Latest Nash word...

[fulcrum]

Why blame Nash in excercising an option that was given to him?

IMO. Nash was given a no trade clause in a contract with the Columus Blue Jackets. You sign that deal because you want to guarantee that they won't trade you out of Columbus.

So when you decide you want out of Columbus, you should be waiving the no trade clause completely.

Of course, this all depends on the wording of the no trade clause. If it says that the player gets to choose where he can be traded to.....then Nash has every right to do it.

[bondon]

Just read a piece by Ansar Khan who is a beat writer for the Red Wings that mentioned that the Wings made a "hell of an offer" for Nash but Howson said no dice.

[Carcillo]

Just read a piece by Ansar Khan who is a beat writer for the Red Wings that mentioned that the Wings made a "hell of an offer" for Nash but Howson said no dice.

If I were Howson, I wouldn't deal Nash to Detroit either. So good for Columbus. They don't want to give Nash to Detroit and have him in the same division for the next decade and making a rival, that just got a lot weaker this off-season, a whole lot better again.

[Instant Karma]

IMO. Nash was given a no trade clause in a contract with the Columus Blue Jackets. You sign that deal because you want to guarantee that they won't trade you out of Columbus.

So when you decide you want out of Columbus, you should be waiving the no trade clause completely.

Of course, this all depends on the wording of the no trade clause. If it says that the player gets to choose where he can be traded to.....then Nash has every right to do it.

Well, first of all, he wasn't given anything - he negotiated it.

Second, the purpose of them is not so you can guarantee not being traded out of a given team. The purpose is that the player can exercise some level of control as to where he's traded to.

[fulcrum]

Well, first of all, he wasn't given anything - he negotiated it.

Second, the purpose of them is not so you can guarantee not being traded out of a given team. The purpose is that the player can exercise some level of control as to where he's traded to.

I think you are splitting hairs here ....no-trade clauses are a bargaining tool used during negoatiating. I skipped past all the middle stuff because I am pretty sure everyone understands that the no trade clause is a part of the negotiating process. It was agreed to be part of Nash's contract.

I also think this is your interpretation of the no trade clause, and this is what the no trade clause has evolved into. I still believe they started out as a player signing it to guarantee he stayed where he signed. Hence the term, no trade clause.

My interpretation is: If I am signing with Columbus long term, I want you to guarantee me that you aren't going to trade me right away to another team. I am signing a long term deal with Columbus, not with another team. (If I remember correctly, Dany Heatley's no trade clause was with the Senators. Once he was dealt to the Sharks, there wasn't a no trade clause anymore, and he could be dealt anywhere. This leads me to believe that the deal is signed and agreed to only with the team that signs the contract and therefore can be interpretted as a no trade clause with the team the contract is negotiated with for that player to stay with that team. The player is only agreeing to stay in that city, not have control of where he goes.

The problem I have, is when the player decides he doesn't want to be with that team anymore.....at that point I think he is going against what he agreed to and I think he should lose his rights to be selecting the team he goes to. If the team were to approach him and ask him to accept a trade that goes against his no trade clause, then I can see where the player should be able to provide a list.

I am not saying what I interpret is correct, but I would venture to say this is similiar to what these agreements started out as. But I think they have evolved into much more elaborate deals that are causing teams problems.

I think there is a lot of fine print involved in these that allows a player like Nash to do what he has done. I am pretty sure we are spared all of the details as I am sure the contracts are pretty confusing.

For what its worth....thats what I believe.