Monday, June 30, 2014

No Trade, Bad Grade

Four years ago, just after the Habs' Tomas Plekanec had signed his current long-term contract, I asked him about whether the no-trade clause included in the deal made him feel more secure about his future in Montreal. He had, after all, spent the previous couple of seasons as rumour-mill trade bait. This is what he said:

"Well, first of all, 'no trade' clause doesn't mean much. If somebody asks you to leave, I don't think you'll want to stay, right? And, obviously, if your name is in all the rumours, it's not a great feeling."

This is the position in which Josh Gorges finds himself today. The partial no-trade clause he agreed to as part of his four-season contract, designed to protect him from having to play in an undesirable city, has come back to bite both him and the Canadiens in the butt. As Plekanec so succinctly put it, nobody wants to stay where he's not wanted.

In Gorges' case, without the no-trade clause, Marc Bergevin could have made discrete inquiries and arranged a trade that would best work for the team. Gorges would have been shocked and disappointed, but would have adjusted as so many players before him have done. As it stands, Bergevin apparently had a trade worked out, but was obliged to request Gorges' permission. Gorges refused to give because it was allegedly to the leafs, who are on his no-trade list.

So now, we have Gorges hurt and angry on one side and Marc Bergevin looking for another trade (for whatever reason...that's another issue) to which Gorges will agree on the other. Unfortunately for Bergevin, once that "we don't want you" genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. Gorges, as a guy whose intrinsic value is in his unwavering dedication to giving everything for his team, can't help but find it tough to live up to his own standard when he knows Bergevin wanted him gone. When that genie escapes, the GM has virtually no choice but to trade the guy, and all his colleagues know it. If Gorges might have brought back a top-six winger or other valuable player for Montreal, his value will now be lower as the vultures know Bergevin has got to move him.

Then there's the impact on the rest of the team. With captain Brian Gionta's status in limbo, there's pressure on guys like P.K.Subban and Carey Price to take on more of a leadership role. Not to mention, Gorges and Price are very close off the ice and the move will undoubtedly be felt by Price, especially in the way it was handled.

Really, in the end, no-trade clauses do more harm than good for many players. In the old days, when hardly anyone had them, guys could convince themselves they were going to a team that wanted them, rather than being discarded by the one letting them go. These days, when they're asked to waive a no-trade clause there's no hiding from the fact the team they've bled for wants to ditch them.

Tomas Plekanec was right.


Steve said...

Hi Jt late to the party. When the whip came down Josh got some choice and that is why the no trade is good for players. Otherwise Edmonton and Toronto would win the cup every year.

Darren Bifford said...

Your readers miss you.

Phil G said...

I disagree the no trade clause helps the player more by at the very least giving them a choice of WHICH team they can play with.This is the game and business they have chosen...No tears here for Georges...He played well but Canadiens needed to make room for some up and coming defensemen like Tinordi.