NTCs Need Re-Vamped

[mattynokes]

So, a few seasons back I contacted an agent to see if a NTC could be worked around in a trade. I was told to go by the in-game list or buy it out. Now we're seeing a case where it means you must go through the agent. If we really want to get realistic, it's not up to the agent, it's actually up to the player. This is just creating a big giant mess. We need to all be on the same page for what a NTC constitutes.

My take is any agent interaction needs specified, otherwise it's in-game or buyout. Any partial waives of the NTC also need to be specified. So if the player is going to waive it to certain teams, after the first 4 years to winning teams, not allow a buyout, etc... it should have to be stated.

I think it's simple. Spell it out however you want, but unless a NTC explicitly says agent interaction or stipulations, then it's a NTC for what Mogul determines or a buyout.

[hokeyrules]

not everything needs fixed its quite simple.

Going through the player is like going through the agent in this league. So in theory you do not want it to change.

Or option B) Scrap Agents.

Since I know DJ will kill me for saying that, option B is not an option.

Maybe it should be up to the gms to describe what they mean when giving a NTC.

Or maybe teams should stop trying to trade players they give NTC to, a year or two after.

[GoIrish]

not everything needs fixed its quite simple.

Going through the player is like going through the agent in this league. So in theory you do not want it to change.

Or option B) Scrap Agents.

Since I know DJ will kill me for saying that, option B is not an option.

Maybe it should be up to the gms to describe what they mean when giving a NTC.

Or maybe teams should stop trying to trade players they give NTC to, a year or two after.

I have to completely agree with everything Hokey said on every level.

I will add that it is pretty ignorant to sign someone to a long term deal and negotiate into the deal a NTC only to look to trade the player a season later. Too many owners in this league are making an abuse of what a NTC actually means. If you have no intention on keeping the player or your intention is to move the player down the line, guess what? don't ask for a NTC.

I personally think the easiest way to deal with this is to take away the NTC buyout. You agree to a NTC, then honor it.

[mattynokes]

Of course I don't want anything to change, but we needed clarification.

[Atlbravesfan27]

Get real, like any GM ASK for a ntc.. every last NTC is ALWAYS asked for by the Agent... its routine, every player needing an agent, in particular, boras, feels the need for a NTC, and every GM eventually agrees to it in fear of losing their player.. Like i told Hokey the other night, agents CAN be and ALWAYS will be biased, whether you like it or not, agree or disagree, its the truth.. the restrictions of the NTC need to be specified and written out, and its the agents job to do so, NOT the GM..

[AndyP]

Personally I think the best idea is to eliminate buyouts.

[hokeyrules]

I am done arguing it is up to the gm.

[mike]

Id be fine with eliminating buyouts, or upping the cash amount needed to buy it out. The set price we have now isnt much anymore with all the cash in the league.

[mattynokes]

All the new rule does is cater to top teams in the league. Now we can only buyout the NTC if an agent approves? That really means deals might be approved to the solid, but not great teams with a buyout. For the great teams they can probably wiggle out of the buyout and get the agent to simply approve. This is going to turn into playing favorites and further distance parity in the league.

The problem isn't how NTCs are done. The problem is the league not taking responsibility. We have trade mods in place to protect teams from gutting their team and making horrible decisions on the trade front. However, we'll let GMs spend frivolously in FA or go all-out in re-signings. You can ruin a team in any of those fashions.

If we look at who has been the teams to sign questionable contracts. Then look at who has been the ones to dump their questionable contracts quickly, it's the same teams. It's teams that aren't being financially responsible and we could've stopped this from happening.

[mike]

Is'nt that how it works in realistic terms anyway? Winning teams generally get more wiggle room because they win and do it on a consistent basis.