Savard/By S. Bradley
So Tomas Kaberle remains a Toronto Maple Leaf just days after general manager Brian Burke lost the race to move the defenseman before his no-trade clause kicked in.
One month from the official opening of Bruins training camp, it appears goaltender Tim Thomas and center Marc Savard will be reporting to Wilmington, Mass., after a summer of trade speculation.
However, the presence of no-trade clauses in all the above-mentioned players’ contracts won’t stop the speculation about potential deals from clogging the airwaves and blogosphere over the next several months. And that’s a situation every card-carrying member of the NHLPA should fight to prevent.
Even Burke’s declaration today to Steve Simmons that he would stick to his guns and not ask a player to waive a no-trade won’t silence those that are in the business of guessing what blockbuster swaps will be made in the NHL. As long as general managers are allowed the opportunity to ask a player to waive a clause negotiated for in good faith during contract talks, individual promises aside, there will always be the chance that a GM will try to move a no-trade-possessing player.
And that’s just not fair.
A no-trade clause is a reward to a player usually for taking less money, shorter term or just a more cap-friendly salary in a new deal. Under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, a player cannot be compensated for waiving a no-trade. So what does the player receive instead when a GM decides to try to renege on that no-trade? Usually just a ton of agita and a no-win situation.
Whether the team reveals its intention to seek a trade of said player, or (as in the Bruins’ case with Savard and Thomas) the front office tries to keep things on the down low, the player is the one put in the most awkward of positions. If the player agrees to waive the no-trade, the only people he’s placating are with the team he’s going to leave. If he refuses, he’s suddenly put in a position where he looks like he’s difficult to have around.
Either way, showing up at training camp – should a trade be rejected or not materialize – can be like transferring to a new high school before senior year. Some teammates, most of whom probably read hardly a bit of hockey news all summer, might be offended that player agreed to be traded and take it as a sign that player doesn’t want to be back with the requesting club. Or maybe a player that’s going to be a cap casualty can’t understand why that player didn’t allow the team to move him and clear space.
One veteran player I spoke to this summer wasn’t vehemently opposed to teams asking a player to agree to a trade, as long as it was done tactically. Of course, these days it’s almost impossible to keep a request of that magnitude behind closed doors. Sometimes it seems like TSN has every teams’ front offices bugged. If the team is willing to work with the player to find an amenable new home, that lessens the blow of such a move. But it tends to create even more of a dilemma, as the Dany Heatley mess showed us last summer.
By the same token, a player that has a no-trade clause shouldn’t be allowed to ask out. If a player wants to commit to a team and that club is willing to grant a no-trade clause, the least the player can do is give his all for the franchise and not spend time wondering if the grass is greener elsewhere and then asking to be flipped over the fence to a new environment.
A no-trade should be just that: a no-trade clause. That means if you sign the player, he can’t be traded and you cannot ask him to waive it. There’s really no downside for the team that asks, but the request can be a public relations nightmare for the player. That the PA doesn’t stick up more for players in such a predicament is just another bit of evidence that the PA is, in effect, useless right now. In the next CBA, there should either be no more no-trade clauses or a directive that teams cannot under any circumstance move a player with a no-trade.
When the NHLPA gets its act together, and that might not be until the next round of collective bargaining, making sure no-trade clauses negotiated for as a benefit to the player don’t go sour before their expiration date should be a primary objective.
For now, teams should be more sensitive to what negotiating for the waiving of a no-trade can do to a player and either not ask, or not grant the no-trade clause in the first place.
Grant, not every player makes “zillions of dollars,’ and you simply cannot compare your sitution to that of athletes who do this for a living. They don’t just play sports for fun. They have families and lives outside of the sport (just ask Michael Ryder, Marc Savard, or Jose Theodore).
These are human beings, not pieces on a chessboard. Sure, it’s fun to play a game for a living, and most of these guys are well aware of their blessings, but they also have to deal with fear of injury, stress of coast-to-coast travel, prying media, demanding fans, the threat of trades/demotion, and a million other things that you and I never have to deal with.
As for that “faithful to the team” stuff – what a bunch of hogwash that was. Try reading “Ball Four” sometime and see how teams treated players before the advent of free agency. Even today, a guy like Bronson Arroyo signs a team-friendly contract and gets traded for his pains. If you’re going to cite faithfulness, it should go both ways. But it doesn’t. I don’t see where fans cry about it being a business and tell a player to suck it up when he gets traded or cut and then turn around and accuse a player of disloyalty if he chooses to go elsewhere.
You know – I just don’t have sympathy for anyone in this industry. I continue to play sports at 45, and sometimes my teams suck. But what we all preach to our kids is that its not all about winning – its about team. Players make zillions of dollars to do what the rest of us do for fun and the spirit of competition and comraderie. Some of them just sound like a bunch of spoiled little bitches half the time (Darrell Revis, Brett Favre, Mankins, Kovalchuk – Remember when Ray asked to be traded so he could play for the cup with another team?! Clemens? Lost a ton of respect for both those guys. Gone are the Jim Rices, Dan Marinos, Fran Tarkingtons, great players – faithful to team. This article is no different.
Matt – usually good stuff, but you’ve lost it. The player holds the right to say ‘no’ at all times. What’s wrong with asking? I guess it should be illegal for a player to ask to be traded? I guess it should be illegal to return something you purchased, but then found out it didn’t fit your needs… this is just non-sense. The whole idea of a no-trade isn’t so that there can be no-trading – its to give the player the control. If he’s got the control – the rest of this article is pointless. What’s unfair is that fans get saddled with a crappy team because the team went all out and in FA and signed someone who was only in it for the money and can’t be ‘fired’. This is where football has it right on all other sports, including hockey, but especially in hoops.
