No Trade Clauses

['PR']

I know they we're dropped this year to $15 from $20M (Even though I didn't find out until today). But how can we actually take that number seriously? I mean an NTC is given to a player so he can have some sense of self control and stability after working very hard for the team that has given him the NTC. Now your going to tell him that the NTC has no effect because his team and another team have agreed to each pay half of $15M? How is that fair to the player, and it also gives teams an advantage of acting like they're committed to a player, then choosing to dump him else where for other resources. Player Agents have demanded NTCs for their clients......for what? To have a team buyout out with a snap of their finger? I think we should make these teams think a lot more about the contract they're offering and not reward them even though they've made an extreme commitment to a player. I think the number should have been raised, not dropped.

P.S. This could raise the talent in the FA pool too.

---

One more thing. If No NTC buyouts are implemented, if a team feels strongly about it, they can ask the Agent for a buyout clause in the contract in which the price would be settled upon by the Agent and the team. When it comes to players without an Agent, they get no buyouts no matter what the situation.

[ezpkns34]

I voted 25M, but I have no qualms w/ no buyouts or a higher buyout price than 25M

['PR']

PSbaseball brought this up. All NTCs that were in effect before this rule would be implemented would stay at $15M. All NTCs after the rule would be implemented would have to follow the rule.

[mike]

I think in theory this would be ok, but it also will kill any team that has any NTC's if a new gm comes in. I thought the 20mil was a fair price but I wouldn't be oposed to making it 40mil. That way its actually a siginifcant amount of cash even if you do split it.

[ezpkns34]

I'd also be in favor of giving NTC's a value in free agent deals (like a percentage of the total deal)

For instance a $100M FA deal with an NTC could be worth like $110M total

[mike]

I don't think we could do that simply because NTC's mean different things to different players. An aging play might not care about an NTC or vice versa

[chrisveley]

no buying out the NTC.... we sign the big names because we want them on our teams... It would give rich teams the advantage.

[40/40]

Allowing NTC buytouts is completely unjust, no matter how you look at it. A team gets a specific advantage in FA by offering a NTC, which allows Team A to sign the player over Team B. If we are allowing these NTCs to be bought out, and at an alarmingly low price, we're basically just giving the big F-U to any team who loses out on a FA. The NTC in theory has a little value, but by allowing the buyout, it takes away all necessary value and in effect, doesn't really up the offer in FA. I think one solution that all can find acceptable would be to have the agent "be the NTC." Instead of looking at the player's personality to see where he'd accept a deal, talk to the agent and find out more about how the player feels about his contract, team, city, place in standings, etc. From there, the GM and agent can work together to find a solution for the player.

More to the point of new GMs, there are ways to help new GMs get through bad first situations involving NTCs. A free release is always a good route to go, but you can make exceptions. Even just taking away a NTC for free for a new GM is better than allowing buyouts... at least in my opinion.

['PR']

Alright then I believe the league has chosen to kick NTC buyouts out of the house. Could this please go into affect for the 2015 season? Also, I know it said it would be ok, but if you really think about it, letting teams who have players with NTCs still buy them out for $15M is really just letting them step over the rule. I'm ok with it, but I think it shouldn't be allowed.

[ezpkns34]

Just up the buyout price, that way its fair to new & old NTCs