams they don't want to play for. But that's what you signed for and as a fan, especially a fan of a team that has a hard part attracting free agents, trades are the only way to augment and add talent. Free Agency is where players can pick where they want to go. And maybe we need to make Free Agency earlier if we were to change the no-move rules. 

[Pimlach]

Unlike the NFL, the draft is not the primary way to build in the NHL.  Minor league development, ability to make trades, and free agency are equally as important.   When players are allowed to refuse trades it hurts the bottom teams or the less glitzy destinations.   

NFL rosters are more than twice the size as an NHL roster.   I see 260 NMCs in the NHL, and only 7 in the NFL. 

I think NMCs are hurting the ability of many teams to compete. 

And get rid of the "over the salary cap" NHL playoff teams too. Now that is really dumb.   

Edited 2 hours ago by Pimlach

[JP51]

4 minutes ago, ponokasabre said:

I personally believe there should be a minimum per team. Say 1 forward, 1 defense, 1 goalie, and then one for one other player could be any position. That I think would keep it interesting and fair. Those positions would be full no moves and then you would have no partial or 10 team no trades.

 

I do understand the players want no trades because they don't want to uproot there family or play for teams they don't want to play for. But that's what you signed for and as a fan, especially a fan of a team that has a hard part attracting free agents, trades are the only way to augment and add talent. Free Agency is where players can pick where they want to go. And maybe we need to make Free Agency earlier if we were to change the no-move rules. 

this is a fair thought... it definitely is a sticky subject... 

[JP51]

Just now, Pimlach said:

Unlike the NFL, the draft is not the primary way to build in the NHL.  Minor league development, ability to make trades, and free agency are equally as important.   When players are allowed to refuse trades it hurts the bottom teams or the less glitzy destinations.   

NFL rosters are more than twice the size as an NHL roster.   I see 260 NMCs in the NHL, and only 7 in the NFL. 

I think NMC are hurting the ability of many teams to compete. 

And get rid of the "over the salary cap" NHL playoff teams too. Now that is really dumb.   

I do see this as well... especially drafting at 18... its a big crap shoot in the NHL to an extent and you dont improve your team except for rarely for 2 years minimum. I do think it results in a competitive disadvantage..  especially when you are dealing with two separate countries (4 if you count NY and California LOL ) and their tax laws.. 

[dudacek]

It does create a competitive imbalance so from a parity perspective it should be limited.

But the human perspective - that people should have freedom to decide where they work - I’m in favour.

The fact the NHL limits it to veteran players seems to be a fair compromise to me.

Semi-related, it’s not the drag on team creation some make it out to be. I’m not drinking the Kevyn Adams koolaid on that one.

[shrader]

They're handing out a lot of things to players in their deals now that hurt the trade market.  The other big one is how many people are getting the maximum term.  Those deals used to be reserved for the cream of the crop, but now they hand them out like candy.  How on earth does Pierre Engvall get 7 years?  Hopefully the new CBA limiting that by one year will help a bit.

[JP51]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

It does create a competitive imbalance so from a parity perspective it should be limited.

But the human perspective - that people should have freedom to decide where they work - I’m in favour.

The fact the NHL limits it to veteran players seems to be a fair compromise to me.

Semi-related, it’s not the drag on team creation some make it out to be. I’m not drinking the Kevyn Adams koolaid on that one.

Nor am I... Pegula and he did this to themselves... and should not use this as a crutch... its unfortunate, it does create an imbalance... but it doesnt absolve them of their utter mismanagement of the organization and massive damage to their brand. 

[dudacek]

22 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

 

And get rid of the "over the salary cap" NHL playoff teams too. Now that is really dumb.   

I haven’t read the particulars on how, but that has apparently been dealt with in the new CBA

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, JP51 said:

Nor am I... Pegula and he did this to themselves... and should not use this as a crutch... its unfortunate, it does create an imbalance... but it doesnt absolve them of their utter mismanagement of the organization and massive damage to their brand. 

Absolutely. It might narrow the pool of available players but not in a crippling fashion and ownership still has a great deal of control to keep themselves off of NTC lists.

Come on Kevyn, two of the best teams in the league last year were Edmonton and Winnipeg.

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

It does create a competitive imbalance so from a parity perspective it should be limited.

But the human perspective - that people should have freedom to decide where they work - I’m in favour.

The fact the NHL limits it to veteran players seems to be a fair compromise to me.

Semi-related, it’s not the drag on team creation some make it out to be. I’m not drinking the Kevyn Adams koolaid on that one.

Free agency takes care of the human perspective and I have no problem with that. 

Adams bath water is self induced but it would be interesting to see how long the average “ rebuild” is today versus past decades.  

[JP51]

12 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Free agency takes care of the human perspective and I have no problem with that. 

Adams bath water is self induced but it would be interesting to see how long the average “ rebuild” is today versus past decades.  

I am looking squarely at the Boston Bruins and Penguins right now... I wanna see how long specifically it takes these teams to get back into contention. 

[msw2112]

The freedom to work where one wants to is a trade-off when a group is part of a union and collectively bargains an agreement.  In exchange for that trade-off and others, players get a certain percentage of the revenue and a minimum salary that is many times more than most people will make (annually) in their lifetimes.  If NMC's are hurting the competitive balance of the league, then it should be addressed in the next CBA.

That said, it was pointed out above that Winnipeg and Edmonton are two of the top teams in the league and are in (arguably) not the most desirable locations.  It has also been pointed out in numerous threads that winning cures everything.  The Bills don't seem to have a problem attracting free agents to Buffalo, because the team is a well-run, successful franchise.  The Sabres never had a problem attracting free agents or making trades when they were a winning club.  Thus, although NMCs may be an issue to be corrected, I don't believe it's a great excuse for the Sabres. 

If the team can get its house in order, players will want to come.  Buffalo has been a desirable market for hockey players in the past, given its proximity to Southern Ontario, where many players come from, and its relatively easy and laid back lifestyle.  A well-paid hockey player in Buffalo can live in a big beautiful house in an area with great schools for their kids and have an easy commute down to the rink for practice and games and a short commute to the airport for road games.  Players can be big fish in a small pond - local celebrities - if they so choose, but they can also stay out of the limelight if they prefer.  It's extremely common for players who played for the Sabres to settle and remain in Buffalo after retirement, and it's even common for players who left Buffalo to play elsewhere to come back to the area to settle after they retire.  The area is not for everybody, but certainly has a lot of appeal to many of the types of individuals who play (and coach) in the NHL.  Get a competent coaching staff, a capable GM in the front office, and regularly participate in the playoffs, and the Sabres will not struggle to attract players via trade or free agency.

[thewookie1]

6 minutes ago, JP51 said:

I am looking squarely at the Boston Bruins and Penguins right now... I wanna see how long specifically it takes these teams to get back into contention. 

Historic and recent Cup Winners, doubt they’ll have a ton of problems unless they go like Detroit.

I’d limit NMCs to 30+years, so if you sign 7 years from 26 to 33, he could have clauses any year in which he’s 30 prior to the deadline.

[JP51]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

Historic and recent Cup Winners, doubt they’ll have a ton of problems unless they go like Detroit.

I’d limit NMCs to 30+years, so if you sign 7 years from 26 to 33, he could have clauses any year in which he’s 30 prior to the deadline.

Exactly, that is why I am looking at them... I just wanna see how long a rebuild take when you have a competent FO ... Others like the Islanders, even Flyers seem to toil in no mans land... not quite as badly as us... but I would like to see what a solid plan and FO does.