How about moving that Crawford contract and bringing in Bryz for cheap to split time with Darling.

That would be a humongous move

Incorrect - a player with any form of NMC cannot be traded without them waiving the clause, even if they have an addition NTC clause. The NTC part is only triggered after they waive the NMC. These players are more likely to waive a NMC because they have the additional protection of the NTC, which would carry over if traded to a team on their list and/or if the receiving team is willing to uphold it if they are not on the list (ala Campbell).

Excerpt from the CBA:

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.

(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.
- L_B_R

Then why would you need both a NMC and a Mod NTC? all you would do is say you are willing to Waive your NMC only to be traded to team B. No need for both.

How about moving that Crawford contract and bringing in Bryz for cheap to split time with Darling.

That would be a humongous move
- Hank3Henshaw

Absolutely not. Why the hell would ANYONE want Bryz? I know a lot of fans here are falling all over Russian players since BreadMan showed he could play, but hell no on this guy.

As reported, if he takes a really restrictive contract, he likely has a job in Chicago.
- John Jaeckel

I'm of the belief that Sharp does the same next summer.

Crawford would still have to waive the NMC part first before they can even ask him for a list of teams. The NTC is an addition on top of the NMC to give the player a little more control if they're willing to waive/lose the NMC before it's time is up and are usually given to players who will take less term. Hjammer contract is the same way.

Though for Crow, the cap sites don't agree on what his clauses are: https://www.capfriendly.com/players/corey-crawford

Kruger does not have a NMC - he just has a M-NTC for the last two years. Edit: Didn't see you corrected yourself, nvm.

Anisimov has a full NMC for two years, then a M-NTC for a year (lists 10 teams that he can be traded to), and then nothing his final two years.
- L_B_R

That depends when the NTC kicks in doesn't it?

I'm of the belief that Sharp does the same next summer.
- Anaarkey

If there is a sport for Sharpie, then yes, it is possible.

Absolutely not. Why the hell would ANYONE want Bryz? I know a lot of fans here are falling all over Russian players since BreadMan showed he could play, but hell no on this guy.
- kwolf68

It was just a joke because I saw he is looking to return to the NHL. It got me thinking of that great soundbite he delivered from the 24/7 documentary where he's talking about the universe and how "humanaagus" it is. Haha.

Then why would you need both a NMC and a Mod NTC? all you would do is say you are willing to Waive your NMC only to be traded to team B. No need for both.
- kmw4631

Because after a player waives a NMC, they lose it completely, but those with the additional M-NTC can then keep that clause with their next team. It's a way for non-franchise players who are not going to get close to full term some semblance of control after they're traded from their first team. It's like a backup clause.

Then why would you need both a NMC and a Mod NTC? all you would do is say you are willing to Waive your NMC only to be traded to team B. No need for both.
- kmw4631

Yes there is a need for both. Once the NMC is waived that's it - it goes away and no longer applies for the remainder of the contract. The NTC would stay in place giving the player some measure of control over where he plays after the trade (i.e. for the next move). Pairing the NMC with an NTC is advantageous for both the player and the team because a player may be more likely to waive his NMC if he know that he will have NTC control after being traded.

EDIT: And, what L_B_R said!

JJ,
Do players submit a list of teams they won't accept a trade to every year?
A team that is on their list might look OK a year or two later. Or do they present their list at a time when a trade is in the works?
- Bustov22

My understanding is that is entirely up to the team. If I were a GM, unless it was a "franchise type player," I would routinely ask every player with an NTC for their list on 10/1 every year. Takes a lot of the drama out of it. Some players might female dog and moan but the reality is, it just says everyone's on a level playing field and after 2-3 years, it would not be a big deal to anyone.

It was just a joke because I saw he is looking to return to the NHL. It got me thinking of that great soundbite he delivered from the 24/7 documentary where he's talking about the universe and how "humanaagus" it is. Haha.
- Hank3Henshaw

Aight...I wasn't sure. My sarcasm detector needs calibrating.

Aight...I wasn't sure. My sarcasm detector needs calibrating.
- kwolf68

Haha. No worries, man

Yes there is a need for both. Once the NMC is waived that's it - it goes away and no longer applies for the remainder of the contract. The NTC would stay in place giving the player some measure of control over where he plays after the trade (i.e. for the next move). Pairing the NMC with an NTC is advantageous for both the player and the team because a player may be more likely to waive his NMC if he know that he will have NTC control after being traded.

EDIT: And, what L_B_R said!
- Marlowe

All that's well and good. But I have never seen (nor heard here today) when Crawford's NTC kicked in (or kicks in).

What I have heard intimated several times over the last year or so is that the team can ask him for a list at present.

But that could also be a "would you waive for" discussion. I honestly don't know.

I will just say this: the cap situation has been such that the team has contemplated and discussed recently moving any of 2-3 high-salaried veterans with NMCs, including Crawford.

Where there's a will, there's usually a way.

Where there's a will, there's usually a way.
- John Jaeckel

there sure is.

Sincerely,
Stephen Johns

That depends when the NTC kicks in doesn't it?
- John Jaeckel

It depends on whether he's like Hjammer or like Seabrook. Hjammer has a NMC all his years and an additional M-NTC - he has to waive the former before he'll submit a list. Seabrook has a NMC for a while and the ONLY a M-NTC the final couple of years.

