From the Pressbox

I don't know why many of the NHL teams are trying to improve their teams. Isn't it apparent to them that Calgary is going to win the cup? They are unstoppable, and Iginla should be the MVP. Who cares about his no-trade clause nonsense. Even after the trade deadline, which I can't wait for, no team in the league will be even close to Calgary. GO FLAMES GO!!!!

You know what? All the power to the player's with these clauses! Not for "being loyal to a city or organization" but rather for looking our for themselves and their families best interests! Isn't that what we all do everyday of our lives? Do whats best for us and our families? Of course it is! So why should pro athletes be any different? It's not their kids fault that their father does this for a living, so why should they have to get up and move across a continent or go without seeing their fathers for 6 months out of the year?...Would you make your wife and kids do the same if your boss transfered you from Toronto to Dallas?

And all this junk about how much money they make...blah blah blah...and how any of us would kill to be in their situation...yadda yadda yadda...shouldn't mean anything cause no matter how much someone makes, their families well being will always take priority

Sundin is a loyal leaf, keep it that way

can't we get on to the task at hand and put more time into trying to get more interest into who do you think will win the the big prize instead of the past two weeks and at least one more week listing to the news media talking about something that might never happen one can get a little put of with this sort of nothings

If Mats Sundin stays I say good for him. He is the captain, he represents the team and he leads the team. Remember the coach who fled the Atlanta Falcons? Did Stevie Y ever think of leaving the Red Wings. Lets give Mat the credit for having character, not just opportunism.

I have been a Maple Leaf all my life and I say- Dance with the one who brought you...!! Mats is the heart of the Leafs...end of story!!

What surprises me about these players and their no trade clauses is that people like Sundin, Kaberle who refuse to be traded, are saying to the hockey world " I'm a loser and I like losing and I don't want to go anywhere else cause it's fun to lose; Stanley Cup would be nice but not if I have to put myself out and be traded in order to get it;"...that said, now I ask you; " What GM in his right mind would want to trade for a player who looks at it all like this?

When Ray Bourque won the cup in Colorado it was a complete joke. How rewarding can it be to play an entire career with one team, put all that time, effort, passion, then go to another team for one cup run just to get your name on it? Big deal. I side with Mats. If he can't win it in Toronto, where his heart is, it does not matter one bit.

Blah, blah, blah - Mats has shown dedication to the city, yada yada yada. Bottom line is that he is being paid millions of dollars to captain a perenially weak hockey team. Do the right thing Mats! Take a trade, but only to Vancouver. Force the old man to take 1 3rd round pick - which is better than nothing. Phone Nonis and tell him that you have instructed the old man that you will only go to Vancouver - force the old man to take crap. Help destroy Toronto.

NTC's are pure crap. I do not side with the playes on this. The NTC is currently in place in the CBA and the players have the right to use it, thats fine while it lasts. I find it appauling and ridiculous however that NHL players can make millions in addition to being able to dictate where they work and live. This cannot continue if the NHL wants to improve and keep an interested fan base, they absolutly need to abolish the NTC because its killing their product. Part of the allure of NHL hockey is seeing your favourite team put in, not only a strong performance on the ice, but seeing the GM and front office of your favourite team outperform other GM's in building a consistant and winning team. If this is allowed to continue, the GM wont have a job anymore, the rosters of every team will remain exactly the same every year except for crappy waiver moves and intra-club junior development, thats when I stop supporting the NHL.

Re: The Leafs and Sundin
Well, if Sundin refuses to waive his no-trade clause then the Leafs should cut his azzzzzz on July 1st. At the very least, that will save 5-6 million in cap room. As for the whole "loyalty" argument, the club has doled out countless millions to him over the years for his services. Mats has been more than adequately compensated. If he's supposed to be a "club guy" then he should allow Fletcher to get some prospects or picks for him. He can keep his house in T.O., temporarily rent an apartment in the new city he's dealt to, go try and win a Cup, and then in the summer re-sign with his supposedly beloved Leafs for 500K a year - thus saving the club millions in cap room. The dude has made almost 90 million so far....he needs more??

Yes, that would be true "loyalty". But fat chance we'll see that happen. As for Tucker and McCabe - see ya, boys. They won't waive?Then eat their contracts or send them to the Marlies. I have no problem with the Leafs tanking for 2 years and having a shot at Stamkos, Tavares, et al. There's a reason for the recent Habs resurgence - they sucked for years and now are reaping the benefits.

