So run it like chia-pet did. offer everyone NMC AND term AND $$.

seems to be working great for Leafs... amirite?
- Nasty_Duck

230 players in the NHL have some sort of NTC. Any player signing a $5 million+ contract in free agency has the power to ask for it. It wasn’t just Chiarelli.

Without the NTC, Ullmark might have just stayed in Buffalo.

230 players in the NHL have some sort of NTC. Any player signing a $5 million+ contract in free agency has the power to ask for it. It wasn’t just Chiarelli.

Without the NTC, Ullmark might have just stayed in Buffalo.
- Mahewman

Charlie Coyle has one - you actually think that's a good thing?

I'd be ok if Ulmark never left Buffalo. We would actually be in a better position to re- sign Swayman.

You understand the business-client trifect right? Clients ask for high-quality + speed + low cost. Ever see the widget that mimics that? It can't handle all 3 and self destructs.

That's offering players salary + term + NMC. Hockey is also a business. Offer the trifect often enough and it will blow up.

I don't care if any player has the right to ASK for a NMC. Teams are under no obligation to give it.

Charlie Coyle has one - you actually think that's a good thing?

I'd be ok if Ulmark never left Buffalo. We would actually be in a better position to re- sign Swayman.

You understand the business-client trifect right? Clients ask for high-quality + speed + low cost. Ever see the widget that mimics that? It can't handle all 3 and self destructs.

That's offering players salary + term + NMC. Hockey is also a business. Offer the trifect often enough and it will blow up.

I don't care if any player has the right to ASK for a NMC. Teams are under no obligation to give it.
- Nasty_Duck

So basically what you want to put out there to the potential Bruins targets is: Hey, we are going to pay you only what we want to pay you and not a penny more and we won't be entertaining any of those rights that have been collectively bargained for (NTC, NMC, etc, clauses). Let me know how it goes assembling that team.

So basically what you want to put out there to the potential Bruins targets is: Hey, we are going to pay you only what we want to pay you and not a penny more and we won't be entertaining any of those rights that have been collectively bargained for (NTC, NMC, etc, clauses). Let me know how it goes assembling that team.
- bluemoon737

Not what I said at all.

Try rereading my post.

And for the record, the team you assemble would be full of overpaid underperformers that are there for life. Good luck winning a championship with that.

Charlie Coyle has one - you actually think that's a good thing?

I'd be ok if Ulmark never left Buffalo. We would actually be in a better position to re- sign Swayman.

You understand the business-client trifect right? Clients ask for high-quality + speed + low cost. Ever see the widget that mimics that? It can't handle all 3 and self destructs.

That's offering players salary + term + NMC. Hockey is also a business. Offer the trifect often enough and it will blow up.

I don't care if any player has the right to ASK for a NMC. Teams are under no obligation to give it.
- Nasty_Duck

Then they would always be on the poop end of the stick when it came to negotiating with free agents. You would have to over pay everyone and no one would come here....
Charlie Coyle earned the right to not have to move his family. He has also been nothing but a good player for the Bruins since signing.

Unrestricted free agency is typically the first time players have a say in where they want to play. Its not insane to want some sort of movement protection at the age, 28+. No one wants to uproot their families.

There is no telling where Swayman's progress would be if they didn't sign Ullmark. Look at Devon Levi, he has been thrown to the fire way too early in Buffalo and it has stunted his game. Same thing could have happened with Swayman under the pressure of being the guy after Tuukka.

Then they would always be on the poop end of the stick when it came to negotiating with free agents. You would have to over pay everyone and no one would come here....
Charlie Coyle earned the right to not have to move his family. He has also been nothing but a good player for the Bruins since signing.

Unrestricted free agency is typically the first time players have a say in where they want to play. Its not insane to want some sort of movement protection at the age, 28+. No one wants to uproot their families.

