Do away with No Trade Clauses?

If Teddy Kennedy - a U.S. Senator since 1962 - can be an agent of "change," I guess we can also say that Mats Sundin's no-trade clause is responsible for the complete and utter absence of player movement in the NHL these days. Which is to say, don't let the facts get in the way of a hot story.

As hockey fans subjected to Leafs Nation know only too well, the no-trade clause in Sundin's contract is receiving more scrutiny than the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian constitution.

Toronto fans and some media believe that Sundin's purported "selfishness" in protecting his no-trade clause is keeping their squad from moving the 14-year Leafs vet for a regiment of young prospects and speeding up the rebuilding process.

This reflects the quaint NHL habit of blaming the canary for methane in the coal mine; and so players such as Mats Sundin or Alex Tanguay - and their no-trade clauses - are being blamed for the inability of general managers to consummate even the simplest transaction.

The thought being that, if only teams had carte blanche to move any contract or player of any value who becomes expendable in any way, then the flood gates will open to trades.

The real enemy of trades is the screwy notion owners insisted on in the new CBA that forbids renegotiating any contract until the final year of that deal, sort of shot themselves in the foot with that one.

The prohibition -which the NFL was wise enough to avoid- was meant to prevent players holding out for renegotiation on what was becoming a below-market salary. According to NHL logic, an ironclad contract would prevent weak GMs and temperamental players from rewriting deals each season.

In a world of two or three year contacts, the no renegotiating clause might have worked. But when the inmates at the GM asylum started handing out 7,8, 10, 12 and even 15 year contracts, the no negotiate rule put an Arctic chill on the transaction wire.
Someone, somewhere was going to have to pay all those dollars no matter what the return.

With their own stars to sign under the salary cap, teams have become phobic about taking on other long-term commitments.

Of course, the blame for committing guaranteed money for a decade could not be assigned where it belonged - to vacillating team management - and so it has instead been switched to players who now receive no-trade/no-movement clauses instead of the bonuses eliminated by the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Which is a lot like blaming the fish for having too much mercury in his system.

All no-trade clauses do is allow players to be involved in where they go next, not eliminate any movement. But no-renegotiation prohibitions have zero flexibility. That's where the real problem for non-existent trades lies.

Frankly, when you consider that owners got just about every other concession when the players union collapsed like a cheap suitcase, you have to wonder why they didn't get this one, too. But seeing as how they did not expunge no-trade clauses in the CBA negotiations, it's a simple thing to blame them now.

Until next time....