Interesting note on Kaberle I heard mentioned on a sports radio show: he does have a no-trade,BUT Leafs have a clause that he can be dealt AFTER the regular season up to July 1st. Don't know if that is a fact or not.
Either way, Fletcher (and whoever the new GM ends up being) have alot of work to do - yet not all of it needs to be done by February 26.

That said, Sundin must allow himself to be traded in the best interests of the team. Otherwise, he will fully deserve the anger of Leaf fans after Feb 26.

Leaf fans need to suck it up for once and allow their team to tank for two or three seasons allow it to re-stock their system and clear up millions in cap room. Otherwise there's only years of mediocrity to come.

How can a GM be surprised when a player with a no-trade clause refuses to waive it?

Tha reason for having one in the first place is that the player wants to avoid being traded, no?

I respect Sundin's decision. Though, I really hope that he goes to a contender and finally gets to win a cup..as long as it's not OTTAWA..PLEASE GOD NOT TO OTTAWA!

When they player signed the contract, they feel that they left some money on the table because they took a No Trade Clause in lieu of a larger contract. Why should they give it up? If they give it up, they could be sent, along with the wife and kids, to some American city. Kids would have to leave school, close friends and neighbors would be left, and the house you've settled into would be no more. From the players' points of view, they've earned the no trade clause, and I don't blame them from using it.

There's hardly any trades this year (so far) because so many teams are still in the hunt. (More buyers than sellers.)

Hey, if a GM allows a no trade clause to be in the contract then they need to live with it. If you don't like it then don't agree to it or tell the player, a no trade clause is worth $1 million (or what ever amount) per year. Put a price on it. (It's a form of an options contract but it's harder to price.)

JL

Players and teams should avoid no trade contracts, they are nothing but a receipe for an uncomfortable situation for everyone down the road. Instead, players especially the ones who take the so-called home town discounts, should negotiate a if you trade me it's going to cost you clause. That way general managers can trade any player they want and the player traded gets financial compensation if he is delt. This hopefully would make up for the money he may have left on the table when he originally signed his contract.

I have been a maple leafs fan for the past 32 years since coming to this beautiful country. I have gone through the ballard years of mediocrity and even then the tearm was better than what is today. I am a fan of Mat Sundin and even though he has the right to say yes or no to his no trade clause, if he really cares and love the maple leafs as he so profess, he should say yes and let Cliff Fletcher trade him for the benefit of the maple leafs. Honestly,I believe he really don't care about winning a stanley cup or the maple leafs.

You couldn't have said it better.

Obviously I agree that the player had the right to say no to a trade if they were able to negotiate a NTC into their contracts. I can understand why the likes of McCabe, Kubina, Tucker, and Kaberle don't want to waive as they all have contracts beyond this season. However, in my opinion, Sundin is in a different situation. He has the ability to improve this team for the future by accepting a trade right now. Also, as many know, he is a UFA at seasons end and can re-sign with the Leafs come July 1. Clearly, him doing just that is what's best for this team, and dare I say Mats?? He would have a chance at a cup AND can be right back where he wants to be in a few months (on an improved team I might add).

Who cares. It's a game.

This is completely based on rights. A player often agrees to sign a deal he might not normally sign if it includes a no-trade clause, thus taking less money in the process.

Why do Canadians buy RRSP's? Why do we like to budget our money and time? Because it's human nature to desire security. Security is attacked more and more often in todays post industrial society, so I can understand the players point of view. Who wants to not know where they are going to live 3 months from now? How much money you make doens't change that.

The team wanted the player bad enough to sign the deal, so I say they have to abide by it. the only exception I support is if a player has a dramatic injury or some other unforseen mishap (Not including aging)that obviously and significantly reduces a player's ability to contribute. I think a no-trade is the players right unless someone is severely injured.

I favour the "No Trade Clause" as a protection for the stability of the player and his family. As "sens fan" above states, many of these players with a NTC, Sundin and Redden, as examples, have long standing ties with their respected NHL home cities.

A quote from Anaheim Ducks GM Brian Burke followed by another from Nashville GM David Poile will demonstrate why I think players want these clauses as a part of their contracts. Both quotes are taken from an article on the Toronto Star's website Feb 19, 2008 titled "Time for NHL to wheel and deal" written by Damien Cox:

"(NHL general managers) make more mistakes around the trade deadline than we do the whole rest of the year," said Burke.

