Post by Minnesota Wild GM on Jul 27, 2022 7:23:13 GMT -5
At the end of the day I understand where you guys are coming from but we should definitely take another look at the clauses and try to find a way to add some realism to them not "well I get you want to rebuild and x wants to go to the playoffs but you're one point ahead of him so this can't be accepted".
Now as far realism goes for this particular trade, TBL is 3rd in ATL & 12th overall, while BOS is 2nd last in ATL & 22nd overall. Safe to say that Vasi would not waive to a team that is so far separated with more than half the season played; especially when BOS is giving up all those future assets that would consider them an 'up and comer'.
The one things that makes these leagues exciting is finding solutions to the problems you have. Sometimes you have to think outside the box, be your own Brandon Pridham, just to make things work within the confines of the set rules. Like SJS mentioned above, we were in discussions for 3 days with a lot of dominos falling in between, just to make one particular trade to happen. Turns out MIN was at the max retention slots and the 3rd party in the trade could not take on a player with a NMC cause they were too low in the standings. It happens, but we move on and found other ways to make our team vision a success.
We won't be revisiting any changes to the current NMC/NTC set rules, however I am more than open to discussing and introducing a M-NTC that would deem a certain amount of teams untradable no matter the positional standings during the season. GMs would have to track this on their own though, and it could get messy depending how many are handed out with newly signed contracts, so I'm hesitant to move forward in that direction.
Regardless, if a GM doesn't like NTC/NMC then don't sign them in future contract extensions and start depleting the overall amount that are on site. Also, don't hand them out and expect to trade that player right away. Clauses are here to stay.