There is no telling where Swayman's progress would be if they didn't sign Ullmark. Look at Devon Levi, he has been thrown to the fire way too early in Buffalo and it has stunted his game. Same thing could have happened with Swayman under the pressure of being the guy after Tuukka.
- Mahewman

Charlie Coyle is a 3rd line C. You don't give 3Cs a NMC and expect to succeed.

They would have had another goalie that either did not make 5m or did not have a NMC. No one was suggesting he be thrown into the fire as a starter.

PC screwed this team a number of tears ago with too many NMCs. Leafs are also having those issues now.

Certainly players can negotiate for them - but when they do they need to be giving up something.

Would you rather pay Swayman 8m with no type of NTC. Or 7M with the same clause that Ullmark had?

So one area I will give credit to Sweeney is he at least learned a partial lesson on the David Backes contract and his NTCs and NMCs.

Many of the contracts he has offered to player since then have a sliding scale for a NMC an NTC, meaning towards the end of the contract the players have less protections making them more tradeable. I will admit, some of them, like Ullmark's contract, really dont offer much in the way of help for the team side of things.

To Glove's point, the lindholm contract didnt look too great this year. I hope he bounces back next year because I dont think there is anyone taking his contract right now. His sliding scale on the NMC/NTC doesn't kick in for another couple of years.

I think in this regard Sweeney has not made as many egregious errors as Chia pet did in the full NMC for the duration of the contracts. He at least is giving the team options towards the end of the contract. I think this is a fair compromise to offer a player some stability in length, while at the same time leaving a door open to ship someone if they do not play well.

Would you rather pay Swayman 8m with no type of NTC. Or 7M with the same clause that Ullmark had?
- Mahewman

Given that they took Sway to arbitration last year, they really just need to pay the man. Dont mess around with him any more. He has earned it.

Pay him what he wants, and offer him the same sliding scale protections that lessen over the course of the contract.

Charlie Coyle is a 3rd line C. You don't give 3Cs a NMC and expect to succeed.

They would have had another goalie that either did not make 5m or did not have a NMC. No one was suggesting he be thrown into the fire as a starter.

PC screwed this team a number of tears ago with too many NMCs. Leafs are also having those issues now.

Certainly players can negotiate for them - but when they do they need to be giving up something.
- Nasty_Duck

It’s crazy that they made it to game 7 of the Stanley cup despite Charlie Coyles no trade clause.

I don’t think you quite understand how many players have modified no trade clauses. Charlie Coyles NTC has literally no negative impact on the Bruins. I doubt they have any desire to move him.

Given that they took Sway to arbitration last year, they really just need to pay the man. Dont mess around with him any more. He has earned it.

Pay him what he wants, and offer him the same sliding scale protections that lessen over the course of the contract.
- dothedougie

I don't think they need to over pay him just because he wasn't happy with the arbitration process. He was the back up goalie at the time.

I think 8M is too much for a goalie so I am hoping they can keep him around 7.

It’s crazy that they made it to game 7 of the Stanley cup despite Charlie Coyles no trade clause.

I don’t think you quite understand how many players have modified no trade clauses. Charlie Coyles NTC has literally no negative impact on the Bruins. I doubt they have any desire to move him.
- Mahewman

Right now and through this next year, Coyle has an 8 team no trade list. If Sweeney wanted to, he could move him. Given the lack of depth at center, it isnt likely to happen.

I don't think they need to over pay him just because he wasn't happy with the arbitration process. He was the back up goalie at the time.

I think 8M is too much for a goalie so I am hoping they can keep him around 7.
- Mahewman

Dont need to overpay, but they dont need to play hardball either. I think to total cap hit can be adjusted down with protections was kinda my overarching point.

I would be happy with anything under 8. But if he wants 8 x 8, then there should be less protections around him.

I think Swayman is the guy that will take a bit of a team friendly deal to stay as long as he is taken care of.

Would you rather pay Swayman 8m with no type of NTC. Or 7M with the same clause that Ullmark had?
- Mahewman

I'd go with the 8 - assuming we could move Ulmark and then have the cap room.

