Don't see that being enough for cirelli or sergachev, not remotely close for that term

This would be so easy thing to solve if Johnson and Gourde didn't have their NTCs.

Sadly they do though, and I frankly can't see them waiving it.

TB is TOP3 strongest team in the league. It's very hard to see them leaving.

I don’t think it will be a real problem. If Brisebois ask either of them to waive their Trade clause he will ask them for which team they would accept a trade and probably waive their clause. Because if they refused they could end up in syracuse or healthy scratch. Either way next year they have a to submit a list of team where they would accept a trade. NTC are sure a thing but it doesn’t have the same impact as a NMC that give the players all the power. Suppose that brisebois ask johnson to waive is clause and then he refused. Brisebois turn himself around and send him to syracuse, johnson have no power over it and downgraded to ahl. Players will accept to play elsewhere before making bus ride and play in ahl

They both have full no trade clauses til 21/22.

A NMC without trade stipulations worked in means the player cant be moved from top6 to bottom6 without player consent

Having a NTC or a NMC means they can not be sent down unless to terminate the contract in which teams would have to pay more for breaching their contract.

NTC only protects the player from a trade. They can be sent to the AHL with a NTC but obviously the team has to be able to eat their cap hit minus about 1M.

NMC clause means the player can't be traded or moved to the AHL. It does not stipulate what line they can't be moved down the lines.

Players waive their NTC... it will be interesting to see who the Lightning ask to move it and which teams would want the player. Going to be tough to get to 81.5M cap hit.

A player with a no-trade clause (NTC) or no-movement clause (NMC - cannot be placed on waivers or sent to minors) must accept a move by waiving his clause in order to be traded. This list has been compiled from various sources, including NHL documents, internal sources and other media outlets.
-NHL

NMC do apply to ice time which determines lines if the player wants to work it in.
The Stars can not play Benn or Seguin in the bottom 6 per ice time per their clause.

This is exactly what I said. The NTC and NMC both have to accept a trade to be moved. But only the NMC protects the player against going to the minors.

Kind of low on the Cirelli and Sergachev deals, no?

This isn't Toronto the Bolts get guys for less... lol just kidding. The numbers being used seem in line with past deals the Lightning have made for RFAs but both could be 250K to 500K more easily.

Or some team just picks them off of waivers?

While they have the power to assign them to AHL, they also have to keep in mind they could lose them for free if they did that.

Yes but you get the point that a players will waive is trade clause before getting into the ahl process.

Sure, but you also get the point that no team will assign their good players to AHL if it risks them to lose the asset for free.

Clause: Clauses are additional parameters added to contracts that protect the player in certain transactions. No-Movement Clauses (NMCs) and No-Trade Clauses (NTCs) are negotiated by a player and his representatives to limit the types of transactions that can be performed by the team with respect to that player. Players are only eligible for these clauses in years when they would be eligible for Unrestricted Free Agency (27 years of age or older, or 7 or more accrued seasons).

– An NMC prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless that player permits a move by one of these means. An NMC does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.

– An NTC is less prohibitive, as it only places restrictions on movement by trade. A player with an NTC cannot be traded by a team unless the player provides consent. A Partial or Modified NTC is often less restrictive than a Full NTC, and is defined by the conditions outlined in the player’s contract. Often these NTCs have conditions that give the player the right to provide a list of teams to which the player can or cannot be traded. Many players will have NMCs tied to their contracts with Partial or Modified NTCs. These prevent the team from moving the player via loan or waivers, but give the team options for trading the player.

Here the rules about Nmc and Ntc. That have nothibg to do with ice time or role on the team.

Idk... For that term, I think both guys would want more. Maybe you can get Sergachev at 5.25ish, but Cirelli is a legit second line center who's name has been thrown around in Selke talks this year. Can't see him taking less than 6m on that term. Maybe a tad less because of taxes in Tampa.

Maybe this is so on the NMC about the time and lines, I will research that. But your quote says what I am saying. NTC and NMC have to be asked and willing to waive but only the NMC keeps the player from being sent down to the AHL.

I thibk that in that case here tampa would prioritize sergachev and cirelli over johnson and gourde. Even if they losses them for nothing. Players waiving their Trade clause happen all the time, justin faulk did it last year. I think the purpose of the clause is more to have a regard on where you get traded. Players who don’t want to go to the cold and boring city of Winnipeg or the snowy winter of Montreal can choose to do so

If the Lightning need the cap space and they feel Gourde would be claimed by a team (claiming team gives up no assests for the player) then maybe they put him on waivers so someone take him and they technically did not have to ask him to waive his NTC. Now that would be interesting but also something I don't thing would come to fruition.

NMC have nothing to do with ice time. It just prevent the players from any movement he might be involved in, which are waive, ahl, trade. He can be buyout like everyone, and he can be a healthy scratch just like brent seabrook have been this year.

Isn't it just as likely that the player would get claimed by team x if put on waivers rather trade for the player and give assets to get before being sent down to AHL???

The point that i was trying to prove is that Tampa have some option, before thinking of trading guy’s like cirelli or sergachev. The worst case scenario for them is offersheet since a team can offer muchmore money then they have figure for a players

I am not sure about your question What you mean ?

Saying if Johnson didnt waive his NTC then.
Rather than Johnson going to AHL, he would likely get claimed off waivers without giving up assets to acquire if a team wanted him.

Like Dallas.

toronto declines, why would we trade a future top 4rd for a guy whose an ok top 4 rd but not fantastic, no thanks. If liligren gets traded its in a package for real top 4 rd (pesce, ellis, etc)

I understand your point. The thing with an offersheet as well is the player has to be willing to sign it. Maybe they do that but the trends say it rare that it happens. Going to be an interesting off season no matter what.