What's the benefit of giving player the NMC/NTC? I never understoodd that.

Here's my queston. Say Darling gets 2.5-3 million per. And the new backup gets 1.5. How the heck do you improve your D with only saving 1.5-2 mil in cap space? That's why you keep 50. You can't improve your D without more than 3-4 million in cap space IMO.
- huhwhome

An extra $2-$3 million in cap space would be enormous for this team now... Couple that w/ a Bickell buyout/trade that is your #4 d-man. It's unfortunate that Hawks even have to consider trading a Vezina quality goalie (his snub this year is embarrassing for the NHL IMO) to save a measly few million $$ in cap space and I'm a huge Crow fan... Heck, the guy was the only Hawk (aside from Panik) who actually stood up to the gritty plays the Blues were making... But this is the world the joke of an NHL CBA driven cap creates... Unfortunately the cap has not caught up with the increase in elite contracts and the Hawks are paying that price.

Eric Lear ‏@BHTVeric 8s8 seconds ago
#Blackhawks announce Artem Anisimov had surgery on his right wrist. Team doctor expects full recovery in 6-8 weeks.
- DarthKane

HE's not alone. Glad it wasn't his neck though after that hit.

Hossa had a bum knee, but no surgery required. Sounded like Rozy had an issue as well, but couldn't glean the details from a poorly translated web site. Perhaps Q wanted to ensure he didn't give off the perception of blaming the series loss on injuries & I get that, but it does seem far from reality.

Rest will be good for the crew

Here's my queston. Say Darling gets 2.5-3 million per. And the new backup gets 1.5. How the heck do you improve your D with only saving 1.5-2 mil in cap space? That's why you keep 50. You can't improve your D without more than 3-4 million in cap space IMO.
- huhwhome

OK so who goes? Because someone HAS to go or else Panik (i can live without), Shaw (ouch that hurts) AND Panarin (hello one line team) are all gone by next summer.

Even if trading Crawford nets you only 1.5-2.0 in cap space that's still better than nothing. You people need to realize some very difficult decisions will have to be made. Seabrook? Crawford? Both?? I don't know and neither do you but I do know something has to give.

What's the benefit of giving player the NMC/NTC? I never understoodd that.
- Hank3Henshaw

To get him signed?

I really think a lot of fans (not just Hawks fans) are underestimating how much the expansion draft will effect all of this talk. For instance, trading Crawford to get a #4D. That defenseman would be a rental, because next summer, you can only protect 3D and have to protect Keith, Seabrook, & Hjarmlasson because they have NMC's. Or you can protect 4D, but then only 4 forwards, 3 having to be Kane, Toews, & Hossa because of NMCs. So you risk losing Anisimov or Panarin.

Of course, keeping Crawford puts the Hawks at 49m of the 55m (approximate) you can protect in the expansion draft just from the required to protect NMC's. (Assuming generalfanager is correct and Kane, Toews, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, Hjarmalsson, & Crawford all have NMC's.)

Obviously, they haven't officially announced the expansion draft, but it seems like the question is more if there will be one team or two drafting next summer. But that will have a far bigger impact on any trades made this summer, especially for a team like Chicago, than I think gets discussed.

Would it really make sense to trade Crawford for one year of a #4D? From an outside perspective, not at all.
- Antilles

Maybe you don't protect Seabrook or Hossa with their age and contract size. If they take one, great, that relieves the long term salary obligation. But maybe the expansion team passes on the veterans because they want to build a younger team for the long run.

To get him signed?
- MjulQvist

I get that. But it always works against the organization. The owners should do away with the NMC/NTC.

Maybe you don't protect Seabrook or Hossa with their age and contract size. If they take one, great, that relieves the long term salary obligation. But maybe the expansion team passes on the veterans because they want to build a younger team for the long run.
- matt_ahrens

You are required to protect all players with NMC's.

(And going by generalfanager, both players you mentioned have one.)

I get that. But it always works against the organization. The owners should do away with the NMC/NTC.
- Hank3Henshaw

You'd be looking at another year-long lockout to make it happen in my opinion. Would have to be part of CBA negotiations. Players want some ability that if they choose to sign a contract with a team, that team has to honor it, not just some team will honor it. I'm not a huge fan of the NTC/NMC; but I definitely don't think it's worth having another labor battle over, and can't imagine players just giving that right up.

I get that. But it always works against the organization. The owners should do away with the NMC/NTC.
- Hank3Henshaw

Preaching to the choir!! I've hated those damn things ever since Heatly vetoed his trade to Edmonton. That one ticked me off. You ask for a trade, you get one, then you veto it? So glad he never won a cup.

I get vetoing a trade if you did not ask for one but imo if you ask for a trade ALL 29 teams are fair play. Plain and simple. I'd be willing to suffer another lockout just to get rid of those!! (ok that is not true but I do feel strongly about getting rid of them).

