NTCs Need Re-Vamped

dejota · 05-18-2012, 02:08 PM

There's multiple reasons this is an issue:

1) Agents AND GMs aren't being specific when negotiating NTC. GMs get excited to ink the deal and don't even care what the Agent intended when demanding a NTC. I know I've never ONCE negotiated a contract where this wasn't specifically addressed. As commish and a GM who's incredibly careful with my long-term deals how am I not supposed to be insulted when GMs who ink contracts with reckless abandon try to play the misunderstanding card when in reality it was a lack of effort?

2) Confusion about what the terms actually mean. As far as I'm concerned any term used to designate the NTC as different from a simple in-game whether it be "full", "agent-protected", or "specific teams only" means something will have to occur outside the game's parameters for the NTC to be circumvented. While I can see the other side it's irks me to no end that there's a consistent assumption the other way. If anything tie should go to the preventative rule (since ya know, we made them all for a reason) but that's another discussion...

3) As Stang pointed out, but not quite in the same light: GMs are accepting NTCs in every freaking deal they sign with an agent. If you guys didn't cater to every whim of the agent and used just a little more foresight when it comes to resignings we'd have one example of the agent being proven wrong. As it stands we're 20-some seasons in and there's not one open market example of a FA getting screwed by an agent asking for too much. Guess what? Until agents are proven wrong to blast the system is fucking asanine.

4) Has any of the people pissing all over each other even considered that the agent has been incredibly helpful in working around NTCs when he's contacted BEFORE hand? It's amazing what proper communication in lieu of assumptions and piss and vinegar can accomplish...

GOING FORWARD, UNLESS THE AGENT OR GM SPECIFIES THE NTC IS ONLY PROTECTED IN-GAME ASSUME THE AGENT GETS THE FINAL SAY IN WAIVING IT. IF YOU DO THIS THERE SHOULD BE NO WAY TO CLAIM IGNORANCE OR CONFUSION ABOUT THE ISSUE. IF YOU GIVE OUT A NTC ASSUME IT'S "AGENT PROTECTED" OR "FULL" AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT ABLE TO BE BOUGHT OUT. ONLY IN-GAME NTCs MAY BE BOUGHT OUT. THIS RULE IS RETROACTIVE, ALL NTCs THAT AREN'T SPELLED OUT CLEARLY ARE ASSUMED TO BE AGENT PROTECTED.

***mattynokes*** · 05-18-2012, 03:09 PM

this is fine. at least we're getting some explanation of what's behind the rule change. I still think we need to look at how we let GMs sign players. you can cripple a team just as bad with bad contracts as you can trading. it could be a simple "you need to wait a year before signing him long term."

jhc54 · 05-18-2012, 03:37 PM

Agree with matty here.

***hokeyrules*** · 05-18-2012, 06:28 PM

well we could just manage every team so that teams don't make mistakes?

mike · 05-18-2012, 06:47 PM

He does make a great point though. You can cripple teams just as badly if not worse through extensions and signings just as much as you can with a trade but yet we mod the heck out of trades in this league. GM's pretty much can't make a bad trade in this league unless it turns out bad in hindsight.

***hokeyrules*** · 05-18-2012, 07:56 PM

but what are you going to say no you can't sign that player to a deal of 20 mil even though you just got outbid?

I mean realistically what are you going to say?

***mattynokes*** · (This post was last modified: 05-19-2012, 12:15 AM by mattynokes.)

If a team is in (or heading to) financial ruin you put the handcuffs on or ask for some insight on their direction for their franchise before allowing them to be shortsighted with their spending. Washington is a great example on both fronts. Back when he was allowed to sign Hardigg and Wittman late, I thought they should've gone to FA. 1) cause it was late and 2) cause his team was already over budget.

Then Washington compounded the problem by shelling out tons of cash in FA that off-season. Now if Killa would've laid out a plan where he was gonna sell off prospects/picks for cash, then I could see some of it being allowed. But that wasn't the plan and sent Washington in a financial mess.

In the least, bringing the issue up to them will make them think twice and possibly shed some light that problems are to ensue if they don't figure out how to raise some more cash and quickly.

***hokeyrules*** · 05-19-2012, 12:58 AM

(05-19-2012, 12:13 AM)mattynokes Wrote: If a team is in (or heading to) financial ruin you put the handcuffs on or ask for some insight on their direction for their franchise before allowing them to be shortsighted with their spending. Washington is a great example on both fronts. Back when he was allowed to sign Hardigg and Wittman late, I thought they should've gone to FA. 1) cause it was late and 2) cause his team was already over budget.

Then Washington compounded the problem by shelling out tons of cash in FA that off-season. Now if Killa would've laid out a plan where he was gonna sell off prospects/picks for cash, then I could see some of it being allowed. But that wasn't the plan and sent Washington in a financial mess.

In the least, bringing the issue up to them will make them think twice and possibly shed some light that problems are to ensue if they don't figure out how to raise some more cash and quickly.

I agree with what you were saying about killa, but he should also have been replaced as a gm years ago. Because he was inactive and only posted like 3-4 lineups a year.