My boss moved. Which means my office moved. Thats life. (Had a 5 minute commute which obv had something to do with taking the job.)
If they don't like being traded they can get a different job or be self employed etc. Players don't whine about moving when it happens when they are UFAs.
We are in the entitlement age though forget about guys playing well enough that the team doesn't want to trade them.
Guys benefit from changing teams and having new opportunities. I don't think any of the pro hockey players who were forced to relocate to Las Vegas for work are bitter about it.
Trading an unwanted player to a team who actually wants them should be easier. A young team looking to reach the cap floor would love Backes hes still a decent player. I don't want to trade DK but look at it from other teams perspectives anyone without a top center would love to take Krejci off our hands and would give us a pretty good package to do so.
if you had a job like... say lawyer or... dentist... or whatever... some very important job that paid a lot and made you very valuable... and say... your boss moved
and say you wanted to establish your own office... and stay where you were with your clients? would you have to move then?
so... your job... whatever it is... if you want to keep it you must move. not all jobs are like that
say im working at the burger flipping job... and they close shop. am I out of luck or can I go across the street to the burger preperations job shop? in hockey there is only 1 employer... 1 employer means monopoly. it gets government right to work legislation involved. it gets combinds legistlation involved.
theres very strong rules around monopolys. and in some areas... very strong laws reguarding the right to work. so in order to stay legal... pro sports leagues like nhl must allow their employees to unionize. theres a lot of laws about how unions work too... how they are allowed to negotiate a cba that can address issues and concerns of its member body.
some unions are able to request things other unions cant. it all depends how valuable the union is to the employer and how much the employer needs this specialized work force
can the nhl just get rid of the current 720 hockey players and replace them with a new group of 720? or would they lose billions of dollars trying to do that?
so... the players ask for the right to not have to move... to get a no trade clause or a no move clause in their contracts
you are telling me they need to suck it up and live with your own limitations. im telling you no they don't. and they don't want to. and the no trade clause/no move protection is something they went through a lockout to get. they were demanding it. the owners gave to them because it was better than a lockout.
as long as the ntc/nmc is part of the cba… players have a right to ask for it. if the teams collusion and stop giving it they will open themselves up to a billion dollar lawsuit for bargaining in bad faith. the ntc/nmc is part of a legally agreed to cba. same as the 18 year old draft.
fans and even media types can talk about this all they want... but if they don't understand how the laws of the land and the laws of class labor bargaining work then the argument is pointless
im not saying every single player deserves this ntc/nmc protection. you should only keep the guys that you feel will help your team. but I am saying if we don't give it to our important guys, eventually all of our important guys will stop thinking we are a good place to put down roots. we will get a reputation... get out of boston the second you can.
the better players now days expect to be in control of where they want to play. they fought to lower the age of ufa to 27. they fought for no move clauses.
the writing is clearly on the wall. they wanted it. they fought for it. its legal.
you and me might not be able to force our boss to give us an extra coffee break... but these players have all the power in the world to get a nmc and use it to their advantage