I'd go with the 8 - assuming we could move Ulmark and then have the cap room.
- Nasty_Duck

I know Ullmark wants to stay and having the tandem of Sway and Ullmark has been very nice, but its time to look forward and make the business decision on ullmark to get assets for him. Its time to let Bussi or DiPietro battle for the backup spot.

I'd go with the 8 - assuming we could move Ulmark and then have the cap room.
- Nasty_Duck

To be honest, 8M for a goalie is pretty much immovable as is.

Has any goalie with a large cap hit ever been traded? Honest question. Maybe Luongo? I think he was only around 5M

It’s crazy that they made it to game 7 of the Stanley cup despite Charlie Coyles no trade clause.

I don’t think you quite understand how many players have modified no trade clauses. Charlie Coyles NTC has literally no negative impact on the Bruins. I doubt they have any desire to move him.
- Mahewman

He was sheltered in the 3C position getting a pretty sweet 6x5.25m deal. Was no need to add a NMC. This being the norm is what screws teams in the long run.

Not what I said at all.

Try rereading my post.

And for the record, the team you assemble would be full of overpaid underperformers that are there for life. Good luck winning a championship with that.
- Nasty_Duck

To answer the first question, yes I think Coyle's contract is a good thing. I didn't like it early on, but it has aged very well.

So one area I will give credit to Sweeney is he at least learned a partial lesson on the David Backes contract and his NTCs and NMCs.

Many of the contracts he has offered to player since then have a sliding scale for a NMC an NTC, meaning towards the end of the contract the players have less protections making them more tradeable. I will admit, some of them, like Ullmark's contract, really dont offer much in the way of help for the team side of things.

To Glove's point, the lindholm contract didnt look too great this year. I hope he bounces back next year because I dont think there is anyone taking his contract right now. His sliding scale on the NMC/NTC doesn't kick in for another couple of years.

I think in this regard Sweeney has not made as many egregious errors as Chia pet did in the full NMC for the duration of the contracts. He at least is giving the team options towards the end of the contract. I think this is a fair compromise to offer a player some stability in length, while at the same time leaving a door open to ship someone if they do not play well.
- dothedougie

Reasoned positions are frowned upon in this establishment!

He was sheltered in the 3C position getting a pretty sweet 6x5.25m deal. Was no need to add a NMC. This being the norm is what screws teams in the long run.
- Nasty_Duck

You do realize Coyle's line was the most productive during that cup run...and let's not forget his near Ironman status. Not many players play every single game in a season.

You do realize Coyle's line was the most productive during that cup run...and let's not forget his near Ironman status. Not many players play every single game in a season.
- bluemoon737

You do realize he was 6th in playoff scoring with 5 pts - tied with Geekie and Van Riemsdyk.

He was 48% at the dot. Bruins were chasing the play a lot because of that and took a lot of penalties as a result.

Coyle was hardly a difference maker...

You do realize he was 6th in playoff scoring with 5 pts - tied with Geekie and Van Riemsdyk.

He was 48% at the dot. Bruins were chasing the play a lot because of that and took a lot of penalties as a result.

Coyle was hardly a difference maker...
- Nasty_Duck

Wasn't talking about this season...see "during the Cup run" i.e. 2019. Nobody said he was ever intended to be a 1C (and no way you're getting a 1C at $5.25M!).

Bottom line Duck is that you have wholly unrealistic expectations for today's player contracts.

Bottom line Duck is that you have wholly unrealistic expectations for today's player contracts.
- bluemoon737

Guess you didn't re-read my post.

Unrealistic because I don't think every player over the age of 28 should be given ...
Salary +
Term +
NMC ?

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Ullmark Debrusk and a 1st for drisital good for both sides
- Hockeyfan4life14

That's a bad deal. Number one goalies are a premium. Should be a trade across the board.