Cliff Fletcher Gave Niklas Hagman a NMC!!!!

In looking around the internet this morning, I stumbled upon a fact that I had not seen anywhere else. Cliff Fletcher, in signing Niklas Hagman, gave him a limited 1 year No Movement Clause.

I can’t believe this. As I have argued time and time again, A NMC should be given out in VERY limited instances and this is definately not one of them!

I have defended a ton of Cliff’s deals on the basis that he didn’t give out any NM/NT clauses and here it is buried on the net!

In yesterday’s Toronto Sun, Fletcher was quoted as saying:

“We may be taking a step back to take three steps forward,” Leafs general manager Cliff Fletcher said bluntly, moments after helping launch a surprise ticket giveaway for a Leafs pre-season contest in September.

“Hopefully, we’ll grow as a team, but we’re going to have so many new members on the team when we drop that puck in Detroit on opening night.
“It will be the start of a process. Hopefully, it will go quicker rather than slower when it happens.”

I actually thought he was bang on for saying it. Now I am not so sure. The only reason the signings of the guys he signed made any sense was if they weren’t albatrosses and unmovable. If Hagman is having a great season and we could get assets for him at the deadline why wouldn’t we?

Didn’t Cliff learn how much of a pain in the a$$ these are when you try to make moves…did he not learn anything?

I know it is one guy, and that we shouldn’t go overboard on 1 guy, but its the whole mentality that I thought Cliff was going to change.

Makes no sense at all…

just found it confirmed on a tsn post too…. you can see it here:

so pathetic…

About the Author
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew Mack
Andrew Mack
July 18, 2008 12:20 pm

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.

July 18, 2008 1:42 pm

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.

July 18, 2008 1:52 pm

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.

July 18, 2008 1:57 pm

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…

July 18, 2008 2:05 pm

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…

Andrew Mack
Andrew Mack
July 18, 2008 3:42 pm

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.

Gordon Enright
Gordon Enright
July 19, 2008 12:46 am

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.

Pension Plan Puppets
November 26, 2009 3:21 pm

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?

November 26, 2009 4:15 pm

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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x