Waiving The Clause

I had a good discussion tonight with a teammate in the adult beverage garden following our slo-pitch win. Normally, there are discussions about everything from trashy TV shows to funny family and work moments, but one topic that always seems to come up is hockey. Dylan Larkin's trade demand out of Detroit was the heated topic on this warm evening, and some were concerned that it may lead to similar outcomes for a handful of Jets. What caught my attenton in this was a quick conversation about how Larkin should be forced to forfeit his no-trade protection because it was him, and not the Red Wings, who asked for a trade. This got me thinking.

As we saw with the St. Louis Blues this season, Colton Parayko denied a trade to Buffalo because he had a no-trade clause in his contract. St. Louis had arranged a deal with the Buiffalo Sabres, and they were forced to approach Parayko to see if he would be willing to waive his no-trade status that they had provided him. Of course, he did not, Parayko remained a Blues defender, and the Sabres moved on.

But what if it had been Parayko asking to leave St. Louis?

A no-trade clause protects a player from being moved by a team because the team clearly valued the contributions that a player was making. It is the team awarding this protection to a player, and the player has the right to deny a move through this clause if the team decides that it wants to move that player. In short, the team guaranteed that it wouldn't trade the player, so the player has every right to deny any trade involving him through that awarded clause.

What a no-trade clause doesn't do is allow a player to pick and choose where he can be dealt if the player decides he no longer wants to play for the team that awarded the no-trade protection. If a player demands to be traded, he essentially is waiving the no-trade protection that was provided for him. As such, the team should be able to make a deal with any team in the league at that point because the player has made it clear that he no longer wants to honour the terms of the contract and protection given to him.

I want to be clear that I have no legal basis for the above paragraph nor would it even pass the sniff test by a lawyer. All I'm suggesting is that any player who demands a trade while holding no-trade protection officially is waiving that protection. 31 other teams can and should be able to acquire his services if a deal can be reached.

I'm sure player agents and the NHLPA would go bananas over this change to no-trade protection if it were implemented, but the protection remains in place as long as the player isn't the one asking for a trade. If a team approaches a player with that protection, he is fully and legally allowed to reject any and all trades as long as his contract is valid. No one can take that protection from the player if he doesn't want to be moved to another team. It is binding.

However, a player should not be able to hold teams hostage and demand where he can be traded if a player decides he wants to leave. A modified no-trade clause can be negotiated if a team and player agree to it, but full no-trade protection given to a player doesn't give the player the power to pick and choose where he can be traded. The clause prevents that from happening unless the player waives the entire clause, not just part of it to go to specific teams.

By making this change to the no-trade clause, this would restore the balance of power between teams and players when these clauses are included in a contract. It's a commitment from both sides that they will honour the contract for its entire length of the term, and it prevents a team from simply blindsiding a player it once valued for his contributions by trading him away without notice. If the player has a change of heart, he forfeits all trade protection when it comes to leaving town. No exceptions except for modified no-trade clauses.

Rarely do I side with management in any cause, but seeing a player limiting a team's ability to get the best deal it can by submitting a list of teams for whom he'd rather play is not part of the no-trade clause. If a player decides he doesn't want to play for a team, he waives all protection he once held under the no-trade clause. That risk could make accepting no-trade clauses in the future a little harder to accept since players would be afforded no-trade protection as long as they were committed to that team for the length of the deal.

Would this be a change you'd like to see in a future CBA negotation? I know not everyone will approve of this change, and some will say it doesn't go far enough. It's a starting point, though, and that's where all negotiations begin. In knowing that, I'll ask the question: if a player with full no-trade protection demands a trade, should he be forced to waive that full no-trade protection? Leave your answer in the comments so there can be a discussion about this change!

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!