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 August 7 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 August 7 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.

[Drag0nDan]

22 hours ago, Taro T said:

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.

There's like no risk anymore with them, if they get hurt you get the space back from LTIR.  Who cares if the guy can't play the last 2 years of his deal?  I'll just get another guy.  The only risk is if they play poorly, and that your roster is largely locked.  

 

[inkman]

On 8/6/2025 at 10:49 AM, JP51 said:

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...

This is kind of a weird topic as this stuff is negotiated through the CBA.  Who would advocate for the fan’s desires in the CBA negotiating period?  The players?  ***** no.  The owners? Laughable.  I’m just not sure how we as fans would have any say in this at all.  

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Drag0nDan said:

There's like no risk anymore with them, if they get hurt you get the space back from LTIR.  Who cares if the guy can't play the last 2 years of his deal?  I'll just get another guy.  The only risk is if they play poorly, and that your roster is largely locked.  

 

Oooooh-kaaaay.

What does that have to do with NMCs?

[Drag0nDan]

42 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Oooooh-kaaaay.

What does that have to do with NMCs?

That the LTIR rules mean there is no risk to adding a NMC to a player contract.  

[shrader]

Do we even know what the LTIR rules will be next year? I don’t remember hearing of the players actually accepted the deal yet so that the details could start to come out. 

[Archie Lee]

58 minutes ago, Drag0nDan said:

That the LTIR rules mean there is no risk to adding a NMC to a player contract.  

I'm not sure I would say no risk.  Had Skinner not had a NMC, the Sabres could have (in theory) ate 50% of his contract and attached a pick or prospect to trade him to any team in the league who would take him. That would have got them out of the dead-cap situation in 3 seasons instead of the 6 seasons that the buyout will apply to; and they would have avoided the worst of the buyout seasons ($6.44 million next season). 

[JP51]

3 hours ago, inkman said:

This is kind of a weird topic as this stuff is negotiated through the CBA.  Who would advocate for the fan’s desires in the CBA negotiating period?  The players?  ***** no.  The owners? Laughable.  I’m just not sure how we as fans would have any say in this at all.  

I think this is a great point... certainly not the players... it would have to be the minority of owners who feel like they cant compete.. or others who hate that they are constricted in their GMing because of these things... but again to your point, I cannot see them dying on this hill as a collective group... so the only way that I see something like this happening is if the NHL itself decides that it is not good for the overall competitiveness of the league...  and good luck with that...  but I wasnt talking likelihood more what people thought. 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Drag0nDan said:

That the LTIR rules mean there is no risk to adding a NMC to a player contract.  

No.

The Sabres decided that Skinner didn't fit in with the direction they wanted to move.

Had he not had a full NMC they SHOULD have been able to trade him without having to pay out $6MM of the $9MM he was due each of the remaining years on his deal.

Botterill took a risk that he'd be worth $72MM over 8 years.  He wasn't.  BF-LTIR had nothing to do with rhe situation.  He wasn't eligible for it and he qouldn't have been eligible for it.  And should the Sabres have tried to put him on BF-LTIR, he would've filed a grievance he would've won.  The Sabres miggt even have been caught up in cap circumvention on top of it.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

No.

The Sabres decided that Skinner didn't fit in with the direction they wanted to move.

Had he not had a full NMC they SHOULD have been able to trade him without having to pay out $6MM of the $9MM he was due each of the remaining years on his deal.

Botterill took a risk that he'd be worth $72MM over 8 years.  He wasn't.  BF-LTIR had nothing to do with rhe situation.  He wasn't eligible for it and he qouldn't have been eligible for it.  And should the Sabres have tried to put him on BF-LTIR, he would've filed a grievance he would've won.  The Sabres miggt even have been caught up in cap circumvention on top of it.

The highlighted sentence is a succinct summarization of the Skinner saga. The GM took a big risk signing a goal scorer on a long-term contract. It didn't work out as hoped. The problem wasn't the large amount of money he was paid as it was the length of the contract. To state the obvious, bad decisions lead to bad consequences. All GMs make bad decisions. No GM is immune from such miscalculations. The problem with the Sabres is that they don't make enough good decisions to compensate for the decisions that don't work out. Because of the caliber of our decision-makers and the financial restrictions they have to work under, there is less margin of error. 

[tom webster]

6 hours ago, inkman said:

This is kind of a weird topic as this stuff is negotiated through the CBA.  Who would advocate for the fan’s desires in the CBA negotiating period?  The players?  ***** no.  The owners? Laughable.  I’m just not sure how we as fans would have any say in this at all.  

I’m really surprised at how long this thread has lasted. Like you said, it’s a non-subject, it’s never going to be bargained away.

[Big Guava]

If a player is good enough to demand one then that's the cost of doing business 

[Scottysabres]

On 8/8/2025 at 4:25 PM, tom webster said:

I’m really surprised at how long this thread has lasted. Like you said, it’s a non-subject, it’s never going to be bargained away.

