Let's Talk NTC And Who's Truly To "Blame"

There are several reasons players ask for or accept NTCs. One reason is, as most "insiders" have pointed out when players receive a No Trade or No Move Clause, it usually comes with a lower salary. They're taking less money in the overall length of their contract for the absolute right to control their destiny and future.

Another reason a player may request that an NTC or NMC be in their contract is family. Players that are good enough to request one usually do because they have school-age children, or will at some point in the length of the contract, that it's not so easy to just pack up and ship to another state in the middle of the school year. Kids hate moving because it means having to make new friends and go to a new school. Add on the fact that, unlike a typical child whose parent or parents may have to relocate to a new state, city, or town due to work once every so often, an athlete's children aren't just moving to a new town within the same state, but likely to a completely new state where it's not so easy to call up their old friends for a play date or to hang out if they want to, and they may not know if it's "safe" to make new friends because they could be moving again in a matter of weeks or months (depending on their father's contract status.)

Some athletes that are forced to move mid-season due to a trade tend to leave their families behind; especially if they're a pending free agent. Meaning they miss bigger chunks of their children's lives than they already were.

Yes, athletes knew what they were signing up for when they chose to pursue playing their favorite sport for a living. Yes, their significant others knew what they were getting into when they started a relationship with the athlete. However, the children being brought into the equation did not sign up for it or know what it would curtail. They weren't given a choice.

All of that to say if an athlete is given an NTC and later on is confronted with a trade proposal and exercises the right to invoke his No Trade Clause we as fans have to remember that a player has a couple of reasons for asking for or accepting an NTC in contract negotiations, but the family reason may be the biggest one of them all.

On the other side of the equation, if a general manager is attempting to trade a player with a No Trade in his contract, he has to be smart enough to keep an open dialogue with that player. Working out the details of the trade and expecting the player is going to waive his NTC, but having no real idea is not the greatest business practice.

While there's no solid proof this is what happened in the Blues/Flyers potential trade, it sure seems like it may be. So much so, it seems Armstrong wasn't truly sure what to do when Krug exercised his contractual obligation to go nowhere. Briere immediately (reportedly) started attempting to get a third team involved that was in a "win now" window to complete the trade, but that was before Krug made it clear he wasn't willing to go anywhere.

Reports in recent days have said the Flyers have attempted to use certain advocates within the organization that has ties to those closest to Krug to try to weaken his stance and get him to agree to waive with the intent of at least being flipped to a third team, but as of this writing no trade has been completed, so we can only assume it hasn't (yet) worked.

If this trade completely falls through because Krug refuses to waive it is his contractual right, and his teammates will get it and hold no grudges, but one has to believe the upcoming season will be extremely awkward between him and the Blues front office. Not to mention the number of boos he'll likely hear in Philadelphia whenever he touches the puck during the Blues visit.

The player with a no trade clause has every right to say "not happening"; the fans have every right to hate it; but the GM of the team attempting to trade that player should have known from the get-go where he stood, so if we're honest, it seems more of the blame should be on Armstrong than Krug.