How can I be dodging it while stating that I disagree with the rule and the reasons why it is place. That is the entire premise of my position. You aren't making sense. You also have mischaracterized my position and reasoning for why I don't agree with part of the rule. If need be, I'll explain it to you again. Nothing to do with being different from other restrictions.
- MJL

The player agreed to sign a contract that included a 1 year, unwaiveable, no trade clause. The idea that Oilers are allowed to take these contracts as is makes sense. The idea that Oilers should be allowed to say "We want these contracts" then unilaterally re-write parts of them, doesn't. I think everyone understands your opinion. They are just telling you it's ridiculous. The players have rights too, and the fact that is inconvenient for the Oilers, doesn't mean the players shouldn't have rights. If the Oilers want these contracts, they have to take them as signed, not re-write them to their own liking.

The player agreed to sign a contract that included a 1 year, unwaiveable, no trade clause. The idea that Oilers are allowed to take these contracts as is makes sense. The idea that Oilers should be allowed to say "We want these contracts" then unilaterally re-write parts of them, doesn't. I think everyone understands your opinion. They are just telling you it's ridiculous. The players have rights too, and the fact that is inconvenient for the Oilers, doesn't mean the players shouldn't have rights. If the Oilers want these contracts, they have to take them as signed, not re-write them to their own liking.
- Antilles

Clearly, you don't understand my position. I don't object to the player having rights. I don't object to the player being able to sign the deal. Not one single person has made a case as to why my opinion is ridiculous.

You're also incorrect in stating that the contract includes a 1 year unwaivable, no trade clause. By CBA rule, neither player is eligible for a NTC in their contract.