This expansion draft is going to be ugly... Yet another way that Bettman is a pile of crap. You approve contracts w/ NMC's, and then you penalize teams during the expansion draft... You approve contracts (pre CBA), and then turn around a screw over every team who put those contracts into place (even though they were prior to CBA). The idea to penalize teams trying to circumvent the cap is all fine, but the hypocrisy of league management is laughable to retroactively burn those teams. Hossa' contract will become an issue just like Pronger's contract was (which may still be floating around out there)...

Thx, it's just been my observation with certain goalies.
- John Jaeckel

Definitely true for some, not all but more than most would likely want to admit.

Preaching to the choir!! I've hated those damn things ever since Heatly vetoed his trade to Edmonton. That one ticked me off. You ask for a trade, you get one, then you veto it? So glad he never won a cup.

I get vetoing a trade if you did not ask for one but imo if you ask for a trade ALL 29 teams are fair play. Plain and simple. I'd be willing to suffer another lockout just to get rid of those!! (ok that is not true but I do feel strongly about getting rid of them).
- tyweb69

I don't know -- from my perspective, I would side with the players. The salary cap deflates wages and to me that seems like a tradeoff for having a cap (the NMC / NTC clauses). It's the GMs who can't help themselves (in particular, one in Chicago that you might know of).

1. A good "cheap" goalie from that list won't be traded to us. And, Darling is up for another contract the following season. Guess what - You are back to $6MM.

2. No way CC goes to Calgary or any other team that sucks, or is in a terrible city to live in. NMC will be an issue just like it was with Sharp.

Options are limited. Not enough cap can be cleared to compensate up front for your loss in the net. Best bet is to ask your $40MM+ "core" of non-goalie players to earn their paychecks next season.
- Return of the Roar

Please stop with the goalie logic, some of us want to CC traded

Panarin or Crawford after this season so rather than deal from ultimate point of weakness next summer, sell high on Crow and address the Blue line both in the present and future.

If teams have to protect all players with an NMC, what if a team has a larger amount than can be protected? For instance, what if 12 players have an NMC, but you can only protect 9?

Something is going to have to give there, too.

If teams have to protect all players with an NMC, what if a team has a larger amount than can be protected? For instance, what if 12 players have an NMC, but you can only protect 9?

Something is going to have to give there, too.
- CanOCorn

No team is in that situation, and would probably face stiff penalties if they deliberately tried to put themselves in that situation for next summer now that the rules have been announced.

I don't know -- from my perspective, I would side with the players. The salary cap deflates wages and to me that seems like a tradeoff for having a cap (the NMC / NTC clauses). It's the GMs who can't help themselves (in particular, one in Chicago that you might know of).
- stp1978

Agreed and my main gripe is simply if you ask for a trade your NTC becomes null and void. That is all I would like to see.

Agreed and my main gripe is simply if you ask for a trade your NTC becomes null and void. That is all I would like to see.
- tyweb69

GMs could write this into the terms......something like if we initiate, you get to pick 5 teams you will go to. If you initiate, you only get to pick 5 teams you won't go to. Of course, the player would have to go along.

GMs could write this into the terms......something like if we initiate, you get to pick 5 teams you will go to. If you initiate, you only get to pick 5 teams you won't go to. Of course, the player would have to go along.
- Jason Millen

I have thought that exact same thing. And you can make the list whatever 8/8, 12/12. It gives both sides some flexibility. I could live with that.

Agreed and my main gripe is simply if you ask for a trade your NTC becomes null and void. That is all I would like to see.
- tyweb69

That logic makes sense. Totally agree.

I too believe in goalie coaches.

In Nashville Rinne regressed to good, from great when Trotz and more importantly Mitch Korn left town.

Also, Holtbys rise to Vezina consideration syncs up w/ their arrival in DC.

I don't believe either are a coincidence.

No team is in that situation, and would probably face stiff penalties if they deliberately tried to put themselves in that situation for next summer now that the rules have been announced.
- Antilles

If a team is trying to resign players and gets to 9 or more...How can the league argue? Let's just say the Hawks resigned Shaw and extended Panik and Darling. And to get them to sign for less, they give them NMCs. It's possible...and I can't imagine the league would be able to fight it. Unless, there's a clause in the CBA that caps the number of NMCs on a team.

Agreed and my main gripe is simply if you ask for a trade your NTC becomes null and void. That is all I would like to see.
- tyweb69

Sure thing, that seems fair. Some give and take.

Agreed and my main gripe is simply if you ask for a trade your NTC becomes null and void. That is all I would like to see.
- tyweb69

What counts as a trade request though? If a player formally asks to be traded? What if his agent just goes to the media and says "I hope my guy gets traded, I think he'd be happier elsewhere."? What if a player's dad says that, does he lose his NTC?

And how long does a player lose his NTC for? What if the GM just says "No, you are staying with the team"? If 5 years later, he is still there on the same contract, does he still not have a NTC because he made a request that was totally ignored?

I don't disagree with you, but with trade requests not being anything formal and having no weight on forcing the GM to act, I imagine if that rule came through, all that would happen is players would get it leaked they wanted out but not say anything officially. Then the GM would still be faced with either keeping someone who everyone knew wanted a trade, or moving them while dealing with their NTC.