Comments on: Cliff Fletcher Gave Niklas Hagman a NMC!!!!

By: mf37

mf37 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:15:01 +0000

It was widely reported that he had a one year NMC after he signed. The clause has since expired, I really don’t see an issue here.

By: torontosportsmedia

torontosportsmedia — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:40:03 +0000

not sure why we are seeing a comment on a story that is this old- but at the time I did and still do believe that NTC’s have killed this franchise and they shouldn’t be given out as freely as in the past.

By: Pension Plan Puppets

Pension Plan Puppets — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:21:13 +0000

This is a complete and utter overreaction. Hagman received a no-trade clause for his first year as a Maple Leaf because he didn’t want to get flipped along with the rest of the vets he knew would be leaving.

And now, he doesn’t have one. Where’s the fire?

By: Gordon Enright

Gordon Enright — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:46:53 +0000

Well, as I am of the belief that we should not be giving out no trade clauses, this one is a little different.

Hagman is a young player and it is only for one year. The chance that you would be trading him in hid first year are slim to none. Hopefully, this is not a sign of things to come though in signing players to NMC contracts.

By: Andrew Mack

Andrew Mack — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:42:34 +0000

One year isn’t a big deal IMO. If Fletcher gave Jeff Finger a 1-year NTC as well I wouldn’t be surprised. Free agents know we are rebuilding and would likely refuse to sign with us if they believed they would be simply trading them off for picks. A NTC just as a guarantee to the players they won’t be traded off like used goods in less than a year is hardly in the same league as a NMC for 5 years for McCabe, or a 4-year conditional one for Pavel Kubina, or even one for injured and aging Darcy Tucker.

By: eyebleaf

eyebleaf — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:05:45 +0000

the thing is, we never know what goes on behind the scenes and what else was happening that day. could it be that another team had offered Hagman a 1-year NMC, and we simply had to match in order to have him come to Toronto? we’ll never know, but we can speculate both ways, that maybe Fletch handed it out, or maybe he was simply forced to match…

By: torontosportsmedia

torontosportsmedia — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:57:32 +0000

In the grand scheme of things its not that bad. The problem is, in my opinion anyway, Cliff was supposed to change the team and that includes the culture.

By giving out a NMC he has set the precedent for others to get them too. At least before he could have said JFJ gave those out, as a policy we won’t anymore…. now he is stuck, just as JFJ was. The next player he wants will say, I want what you gave Hagman….

Its not giving it to Hagman that is problematic per se; its giving them out at all…

By: eyebleaf

eyebleaf — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:52:22 +0000

i don’t think it’s that big of a deal. it’s only one year. like you say, he’s 29, his salary is manageable and his contract is not an albatross. those are all good things, and make it a good signing…

it’s very, very rare for a team to trade a significant free agent signing in his first year with the team. i can’t even think of an example off the top of my head. with the leafs lacking depth up front, i don’t think we have to worry that hagman is going to need to be sent to the minors, and that this NMC is going to get in the way. it simply won’t happen. i just don’t see it as that big of a deal.

if the NMC was for 2 years, or the entire length of the contract, that’s bush. but this isn’t so bad. cliff might have been able to save some money, and hagman has 1 year of security. let’s have some faith that he can deliver, instead of worrying about the NMC.

By: torontosportsmedia

torontosportsmedia — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:42:14 +0000

Thanks for the comment Andrew. I respectfully disagree. I liked the signing at the time. He will be 29 this December. His salary is manageable too. The contract is not an albatross. I had hoped Cliff would have not given any NT/NM clauses out as a practice. Hell, he should have learned his lesson.

I would have rather over paid him slightly then given him the NMC. We aren’t speaking about a 50 goal scorer here, or THE missing ingredient to making the Leafs a cup contender. He is a going to be a decent player, and unless the player is the next coming of Wayne Gretzky i wouldn’t offer either a NM or a NT clause.

By: Andrew Mack

Andrew Mack — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:20:03 +0000

You have to be insane if you think that Nik Hagman would sign with us for half-a-year and be traded. It’s a one year NTC, if he had a good year, we can just trade him in the offseason. But the idea in getting young guys was so they would be good for us 3 years down the road still.

There is nothing wrong to signing a guy on a 3-year deal and not trading him in the first month. It’s very limited and it doesn’t hamper us at all. Sorry, you are way off on this one. I know what you are trying to say, that the idea of a NTC is scary, but this one is hardly a bad idea. In fact, it was probably the difference between $500K – $750K extra cash.