The Rangers and Maple Leafs should respect Jacob Trouba's and Mitch Marner's contractual clauses and not force them into a trade, says Adam Proteau.
Regret and disappointment in the sports world can often affect relationships between players and their employers and with the fans who support them.
But sometimes, the competitive fervor bubbles over and leads to situations where everyone could use a breather and a second opinion. We’re seeing those situations in a number of NHL markets this off-season.
Take, for instance, the New York Rangers and their apparent interest in trading captain Jacob Trouba. This is despite the Rangers’ long playoff run and their initial commitment to Trouba in the seven-year, $56-million contract he signed in 2019.
Trouba has two seasons left on his deal, and reports that he’s been asked to submit his 15-team no-trade clause should be a sobering indication of the cutthroat culture that permeates pro sport. But can you blame Trouba for wanting to stay in New York City? His wife is completing a residency at a New York hospital, and they have a young family.
Some would say Trouba should welcome a trade if the Rangers truly don’t see a long-term fit for him, but he’s earned the collective bargaining right to exercise at least some say in where he winds up. If the Rangers now think that’s a luxury they can no longer afford and Trouba should welcome a trade anywhere, they shouldn’t have handed out that clause to begin with.
Trouba is entirely within his rights to have some direction in his career. At age 30, he’s paid his dues and should be afforded the basic respect that comes along with a legally binding agreement.
Similarly, in Toronto, some Leafs fans have been frothing at the mouth over the drama that is star winger Mitch Marner’s future with the organization. Like Trouba, Marner has negotiated his rights – in this case, the right to a full no-trade clause – and it’s not plainly selfish on his behalf to fight to stay in his hometown.
Marner has his interests in mind, and Maple Leafs management has their own interests that may not line up alongside Marner’s. But if the Leafs didn’t want him to exercise any control over his future, they, too, could’ve omitted a no-trade or no-move clause in his contract. But that’s what the market came to bear, and Toronto management now has to deal with the consequences and avoid distracting Marner during the season.
There's even talk now about whether center John Tavares should be stripped of the Leafs’ captaincy, which would just be silly. Any move like that would lead to nightly angst from a fan base that smells blood in the water. Fairly or unfairly, Tavares would be faced with a barrage of media questions about his role on the team and the long-term fit for him in Toronto. It would all be so much scorched earth, and for what? For a position that many people think is overrated, to begin with?
Giving, say, Auston Matthews the ‘C’ would do nothing material to make the Leafs better. It would be an unnecessary distraction and a wellspring of potential discord to ruin Toronto’s chemistry. This is the choice the Leafs made, and they have to watch it through to its proper end. If Tavares doesn’t come back after the coming season, it will be time for a new captain. But now? No. The status quo is appropriate.
It’s OK for fans and teams to ask a lot of their favorite players. It’s also OK for people to question the judgment of their team’s direction. But in too many cases, we expect the world of players while not giving them anything of substance in return, or treating them without any regard for them as people. They’ve earned what they’ve earned at the negotiating table, and the same thing goes for teams that have their own set of negotiated rights and options.
In some cases, that leads to teams taking different measures to get rid of players they no longer see a place for. We saw that with the saga of former Ranger Barclay Goodrow, who was placed on waivers and picked up by the San Jose Sharks – a team he had on his no-trade list.
In some regards, it feels like the Blueshirts have done an end run around Goodrow’s personal situation and found a solution that works more for the team than the player. But again, that’s well within their negotiated rights. The player has to live with that series of rules, just as the team has to live with the rules that work in favor of the player.
Fair is fair to both sides, and the changes brought out in the wake of dismay and disappointment have to exist within the frameworks agreed to in friendlier times.
