After the Winnipeg Jets announced yesterday that Toby Enstrom underwent knee surgery and would be out for the rest of the year, it ended what has been a very disappointing season. The former 50-point defenseman had just 14 this year, easily the lowest number of his career. Broken up by a concussion and personal issues, 2016-17 has been one to forget for the 32-year old.
Next season, he’ll head into the last year of his current five-year contract likely passed by Josh Morrissey among Jets’ defenders and perhaps even the newly signed Tucker Poolman as well. His $5.75MM cap hit is hard for the Jets to swallow if he can’t get back to his previous performance, but it’s something else that may cost Winnipeg even more.
Enstrom’s contract includes a no-movement clause, meaning he’ll require automatic protection in the upcoming expansion draft should he not agree to waive it. Dustin Byfuglien also has an NMC, and Jacob Trouba and Tyler Myers clearly need protection. That would force the Jets into the eight skater option, leaving several good players available for Vegas to choose.
Even if they decided to leave the rest of the defenders—losing one of Ben Chiarot, Julian Melchiori or Brenden Kichton wouldn’t cripple the team—that means they only have four slots for forwards. When you check off Mark Scheifele, Blake Wheeler and Bryan Little as obvious choices, you then are left with the group of Mathieu Perreault, Adam Lowry, Marko Dano, Joel Armia and Andrew Copp available with the power to protect just one. Losing any of them without a fight would be painful, given the potential or performance they’ve shown so far.
Getting Enstrom to waive that NMC is crucial, as it would give three more spots to the Jets to keep their young forward group in tact. If he isn’t willing, it won’t be just his declining play that will leave a bad taste in the mouths of the Winnipeg faithful. For a player who has spent his whole career with a single franchise after they took a chance on him in the eighth round, he needs to do just one more thing for them—even if it does put him at risk of having to play in Vegas for a year.
Why does does Enstrom need to waive his no-movement clause for Winnipeg? The Jets gave him that clause. He has every right to refuse to waive it. Enstrom has every right to do what is best for him & his family. If he wants no part of Las Vegas for family reasons, then he has every right to not waive his no-movement clause
He doesn’t need to from a personal standpoint, but it’s doubtful Vegas would take him anyways even if he did waive his NMC. Same idea as players taking pay cuts, I suppose? “Take a bullet” so to speak for the betterment of the overall team. But he is in no way obligated to do this since its, simply put, a favour for the team.
*However*; he is not exempt from being released. So if he doesn’t accept to waive his no-move I believe(?) the Jets could opt to just terminate his contract altogether before the draft and protect their forwards that way (which obviously looks worse on the front office, but spares Dano/Armia/etc.)
In Vegas he has a chance to extend his career for more seasons and money !After next year if he stays with the Jets he will have to take a pay cut ,remove the no trade clause and possibly end up in the minors. He needs to consider his best option especially with the injuries he had! I’m sure that Vegas would like an experienced NHL defencman and that would allow the Jets to keep their rookies
The Jets can’t terminate his contract & just release him. They can buy out his contract & then the a portion of the contract will count against Winnipeg’s cap for the next 2 seasons. I wouldn’t blame the Jets for asking him to waive it, but I don’t buy this notion that he has to waive his no-movement clause for the team as a favor. The Jets gave him the clause. Now, they’re living with the consequences
The point isn’t that he “needs” to waive his clause, the point is he had a useless season and his NMC is really limiting the Jets. So, it seems like it’s against the usual spirit of a no-trade clause for a guy to invoke it in a situation like this.
I don’t really care one way or the other. In a sport with salary cap concerns like the NHL, you to think about the possible ramifications of handing out NMCs like this.
Isn’t there the exception for injured players, though? Would the NHL allow that in this case, or would it not be serious enough? Or would he mandate protection regardless, solely because of the clause?