/Would I rather the Bruins win the Cup or win Joe Thorton? Huh?//
If you don’t know what that means then you should probably stop replying LoL!
It must be a slow news day. What else can explain such a non-story?
Sure, the author uses Savard, Thomas, and the NTC poster boy Kaberle as evidence to support his argument.
BUT – where’s the other side of the coin? Where’s the mention of all the players who were asked to waive their NMC and did so?
You think Ryan Smyth goes to his bed crying every night that he’s now in LA instead of Colorado?
Or what about Gagne who just joined TB after being the longest current tenured Flyer? I didn’t see him say no way Jose’.
Heck, a few years ago I recall that Todd Marchant (playing for Columbus) refused to waive his NTC and get dealt to Ducks as part of Federov trade. Jackets put him on waivers, ANA scooped him up, and voila’ – one Stanley Cup later he’s still a Duck.
My point? Asking a player to waive a NTC isn’t always doom and gloom, sometimes (usually) it can benefit both sides.
//Char – If you’re a Bruins fan, which do you want more? The Bruins to win the cup or Joe Thornton?//
Would I rather the Bruins win the Cup or win Joe Thorton? Huh?
I agree with SanDogBrewin that under the present system a “no-trade clause” is somewhat of a misnomer, because it is really just a mechanism for giving a player some leverage to control his fate in the event that the team wants to trade him. It would be more apt to call it a “trade approval” clause rather than a no-trade clause.
Were the players given the option for a real no-trade clause which could not be waived (effectively irrevocably binding the player to the team for the duration of the contract), it would be interesting to see what players would actually agree to such a deal. I tend to expect most players would shy away from such a committment because who knows what is coming down the pipe in a year, let alone in five. Imagine if you were a goalie who has been displaced by a young phenom. It would probably be pretty depressing watching your career rot on the vine despite the fact that you could probably contribute to any number of the other 29 teams in the league.
Cornelius,
Thank you for that link, that was rather enjoyable, though I doubt Char is the Cheechoo train guy. I think he is just annoyed about the lack of good faith in the league because while you make a good point about players who want to be traded, that does not mean that GM’s should be allowed to ask for a waive of the clause. I would rather think the players could if they wanted to. Furthermore, when you sign a NTC deal, I would hope that a player considers the ramifications of that, especially for a long term deal. To simply say that the system is fine the way it is would be a great fallacy. I mean seriously, Heatly was mad because he was getting the heat and was surrounded by trade rumors despite his NTC. if there was a no-waive clause for GM’s there would be no gossip. much simpler than Cheechoo train guy when you look at it that way
Char – If you’re a Bruins fan, which do you want more? The Bruins to win the cup or Joe Thornton?
Leafs fans – Mats Sundin to win the cup with Vancouver or the Leafs to win the year Mats was in Vancouver.
Blackhawks fans probably were none too happy to watch long-time hawk Chelios lifting the cup with Detroit.
Unless you’re personally related to a player, there’s no reason for you to root for a player over a team.
Hell, I was pissed when P.J. Axelsson was unceremoniously marked “return to sender” and put a plane to Sweden, but you better believe I wouldn’t have given 2 bits about it if the Bruins went on to win the cup.
Wait, Char, are you the Cheechoo train guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLJWS_y3bHI
If so, nevermind.
//At the heart of all this, fans of a team care a lot more about the team than the player. //
This is an inane statement. Have you polled every single fan and every single player? How on earth do you know how thousands of fans and hundreds of players feel?
Matt is absolutely correct. Either honor the NTC, or do away with them altogether. This twilight zone of waiving/not waiving is ridiculous. Two parties sign a contract, honor the damn thing.
Why don’t you ask Dany Heatley if the no-trade clause worked out for him?
Saying that a no-trade clause should chain a player to a corpse of a team or a team to a player that doesn’t want to play there anymore is pretty stupid. Plenty of non-millionaires have given up raises, money, benefits, etc in order to keep their jobs in the last year or so.
At the heart of all this, fans of a team care a lot more about the team than the player. Players the fans care about make the team better. If the team will get better with a trade, how does the paying customer benefit from disallowing them?
no-trade claude should be illegal…
Great post Matt. I agree with you that NTC/NMC’s should be treated as though they are earned.
However, I also believe teams – more specifically GMs – should be more careful about giving out these contract clauses. Here’s the thing: GMs should ban together and not try to one-up each other with the not-so-great sales tactic “I’ll give you one if the other guy doesn’t.” Ironically, it’s this very issue that’s landed them all in a no-win situation. If they all agreed not to do this (of course this will never happen), they’d be taking back all the power they continue to give to players. My two cents.
Great post though!
NTCs and NMCs to me basically says the player gets to name where he wants to go so they don’t end up in NYI, TOR, ATL, FLA or EDM purgatory. The player can simply say no like Marco Sturm did last summer.
I do agree about the discretion part because there is none but how do you police it ? The GM is letting it slip and the Agents are letting it slip to perhaps too drive the price up for the player compensation. I don’t see the NHLPA agreeing to it because the players want NTCs and NMCs.
PS. Burke handled the Kabrele horribly he could not drive his price up with intended leaks where as I can think of 28Million reasons why Savard should pipe up about being hurt.