19nazzy said:
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
Actually, let's make that "had" a no-trade clause. The CBA stipulates no-trade clauses don't travel from team to team with the contract.
Actually, this is not anything new. It was exactly this way under the old CBA:
11.2. Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.
Contracts entered into on or after a player's 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998) may contain a no-trade clause. Contracts containing a "no-trade" clause may be entered into prior to the player's 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998), so long as the fixed term of the contract containing the no-trade clause extends through the player's 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998) and the no-trade clause does not become effective until the player reaches his 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998). If the player is traded prior to the no-trade clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. The acquiring Club may separately agree to a no-trade clause.
Under the old CBA, the UFA age was 32 yo, dropping to 31 in '98.
Under this term, it is only NTC's that haven't kicked in yet that are invalidated by a trade. An active NTC that has been waived by a player to facilitate a trade that he approves or the NTC of a player picked up on waivers (see Marchant, Todd) are still binding on the new club.
The more I see of the new CBA, except for the obvious new additions and changes that have been publicized (salary cap, callup waivers, etc), the more and more it looks very much like the old one. As a rule of thumb, I've just assumed that if I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, the terms of the new CBA are similar/identical to the old, and I've rarely been disappointed.