|
|
Post by Commish on Jun 3, 2012 17:19:16 GMT -5
I've had a couple teams come to me in recent weeks asking about the possibility of trading away those players on their roster that have a no-trade clause.
My initial answer to this question is no, but after some careful consideration, I'm starting to wonder if it might be interesting and even a good idea to allow this to happen.
The only way I can personally see no-trade clause players to be moved is only if the player was being moved from a team out of the playoffs to a team that is surely going to make the playoffs.
In the NHL this is a regular occurrence as the trade deadline approaches, as we regularly see players with a NTC being moved with their permission to a team that is destined for the playoffs.
I'd be very interesting on hearing your thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by omskgm on Jun 3, 2012 17:33:27 GMT -5
I think it's a good idea,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2012 17:53:01 GMT -5
If A person takes control of a team that already had players on it with NTCs then I think they should def. be able to move them somehow if they want.
I voted for yes...make things more interesting and active as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriors on Jun 3, 2012 17:59:11 GMT -5
maybe put an age restriction on it...only able to trade older players with ntc...give them one another shot to win...like over 32 years old or something
|
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 3, 2012 17:59:45 GMT -5
Myself guys , i really never liked a NTC in any sports especially in hockey.
So my answer to it is ''YES''
HawksGm!
Pat
|
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Jun 3, 2012 18:40:54 GMT -5
I'm actually thinking that a restriction of two weeks before the deadline should be placed on such moves. Any team that wants to move a player with a NTC must do so only within a window of two weeks before the deadline and only to a team that looks to be making the playoffs.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by warriors on Jun 3, 2012 19:14:22 GMT -5
I'm actually thinking that a restriction of two weeks before the deadline should be placed on such moves. Any team that wants to move a player with a NTC must do so only within a window of two weeks before the deadline and only to a team that looks to be making the playoffs. What do you think? yeah that sounds good...weeds out people just trying to offload the player |
|
|
|
Post by Norsemen on Jun 3, 2012 19:20:55 GMT -5
I don't have any players with a no-trade but voted yes. Would allow for some excitement as we get closer to deadline each year.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavensGM on Jun 3, 2012 19:45:28 GMT -5
Within 14 days of Deadline, must be UFA (so a rental). Going to a team essentially guaranteed to be in the playoffs, not some #7-8 seed.
My thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2012 20:20:49 GMT -5
Great idea!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vampyre on Jun 3, 2012 22:14:19 GMT -5
We're getting ahead of ourselves a bit. It is not good to change a rule like this in the middle of a season. I would be all for examining a restricted trade option for players with NTC but starting with next season, not less than two weeks from the trade deadline this season, as it changes the rules mid-stream. Restrictions similar to what's been said: 1) within 2-3 weeks of the trade deadline (around the 58 game mark); 2) player must be in the final year of a contract that will leave him a UFA; 3) it could also be age-restricted if necessary (I think 32+ years old was mentioned); 4) the team should be a contender (ie. not in a dog-fight to just make the playoffs); 5) there's probably another one, but I can't think of it right now.  |
|
|
|
Post by BulldogsGM on Jun 3, 2012 22:49:08 GMT -5
Actually, I'd say keep it simple. Basically any trade clause involving a player with a NTC must be approved by the Player Agent. That's how it is in my other leagues and it works well. It really adds an element of realism.
They are many reasons a player might want to be moved...Contender vs Non-Contender, ice time, Pro-status vs Farm status, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vampyre on Jun 3, 2012 23:06:59 GMT -5
The problem with having the player agent decide, instead of having a few rules in place to govern the NTC situation is that there will be conflict at some point on this if a player agent says NO to a trade. The rules make it very specific what would be allowed instead of leaving it to human judgment.
The realism would happen when an agent tells a GM that a player will NOT accept a trade to the team that this GM just spent time negotiating a deal with....real headaches.
Hard rules are better....none of this is complicated if it's set out on the rules page.
|
|
|
|
Post by BulldogsGM on Jun 3, 2012 23:58:58 GMT -5
The realism would happen when an agent tells a GM that a player will NOT accept a trade to the team that this GM just spent time negotiating a deal with....real headaches. . That's why you get a list of teams from the PA before hand... |
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Jun 4, 2012 7:54:19 GMT -5
I agree with Mike on a 2 weeks prior to the trade dealline and i also agree with Ryan (Bulldog) with the players agent to make a decision.
Now! With having an agent in place their would have to be a list of maybe 3-5 teams that the player would desire to play with.
Chris(Vampyre) does have a good point though , it may cause a conflict with some gm's with getting an answer of ''NO''.
I'm sure we can come to a decision that will make this league even more exciting:)
Have a nice day guys!
HawksGm!
Pat
|
|
