No. I think they have them to have a say in where they get traded, since picking a team to go to is what they gave up when they were willing to forgo unrestricted free agency. Probably in some cases, it's deciding when they get traded as well. I'd imagine some guys with families might not want to uproot their lives mid-season.TheRealness said:So we should take rumor mongerers like Eklund as our primary source of truth? The fact they didn't report he was asked isn't evidence it wasn't an issue in the Boychuk deal. You have sourced literally nothing in your post other than repeating he had a limited NMC. And it's impossible to know who was interested and who was not without getting Chiarelli to talk, and whether the interested teams were on that list that even you don't know who is on.
And do you really think players negotiate for NMCs just so they can waive them whenever they are politely asked? That's completely counter intuitive to the purpose of having a NMC.
Not so they can just say I'm staying on this team whether you want me or not, because I love staying in a place that doesn't want me anymore. I think that sounds absurd.
You can ignore all the rumor mongerers if you wish. So I'll ask a different way. If these NMCs are such anchors that you'd have me believe, shouldn't we be able to name one guy a team has been stuck with that wouldn't leave? Just one. If there is a guy a team is desperately trying to move, but the guy won't go, you don't think anyone from his team would leak that out? There aren't Larry Lucchinos' in the NHL? What would they have to lose by leaking that info if they desperately don't want the guy and the only thing stopping a move is the NMC? Is it really reasonable that there are guys who fit that criteria and we've never heard anything? Ever? On any guy?