"I think 364 days of the year we've all got the GM 101 thing down pat," said Poile. "But that one day we do things we say we would never do."

Mr. Poile makes a very valid point - they know how to do their jobs (most of the time), and it was the GM who agreed to have the NTC in place. They (the GM) made their own bed,. . .as the cliche goes.

I do not agree with the first poster who believes that Mr. Sundin does not want to waive his NTC because he doesn't want to win the cup, or he isn't enough of a hockey player.

For Mr. Sundin it's a crap shoot, waive the NTC get dealt to a team in another city, uproot family, or worse disappear for 3 - 4 months and then end up getting knocked out in the semi-finals.

I didn't include the end of the quote from Mr. Burke "And there's only one parade." Of course Mr. Sundin wants to win the Stanley Cup, he did after all move here from Sweden (when he was a young single man). But now with all things in perspective, family and stability are more important. He is entitled to the right to decide what happens to he and his family - who are we to judge.

The whining about no trades sounds like the whining about salaries being too high (pre-lockout). The owners and GMs didn't have to pay the players outrageous salaries and yet they did. Now we have a cap system. The owners and GMs don't have to give out 'no movement' or 'no trade' deal and yet they did. You can't blame the player - especially if they are actually productive, like Sundin.

Of the 12 teams that won the Stanley Cup from 1994 to 2006, nearly half of them have had a higher percentage of "chicken europeans" than the league average of that season. I don't buy this "good'ole Canadian boy" thing anymore...can we call Nik Lidstrom a Chicken Swede? I don't think so. Based on the success of Europeans contributing to Stanley Cup winners, Mats Sundin should be in demand...but what team does Mats agree to to "Guarantee" his name on the cup. If Mats is successful with his name engraved on the Stanley Cup his contibution would be just like helping a pieced together team, just like the world championships or the Olympics. Mats, you are the one in control, pick wisely.

Sundin has shown nothing but commitment to the Maple Leafs and the city of Toronto from day one. He has lead the Buds with class, determination and overall heart. Why should he waive a clause in his contract that he fairly negotiated for? Because the Leafs have done so much for him by never giving him a winger his talent truly deserved? By never looking to the future until the team hits rock bottom?

Whatever Sundin chooses to do, stay or go, he has earned the right to do so. It's in the team's interest that he be traded but if that doesn't suit him then so be it.

Mats you're a legend and this team doesn't deserve you.

Sundin doesn't want to be traded to a team that is a contender for the cup. Why? Beacause to him, the Stanley cup is not that important. Not as important as the World Championship or the Olympics. Care to wonder why Sundin has had only one good year in the playoffs and has never played in the final for the cup?

Calgary has it right by having a Canadian as Captain. Someone who knows how important it is to win the cup. Someone with heart/

I wish I had a contract the guaranteed me work, and if I were injured, had a great insurance package to take care of me and mine ad infinitum. One can't blame the players for asking for no trade clauses. If the GMs don't like no-trade, then trade the player at contract time and sign somebody else instead.

Whether by no-trade clauses or other means, the NHL seems to be coming back to a system where players will stay with one or two teams for their entire career. This isn't as exciting as trade-deadline speculation, but it does build 'home teams' and loyal fans, and should be recognized as a great marketing tool. I for one hope the days of 'my collection of random players vs. your collection of random players' are over.

No Trade Clauses are important to the players and their families, but I think this is a far cry from a black and white issue. The example of Delgado with the Jays is a good example of a bad NTC. Redden would be another (assuming the Sens don't plan on signing him).

Grey areas would be players like Thomas Kaberle, Brad Boyle and others who don't want to be shopped around on a whim. From their perspective, it has to be pretty disconcerting to know that at anytime you may have to pack up your things and move to another city, which probably entails a few weeks in a hotel (or if you're Crosby a few weeks with Lemieux). And Lord knows you'll never get that beltsander back from your neighbour now...

Certain teams have dug themselves a deeper hole than others with an abundance of NTCs, like the Leafs, but you have to figure the answer to this problem is easier than abolishing NTCs altogether, JUST BE MORE STRINGENT in giving them out. The problem seems to lie mostly in the hands of the GMs (or maybe the agents are just that good), making ill-advised promises without care or concern for the future.

Really, we could all save ourselves a whole mess of trouble and start investing in gypsies. Or think before acting, but I favour the gyspy route.