While true it’s a conversational piece for the off season. I do believe it does slant the league to “favored” destinations for players, thereby creating an unbalancing in talent which is on full display in the overall league wide product. While I realize no organization or its fan base can have it “there way”, destinations with weather, lifestyle culture, favorable tax codes and to a degree, franchise prestige definitely have an advantages over those that don’t when it comes to talent draw or acquisition. That most certainly plays out in the season standings and playoff outcomes year in and year out. Just my view on it is all.

[tom webster]

44 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

While true it’s a conversational piece for the off season. I do believe it does slant the league to “favored” destinations for players, thereby creating an unbalancing in talent which is on full display in the overall league wide product. While I realize no organization or its fan base can have it “there way”, destinations with weather, lifestyle culture, favorable tax codes and to a degree, franchise prestige definitely have an advantages over those that don’t when it comes to talent draw or acquisition. That most certainly plays out in the season standings and playoff outcomes year in and year out. Just my view on it is all.

While I respect your opinion, to me it’s just an excuse. 

[JohnC]

On 8/8/2025 at 12:19 PM, Archie Lee said:

I'm not sure I would say no risk.  Had Skinner not had a NMC, the Sabres could have (in theory) ate 50% of his contract and attached a pick or prospect to trade him to any team in the league who would take him. That would have got them out of the dead-cap situation in 3 seasons instead of the 6 seasons that the buyout will apply to; and they would have avoided the worst of the buyout seasons ($6.44 million next season). 

Putting aside the Skinnner situation, do the Sabres under Pegula "eat" part of a player's contract that they want to move on from? I'm not sure that they do. Maybe they did when he first became the owner but as a general practice in the second half of his tenure I'm not sure that it happens

[JP51]

8 hours ago, tom webster said:

While I respect your opinion, to me it’s just an excuse. 

I agree... it does slant the league but its an excuse do better adapt overcome the competent teams do ... the problem is we dont have competence. If we did it wouldn't be a problem. It's like players some have more talent than others... you can wah wah or you can work harder... life isn't created equal so figure out how to equalize it or go away 

[PerreaultForever]

Can't stand NMCs and yes I think they definitely hurt teams. There used to be only a few of them but now it's like every single player demands some form of one. I can see why the players love them, but from a fan point of view they suck and teams like the Sabres are heavily screwed by them. 

Also hate tax inequalities but there's nothing we can do about either. 

Edited August 11 by PerreaultForever

[JohnC]

51 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Can't stand NMCs and yes I think they definitely hurt teams. There used to be only a few of them but now it's like every single player demands some form of one. I can see why the players love them, but from a fan point of view they suck and teams like the Sabres are heavily screwed by them. 

Also hate tax inequalities but there's nothing we can do about either. 

Which team do you think is listed more than any other team in the NMC? 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Which team do you think is listed more than any other team in the NMC? 

Well, you want me to say Buffalo, and it's a safe choice as I'm sure it's one of the most if not the most, but I'd say it doesn't have to be. They have created this situation and I'd be confident suggesting Buffalo was not on the most lists when Pegula bought the team but it has progressively risen in that list over these years. The perception is that much harder to change now. 

Otherwise I think it varies. Depends on where the players are from too. Some players get to submit lists when they kick in as well and they can be strategic. For example I hear Ullmark listed all the teams he thought wanted or needed goalies to try to avoid a trade from Boston. I imagine that sort of thing can happen often. 

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well, you want me to say Buffalo, and it's a safe choice as I'm sure it's one of the most if not the most, but I'd say it doesn't have to be. They have created this situation and I'd be confident suggesting Buffalo was not on the most lists when Pegula bought the team but it has progressively risen in that list over these years. The perception is that much harder to change now. 

Otherwise I think it varies. Depends on where the players are from too. Some players get to submit lists when they kick in as well and they can be strategic. For example I hear Ullmark listed all the teams he thought wanted or needed goalies to try to avoid a trade from Boston. I imagine that sort of thing can happen often. 

There are number of reasons why players put teams in their NMC. It’s a safe bet to believe that Buffalo is most often cited on that ignominious list due to a negative perception. For Buffalo, that perception is tough to shed because the perception matches reality. It’s bad enough that many players don’t want to come here but also some coaches also want to avoid this troubled organization. The moral of the story is that when you shoot yourself because of your own recklessness you become damaged goods. 

Edited August 11 by JohnC

[JP51]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

There are number of reasons why players put teams in their NMC. It’s a safe bet to believe that Buffalo is most often cited on that ignominious list due to a negative perception. For Buffalo, that perception is tough to shed because the perception matches reality. It’s bad enough that many players don’t want to come here but also some coaches also want to avoid this troubled organization. The moral of the story is that when you shoot yourself because of your own recklessness you become damaged goods. 

Truth, NMCs may be a competitive disadvantage, but they are not the problem... you can change whatever you want about them, until the FO drastically reforms and changes there is nothing gonna save them... they will continually flap in the top 5-10 pick range and operate like a row bow set adrift until there are fundamental changes.