Time for a rant.
Before the trade deadline in February, the yet-to-be-installed owners Oren Koules and Len Barrie of the Tampa Bay Lightning were chiming in on what GM Jay Feaster needed to do regarding player movement and contracts. Among the top priorities: get Dan Boyle signed to a long-term deal, pay him handsomely, and heck, throw in a no-trade clause. The message was clear Boyle was to remain in Tampa.
Barely four months later, the ink is still drying on the paperwork which puts Koules and Barrie in an official capacity, and the pair is looking to dump the offensive defenseman. Rumors have been running rampant for the past week or so, and despite all the denials by team management about the desire to trade Boyle, the defenseman has stepped forward to say he's been asked to waive his no-trade clause.
Like a couple of spoiled kids, it appears Koules and Barrie would rather get the newest, shiniest player in the lineup, than use the one they locked up months ago. That can't be a good feeling for Boyle.
This may be misconstrued as an attack on the Tampa Bay Lightning, but they aren't the only guilty party. Ottawa confronted Wade Redden a couple of times last season to waive his clause. Toronto tried to get several of its players -- including (but not limited to) Mats Sundin, Pavel Kubina and Bryan McCabe -- to do the same without any success just before the trade deadline. The Leafs are still nagging Bryan McCabe to waive his clause.
Redden moved on to New York City, Kubina played himself back into the good graces of the Leafs and Sundin has the opportunity to explore his options with other teams. But for Boyle and McCabe, it has to be pretty awful to realize the front office would rather see them gone than on the ice, for whatever reason, and only they can make it happen.
I guess it is kind of ironic this post comes a day after applauding the Detroit Red Wings for how the organization treats its players. The actions of Tampa Bay and Toronto are a complete 180-degree turn from those of Detroit, and maybe that's why success has been fleeting for those franchises in recent years.
Call it well-deserved karma from the hockey gods.
Comments
|
Reputation: 96
Level: Superstar Since: Jan 31, 2007 
|
Posted on: July 3, 2008 8:13 pm
What's the point of no-trade clauses, really?I think that in the case of Koules you hit the nail on the head. He wanted to make an impact before he had even got the approval /financing to buy the Lightning, and at that point in the season the way to do that was via trade(Brad Richards) and re-sign their own "core players"(Boyle). Then with the draft and free agency pending, and the team totally under their control, Koules decided to go on a careless shopping spree. It's not that I don't think that Malone can make an impact for the Lightning, but it's almost as if Koules just did it for the effect of it. Just like you said, like a spoiled kid who needs attention. Even before they began recklessly trading draft picks simply for the rights to sign the soon-to-be UFAs, Koules himself stated that they were going to make some noise in Tampa. Now they have spread their salaries too thin and will need to make a move in order to stay under the salary cap. I have a hard time believing that even if Boyle waives his no trade clause(which I doubt because he loves playing there and he just got married to a woman from the Tampa area) that the Lightning would be able to get equal talent back in return. I wouldn't think that any teams would want to over pay knowing that they will probably need to make a trade to get in line with the cap. Then again, a D-man with Boyle's offensive ability can demand a pretty high price. But until the owners collectively stop offering no-trade clauses, they will be here to stay. |