Where are all the no-trade clauses?

[jRuutu 2,460]

I was having some free time, so just for the fun of it I decided to browse the portal. I noticed that it is not as common for players to have the "NTC" in their contract. Most teams have a couple of players with the clause on their current deal, and some teams have none, so it is fair to say that the majority of players in VHL at the moment do not have an NTC on their contract. I started to wonder why is that. Over the years I have learned that general managers appreciate when a player commits to the team and works towards the common goals. And in my opinion, nothing says I am interested in staying more than a NTC.

 

I think one big reason behind the lack of NTCs is the fact that general managers are too nice. They are out there helping and being good people. If your general manager approaches you and says there have been few offers for you or the season is not going well, so you might be traded, it is a given that the general manager then tries to find a nice place for you. That is wrong and a shame. Where is the fear of getting traded to a bad team? It does not exist, because it has become acceptable for general managers to be our friends. We should hate our general manager, we should be afraid of our general manager. When you are traded, you should hear about it on the forum first. Or ideally, you would not have to worry about it as you have that NTC on your contract.

 

Another reason is the lack of competition. It has become acceptable for teams to tank and suck. It is widely accepted as part of the experience to have teams rebuilding. On the surface, that is how it is in every sport, but in most sports, the level of competition is still more fierce. VHL simply has too many teams and not enough active players. The general managers are forced to be nice because the pool of actives is so small. When teams in VHL tank and suck, they are not even trying to compete and make deals. I think that is because welfare players are too good. It is too easy to build a solid player with welfare. Active players should be fought over, the should be hunted. Welfare players in return should be terrible. The league plays a big part in that, but the real enablers are the general managers and them being too nice. The general managers are out there understanding when they should be making threats and promises about the player getting traded out if they don't make that graphic or media spot next week. 

 

If you ask me, the league should drop a few teams, welfare should be made weaker, and like in Jason Bourne, before any general manager is accepted into the program they should be forced to fire a welfare player. I think through those steps VHL would have more passion and character. More importantly, the users in VHL would learn valuable lessons about thinking a few steps ahead and never describing who is or is not in the room with them when standing in front of a window.

 

 

Edited April 22 by jRuutu

[mattyIceman 1,207]

Interesting take.

 

I'll add that GMs put their team together the way they want and coaches should be feared.  We don't have coaches though.  GM puts the roster together and the coach has to make do if he wants to keep his job or keep a positive reputation. 

 

Also, NTCs seem to be more reserved for elite talent, and with the Cap based on tpe and not market value, GMs can't save cap by offering NTCs, unless there's team/player options.  There's no actual mechanic for Salary vs Contract Conditions/Obligations.

 

Also, you didn't talk about ELCs.  Maybe they're too long?  They account for roughly 1/3rd of a player's career, unlike NHL standards it's more like 1/5th (roughly) of a player career.

 

Interesting read!

[Gaikoku-hito 2,060]

6 hours ago, mattyIceman said:

Also, you didn't talk about ELCs.  Maybe they're too long?  They account for roughly 1/3rd of a player's career, unlike NHL standards it's more like 1/5th (roughly) of a player career.

Actually when you look at the NHL contract and ELC it is actually they are a combined 7 years contract as while the ELC is a three year or four year contract depending on games played. The player than becomes a RFA after the contract up to seven years after signing a ELC. So actually an NHL team can control a players career for 1/3 of their career based around a 20 year career. So when looking at ELC in the VHL it is like having the ELC & RFA built in together.

 

[mattyIceman 1,207]

14 minutes ago, Gaikoku-hito said:

Actually when you look at the NHL contract and ELC it is actually they are a combined 7 years contract as while the ELC is a three year or four year contract depending on games played. The player than becomes a RFA after the contract up to seven years after signing a ELC. So actually an NHL team can control a players career for 1/3 of their career based around a 20 year career. So when looking at ELC in the VHL it is like having the ELC & RFA built in together.

 

 

Yeah I didn't mean RFA, only ELC, since there is no RFA mechanic.  Maybe a three season RFA period with a standard two season ELC could spice things up?

[Spartan 4,369]

We love NTCs in Moscow

[BOOM 8,717]

16 minutes ago, Spartan said:

We love NTCs in Moscow

 

[BOOM 8,717]

It's OK @Spartan , Finland is lovely at this time of the year.

 

[Spartan 4,369]

24 minutes ago, BOOM said:

It's OK @Spartan , Finland is lovely at this time of the year.

 

It was a tough choice, but if we hadn't made that move, I'm sure your extension would have had an NTC on it. Just had to try and go for it while we still had some ELCs to flex with

[Gaikoku-hito 2,060]

1 hour ago, BOOM said:

It's OK @Spartan , Finland is lovely at this time of the year.

 

Especially the Golf Courses!!

[Gaikoku-hito 2,060]

10 hours ago, jRuutu said:

If you ask me, the league should drop a few teams, welfare should be made weaker, and like in Jason Bourne, before any general manager is accepted into the program they should be forced to fire a welfare player. I think through those steps VHL would have more passion and character. More importantly, the users in VHL would learn valuable lessons about thinking a few steps ahead and never describing who is or is not in the room with them when standing in front of a window.

Do we really need to drop a few teams when we actually only have 11 slots open; maybe 14 if you count the players that started the season still eligible for the VHLE. So, We would be dropping a single team only to bring the team back in a season or two should we have a good recruitment drive like S93. Only way this would work would be having an open farm system in the VHLE but than you might get players that should be playing in the VHL stuck in the VHLE like other sim league that i know!!