NMC's your thoughts

[Rip Titwide]

11 hours ago, Ctaeth said:

Trades are fun and the nhl can always use more fun.  Get rid of the nmc & increase parity

We tend to look at our own ineptitude concerning players coming here and it's completely warranted, but if we zoom out to the NHL as a whole I think we see less movement (go figure) which dilutes a lot of excitement.  And naturally, the teams at the bottom do not get that dose of hope that comes with a blockbuster deal.

[JohnC]

21 hours ago, shrader said:

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.

If a team wants to hand out a number of maximum deals, then what is the problem. If teams are too eager to hand them out to less than elite players, then they will eventually be encumbered by those foolish contracts. By giving out too many of those rich contracts it won't take long before those contracts limit their options in pursuing other players. 

The Sabres are limited in the players who want to come here not because of the large number of players with NMCs but because it is a widely acknowledged dysfunctional franchise. What player wants to be stuck in a ghetto franchise where post-season play in a fantasy? The NMC contracts have teams listed on them. Well run teams and serious franchises are usually not on that list. There is a simple solution: Run a competent and serious franchise where winning is a priority. Buffalo is in an ideal location for Canadian players who live in the Toronto and southern Canadian area.  It should be an appealing destination for many players. It's not because few people desire to be stuck in such a chaotic system. I'm confident that if this franchise turns it around that this clause issue will not be much of a factor in our pursuit of players. 

The Sabres should be more worried about their top players wanting out than top players not wanting to come here. The solution is to start acting more competently and win more. shiiiiiit teams and organizations have never been an enticing place to play for players with the special clauses and without them. This oddly run franchise is its own worst enemy. 

Note: I'm not an irredeemable pessimist. I see this leaky ship floating better. In general, our offseason has been solid. But it's still not good enough. More urgency demonstrated by action should have been shown. That's why I'm still disappointed how this offseason has transpired. If our placid GM should come up with a second-line caliber of forward before the season starts, I will be more upbeat.  

Edited 2 hours ago by JohnC

[JP51]

1 hour ago, Rip Titwide said:

We tend to look at our own ineptitude concerning players coming here and it's completely warranted, but if we zoom out to the NHL as a whole I think we see less movement (go figure) which dilutes a lot of excitement.  And naturally, the teams at the bottom do not get that dose of hope that comes with a blockbuster deal.

I agree here.. I tried not to be jaded when I thought of this... I mean when you are the one sitting out at the kids table while the rest of the league is eating dinner of course you are like hey this is unfair... but look,  you are at the kids table for a reason... and using excuses like palm trees and taxes is just loser talk...  like why should we change the rules for you because you are grossly incompetent and have been for decades...  So, I land  NMCs really do tilt the playing field of fair competition in my opinion especially when you see a bunch of teams that no one wants to go to... this is why we have a draft with reverse order and teams just cant go out and sign whom ever they want in a free for all... we have free agency as an outlet that gives players a 100% choice ... So to me the NMCs can stay splitting the difference... Once you become a certain age with a certain amount of vested years you earn that right to have one... So say 32 and 5 years just for arguments sake... this would at least give those veteran players some say... but would not preclude all those teams on the no trade list from access to younger top players via trade...  

Edited 2 hours ago by JP51

[Drag0nDan]

I think you should be limited in the number of NMCs and NTCs you can have on your team.  I also think if a player waives it to be traded, they no longer should have it on their new team.  

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Drag0nDan said:

I think you should be limited in the number of NMCs and NTCs you can have on your team.  I also think if a player waives it to be traded, they no longer should have it on their new team.  

Makes sense.  But in the post-COVID MOU, the players specifically requested the NMCs move with the player.  (Previous to that, a single move voided the NMC unless the new team specifically went along with honoring it.)

Really doubt that goes away.