If it's the former, the NTC can be in effect all the years, but the NMC overrides it and is still the one that has to be waived before they can even be asked about their NTC lists. Spezza has this same clause structure on his last deal - he refused to waive in 2014 and would not submit a list, then he waived in 2015 with Dallas being on his list. Off the top of my head, I know at least 3 other guys with clause structure in Letang, Fluery, and Pominville. There are probably more.

I don't know which Crawford has because it's been listed different ways. The only thing they do all agree on is that his NMC is still currently in place and will be next year because he's on all the auto-protection lists.

Adding, I don't doubt the team will contemplate trying to move a big salary, just that Seabrook is unlikely while Crawford is more of an option because of the added NTC being transferring to his new team (though more for next year imo).

All that's well and good. But I have never seen (nor heard here today) when Crawford's NTC kicked in (or kicks in).

What I have heard intimated several times over the last year or so is that the team can ask him for a list at present.

But that could also be a "would you waive for" discussion. I honestly don't know.

I will just say this: the cap situation has been such that the team has contemplated and discussed recently moving any of 2-3 high-salaried veterans with NMCs, including Crawford.

Where there's a will, there's usually a way.
- John Jaeckel

Not disagreeing. Just explain in why a player and a team would want both clauses - that they are not duplicative.

Like others around here I can do enough of the basic math to know that things (like a flat cap, a rookie phenom, players needing raises etc) don't add up without moving some big money.

Some FA's are being wined and dined at 5star restaurants while Stan Bowman was spotted driving thru the White Castle picking up box of sliders to court all of his dumpster diving projects in hopes of finding Jonathen Toews LW, I guess that's what you get when you get your ass handed to you in trades or hand out stupid contracts like Halloween candy when agents come ringing your doorbell . Big Ole Bite In the A S S ! I stillll hope he pull a rabbit out his ass before Friday!

Some FA's are being wined and dined at 5star restaurants while Stan Bowman was spotted driving thru the White Castle picking up box of sliders to court all of his dumpster diving projects in hopes of finding Jonathen Toews LW, I guess that's what you get when you get your ass handed to you in trades or hand out stupid contracts like Halloween candy when agents come ringing your doorbell . Big Ole Bite In the A S S ! I stillll hope he pull a rabbit out his ass before Friday!
- wonthecup10

Box of sliders sounds good....

Some FA's are being wined and dined at 5star restaurants while Stan Bowman was spotted driving thru the White Castle picking up box of sliders to court all of his dumpster diving projects in hopes of finding Jonathen Toews LW, I guess that's what you get when you get your ass handed to you in trades or hand out stupid contracts like Halloween candy when agents come ringing your doorbell . Big Ole Bite In the A S S ! I stillll hope he pull a rabbit out his ass before Friday!
- wonthecup10

WTC10,
You just had me rolling on the floor. Thanks for the great post!

My understanding is that is entirely up to the team. If I were a GM, unless it was a "franchise type player," I would routinely ask every player with an NTC for their list on 10/1 every year. Takes a lot of the drama out of it. Some players might female dog and moan but the reality is, it just says everyone's on a level playing field and after 2-3 years, it would not be a big deal to anyone.
- John Jaeckel

Yep. Yup. Yea.

Did you guys hear Lucic is being wined and dined by the Oilers? Seems like a weird fit.

Just bored at work and this idea was kicked around with a co-worker...

If Buffalo gets Stamkos, is Buffalo a place Crawford would put on his list?

Could a deal like Crow for Lehner/Guhle/Hurley/mid-Pick.

Buffalo would be an instant player with Crow/Stamkos/Eichel.

Chicago gets the cap space to extend Panarin, a good Defensive prospect, a Center Prospect and a pick for next year.

Darling and Lehner would seem to be a fair combo to live with and if not, both have contracts up next year and the hawks could look elsewhere for a goalie in 17-18.

Not that i want Crawford gone (because i dont) but this seemed like a reasonable trade. Seems alot for Buffalo to give up, but maybe they do it to really go all-in

Did you guys hear Lucic is being wined and dined by the Oilers? Seems like a weird fit.
- Hank3Henshaw

They taking him to Tim Horton's?

What is a No-Move Clause (NMC)?

A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties: •Player cannot be traded without his consent (however, the clause can specify a modified no-trade clause that limits the NTC to a certain number of teams)
•Player cannot be placed on waivers without his consent
•Player cannot be assigned to the minors without his consent
•Player is not exempt from a buyout or contract termination
•The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
◦This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
◦If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
•If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause
https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc

It still to me sounds like you could have a NMC (no waivers or Minors) and a Mod NTC for trading purposes. You can also retain your NMC by making the team you are going to waive for Sign that you are keeping your NMC. I go back to that if you have a NMC you do not need a Mod NTC and if you have both the Mod NTC might control Trading a player where the NMC means you cannot be waived or sent to the minor's.

Did you guys hear Lucic is being wined and dined by the Oilers? Seems like a weird fit.
- Hank3Henshaw

Not if you are thinking about trading a forward for some d and want to add grit, size and cup winning experience to your forwards.

Hearing that everyone in the market for top 6 forwards has all the same guys on their lists and are waiting for Stamkos to move triggering the waterfall of signings. I hate the calm newsless part before the storm!