0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, I for one would never offer a NTC. It burdens a team too much if the player gets injured. I also agree that it can spiral out of control if too many NTC's are giving. I read something about 3NTCs per team per year and as many as possible in a team. I would say perhaps it should be limited to one per year and have a maximum of two or three players with NTCs on any given roster. This would allow the NTCs to be used more to franchise one or two players than to be used merely for bargaining purposes.Also, I would propose that - like in real life- the NTC could be waived if the player agrees to it. This could be simulated in cap hits. I would propose two and a half times the value per year of 2m. So say I want to trade a player with 3y remaining in his contract and a NTC. I would be able to trade him if I take on an additional cap hit of 5m during each year of the contract. This would allow a minimum degree of flexibility while imposing a harsh enough penalty to make it unattractive.
I agree 1000%. In the current scenario, I would envision every single Blue Chip free agent being hit with a No Trade Clause to keep salaries down. This would mean that Pujols, Fielder, Reyes, Cano, etc. etc. would all be locked onto a roster for half a decade. And then next year it would happen to several more, and so on and so on until almost every major player is locked on a roster. It seems like there is no benefit to the league in having these in place since it would do nothing but stymie all transactions moving forward. For what it's worth, my vote is on the elimination of NTCs or at the very least adding extreme limitations to them.It could be my obsession with trading players, but I wanted to second Doug's thoughts on this matter.