Add me to the list of those who respect the rights of the players in this 'trade-deadline-frenzy' week. Mats Sundin has given everything he can as a player and leader to the Maple Leafs. To suggest he make an extreme sacrifice and leave the team for the benefit of those who have managed it so poorly is the logic of the lame-brained. This is 'media buzz' at its worst. Best to ignore it as Mats is trying to do and say 'hell no, I won't go.'

You've made your bed, now lie in it. This latest example of GM's bemoaning the NTC's throughout the league is laughable. If you give a player an NTC, be prepared for them to exercise their right to not be traded. In the post-lockout NHL they gave them away like the bad gum in packs of hockey cards. Too bad. Learn from your mistakes and don't repeat them.

I agree. The fact that Sundin has a history with Toronto and loves the team shows you how much a team, let alone the game means to him.

Personally I feel that there should be a limit on no trade clauses. A player should only be able to make so much money, for so many years if they want a no trade clause or only a certain amount of clauses per team. This not only opens up the salary cap for trading but limits the use of the no trade clause. Toronto for one has too many players with no trade clauses, who aren't even that important to the team.

I agree that players must be able to exercise some level of control over their career, but when a player is performing beneathe the caliber expected by his team they must realize that what they are doing is in actuality hurting the organization.

In the case of Wade Redden, his play as deteriorated and he looks like a depressed bag of sand skating down the ice. He's barely able to skate to a puck let alone make a pass like he could in seasons past. In cases such as these, there should be a veto measure in place where management can relate performance to salary.

Players are offered contracts based on their performance. If performance dwindles or a player gets injured, should that player still be allowed to receive what they would have if they performed at their highest caliber, or close to their top performance?

"No-trade" is an ugly term, and will cause a lot of conflict amongst players and management in the future unless something is done to remedy the outcome.

Elliot makes some valid points. I too don't think the clauses have led to paralysis. Commanding a n/t clause is not so different than commanding millions that might have gone to another player - its part of the package and its gone on for a long time (high salaries esp). One would like to think it puts the onus on the player to earn it, but that is a delusion professional sports all suffer from at signing time.

One thing Elliot mentioned that troubles me is the inability for the NHL to create a logical structure. I have watched hockey for a very long time (unfortunately the bulk of it the Leafs) and it has occured to me agaibn and again that hockey guys (they're always guys) always insist they know best, that they've been in the game for so long and know everything, just let them handle it - but boy do they seem collosally stupid a lot of the time. I think if NHL hockey is going to improve its product the whole culture of the game needs a good shaking up.

"It comes down to the attitude that these guys are making millions to play a game. It's why they had no chance to win public support during the lockout. No matter that any worker anywhere in the world would love to have that kind of power, to say, "Sorry boss, but you can take that transfer and shove it." (With apologies to Johnny Paycheck.)"

Let's put things in perspective here. There are millions of people in the world who can do the job I do for far less than million of dollars. If there were less than 100 and people would pay hundreds of dollars just to watch me work for a few hours, then perhaps I would have the same type of power and income. How many sports fans out there can claim they are in as much demand as an elite NHL player?

In any case, I don't recall anywhere in the collective agreement that says a player has to waive it if it would help his current team or if he would be traded to a better team. The player has the right to veto any trades just like a player has the right spend his millions however he wants.

Likewise, the money I make for working at my company isn't restricted to spending it in a manner that benefits my company. If I choose to spend my money on a product or service from a competing company, that is my right. I would definitely help my company out by purchasing from my own company, but I should not be criticised if I do not choose to do so.

Making millions or not, they're still human. They often have families and community ties in the cities where they play -- particularly players with a long history with a team, like Sundin or Redden. I can't say I blame them for wanting to have some control over whether they go or stay. Frankly, though I think Brian Murray is a good thing for the Senators, I am disgusted with his public efforts to make Redden leave. The man has put in years of his life to help turn the Sens into playoff contenders, and now they want to get rid of him right before his final chance to win a Cup with the team (because we know Murray won't resign him, despite his numbers and his dedication to the organization). That's appalling. So good on Redden for exercising his no-trade clause.

Fans who gripe about no-trade clauses need to remember that it's not just the players who have millions at their disposal, but the owners do too. The players need some protections, just like any other worker in any other business. Because let's face it: owners, GMs and fans can be pretty fickle. And though they get paid millions to play a game, it's big business and I'm sure it's not always fun.