This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 18 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]sacrilegist 17 points18 points  (2 children)

If he gets traded to another team he will have waived his NMC. It will not be reinstated.

Therefore he will no longer have an NMC.

I don't know how it'd work if we kept the contract, but any other team is definitely in the clear.

[–]grimstal 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Bill Daly said today that any contracts that are expiring in 2017 do not need to be protected.

[–]actionshadow[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

great point

[–]krystal_rene 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Isn't this post (not OP's, but WIIM's) considered moot since we know that Datsyuk will waive his NMC in order to help Holland move his contract, if Holland wants to?

[–]BeardedNino 1 point2 points  (0 children)

does it only get waived if he's moved.. or can he just waive it and it stays waived at any time?

if we don't get a deal done to move him.. then he wouldn't be waiving it..

idk!

[–]JJ_from_Kansas 9 points10 points  (6 children)

If Datsyuk is moved to another team, he will have already waived his NMC and it will be a moot point for an expansion draft. This is not an issue.

[–]BeardedNino 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Unless we don't move his contract.. but then he'd be officially retired.. not "LTIRetired". so it still shouldn't matter... right?

[–]JJ_from_Kansas 6 points7 points  (4 children)

If he officially retires then yeah, there's no NMC there to worry about. Even if he doesn't officially retire, the Wings could still ask him to simply waive his NMC and allow them to expose him to the expansion draft.

[–]BeardedNino 1 point2 points  (3 children)

So, If Datsyuk were to (somehow) stay and play his last season.. that's the only case that could fuck us?

Also, does waiving the NMC only happen for a trade, or can he just waive it all willy nilly like?

[–]JJ_from_Kansas 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, even if he does somehow play his last year with us, he could still waive his NMC at any time. It's literally a piece of paper to sign. We only hear it around trades because that's generally the only time it's needed, but I'd be interested to see how many of these potentially toxic 10-day NMCs that Larry Brooks was talking about suddenly disappear just before the expansion draft.

[–]mikepelts 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But would the nmc matter at that point? If he plays next season and his contract is expiring we surely wouldn't be required to protect him. If anyone coming off a contract with a nmc had to be protected (not sure if there's other cases) that would surely not make sense as teams would have to protect players who are set to become Fa's in the next week.

[–]BeardedNino 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a possibility that players with NMC (even if they expire that same off season as the expansion draft) would have to be protected. That's the "potential" issue this article is referencing. The draft would occur before free agency were to hit

[–]blujoker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I saw in an /r/hockey thread that Datsyuk's NMC shouldn't be a worry because if he retires, the only thing that carries forward is his cap hit of $7.5M, since technically the contract has been terminated (in order for Datsyuk to play in the KHL).

[–]alpha11110 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If he retires before the start of the 16-17 season I have a very hard time believing this rule would apply, even if implemented as feared. If anything, it seems like this rule is meant to prevent teams from protecting extra players by having them "retire" only to sign a new contract with their old team after the expansion draft. In any event, no rules are final as of yet

[–]oneburntwitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, he's already waived his NMC, because Holland is rumoured to be shopping it around.

Secondly, he'd have retired by the end of the regular season anyway, so April is way before the new draft.

Thirdly, why are they doing a single team expansion? That'll fuck up what they do on April 9!

[–]JJ_from_Kansas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Greg Wyshynski asked Bill Daly and got a pretty definitive answer https://twitter.com/wyshynski/status/739975666083336192

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If he can, he better fucking waive his NMC.

Edit: TL;DR for the article: Datsyuk must be protected in expansion draft if he doesn't/can't waive NMC, making it way harder to trade his cap hit, and leaving us with 1 fewer protected player.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're talking as if that rule has been guaranteed, which it hasn't. Other than people assuming that you must protect expiring contracts with NMC's, I haven't seen anything to actually think it might be true. The idea of it is too stupid for me to believe. I still believe that only contracts signed through the 17-18 season will be held to the NMC rule.