Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Today is the trading deadline in the NHL, the last day on which teams can trade players in preparation for a run at the Stanley Cup.
The Toronto Maple Leafs (who I detest) had wanted to trade their captain Mats Sundin, recognizing that they have no chance this year (which is sweet) and hoping to get some future potential for the franchise's star.
But Sundin has what is called a 'no trade clause' in his contract, essentially giving him and not the Leafs (which I hate) control over if, and to where, he can be traded.
Mats likes Toronto (which mystifies me, I think of it as a sinkhole with streetcars) and so politely declined when the organization asked him about trade possibilities.
For some, Sundin demonstrated real loyalty, preferring to stay with the basement-bound Leafs rather then being traded to a contender - even if only for a short period as a 'rental'.
For others, his declining the trade was pure selfishness, putting his own interests ahead of those of the organization which he professes to feel loyal to (he is Swedish and has spent his professional career playing in Quebec City and Toronto so likely doesn't know better).
What if social networks allowed trades? Would members be given the same control over their trading fate? And suffer the same accusations if they opted-out?
For my own network, I'd be willing to let Kim Cameron go for the right deal. It would kill me to let Kim go but I'm in a rebuilding stage and need some future prospects. Kim, FYI, you don't have a 'no trade clause', your agent dropped the ball on that one.