That Finicky No-Trade Clause Thing

The No-Trade Clause, kinda...

Up until very recently (like ten minutes before I wrote this) I had never realized how many different iterations there are with the celebrated No-Trade Clause. The No-Trade Clause being the legal right of a player - stipulated in a contract - that allows him to veto any trades to a specific team. Or is it a city?

See? That was my first thought too. Do players specify the city they don't like or is it the team? Can it be both?

It's entirely possible that a player could hate a team but love its city, or vice versa, and knowing this could add a lot of clarity to the situation.

Imagine how important these details would be.

With Toronto, for example, it has always been assumed that the city itself is considered to be a destination of choice for hockey players and, if true, means that anyone balking at being traded there, does so out of an obvious disdain for Toronto's hockey team.

This only seems logical since Toronto is a pressure-cooker for any hockey player to deal with and if living in a fishbowl ain’t your thing, then the Maple Leafs aren’t for you.

But maybe, just maybe, this isn’t about the Toronto Maple Leafs at all. Maybe it's the city that the players don't like coming to, and not the team.

Imagine the city that can’t stop staring in the mirror being told it isn't as attractive (to players) as it thinks it is. Imagine that reality hitting the collective Torontonian psyche.

People would be crushed. Like as bad as the Leafs in the playoffs, crushed.

In contrast we assume (mainly because it doesn't seem like much of a secret ) that the city of Winnipeg tops the No Trade list as the Most Popular Least Popular Hockey Destination (sorry Winnipeg). We don’t actually know this as fact though because these lists remain private although this kind of juicy speculation could kill a person.

Imagine if these lists became public, and then coming to grips with the fact that the data doesn’t align at all with our commonly-held notion of who we think the cool kids are.

It would be like realizing you no longer have VIP access; that you aren't who you thought you were. You're now - ironically - on the list you didn't ever want to be on (although determining this is where it becomes even more confusing).

There are more than just No-Trade clause lists. There are also what are known as Yes lists in which the player can state the alternate teams he'd like to play for, rather than telling us who he doesn't want to play for.

Think about that for a minute. When a player signs a long term contract it's thought to be a moment of joy for all involved but, in reality, there's also a bittersweet undercurrent because the guy who just signed has already told us, in writing, who he'd like to play for should our current contractual marriage thing go south.

It's like a marriage license with an escape hatch and would be like seeing photos of the people he wants to date when you break up.

Despite their obvious differences, the Yes List and No-Trade List do share one interesting quality. There’s no standard list length. Who a player wants to play for, or not play for, literally knows no limit (other than 31 I suppose).

This part is fascinating.

Like, who determines a list’s length?

And is this another detail that needs to be negotiated in contract talks?

If true, then this means that contract negotiations could be held up because the two sides can’t even agree on the number of teams he gets to have on his list (even though, in this heated moment, he's supposed to be proclaiming his happiness and fidelity towards you).

This leads to the obvious question of what - by a player’s definition - constitutes a good city or a bad city? Or a great team located in a terrible city? How do you tell them apart and what ultimately triumphs?

It's not too much of a stretch to see a scenario where a player chooses to play in a great city with a gawdawful hockey team (sorry San Jose).

These are thoughts locked away, inside of a player’s mind. The internal dialogue - more a monologue, actually - that has him trying to decide where to (possibly) go, or perhaps not go.

And that's another thing. What's his preferred list format?

Is he a No-Trade sort of gent or a Yes list type of guy?

His choice would tell us a lot about his Big Picture outlook on life (that Yes list types are seemingly optimists) although his decision might be nothing more than simple math.

This gets us into an even weirder subset. If he were to, say, come up with twenty four teams he’d be willing to play for, would it be considered a 24 team Yes list or an 8 team No-Trade list?

Maybe the person who prefers shorter lists simply places huge importance on trying to save paper. A great skater and an environmentalist as well!

Ultimately the process of creating these Trade/No Trade lists would be like ordering a pizza. All thirty two teams on a list and beside each would be little Yes and No boxes or Like and Don't Like boxes that need to be checked off.

Once filled out, these choices transform into you own personal No-Trade clause (or a Yes list for the optimists) within your new NHL contract.

Simple. And made to order.

This though, assumes that whomever is putting together the contract isn’t going to bungle it up so badly that your No-Trade list mistakenly becomes a Yes list and that your choices have now been reversed. That the bozo in charge of putting this in writing has inadvertently taken Los Angeles off your Yes list and replaced it with Edmonton.

And now, because of the mistake, you're forced to either publicly shame Edmonton or take the high road and head to your new NHL team.

Just be sure to pack some of the essentials you'll need for your time there. I have a list if you want to see it.

------