Jump to content

[Resolution Idea] No Trade Clause in Agent-Negotiated Contracts


Recommended Posts

Summary: Creates the ability to add a no-trade clause to contracts that are negotiated with an agent.
Effective Date: Effective immediately on the passage of this resolution
Soluna's Workload: Minimal. Teams and agents will track players with no-trade clauses. Teams must make a note on their cap sheet if a player has a no-trade clause.

Official Proposal:

TBD

 

Rules:

1. No-trade clauses will be for the entirety of the contract.

2. Agents may waive a no-trade clause. They should act in the best interest of the player. Playing time, player happiness, team success should be some of the factors considered.

3. Teams may actively shop a player with a no-trade clause without talking to the agent first. Teams should notify the agent when a trade is being negotiated with another team to see if the clause will be waived. When a finalized trade is posted, the agent should post and confirm that the player's no-trade clause has been waived. The trade will not go into effect before the agent confirms.

4. If a player's agent goes inactive (14 days since log-in), the no-trade clause will be automatically waived. If the player signs with a new agent, the no-trade clause will be active again and the new agent has to waive it in order for a trade.

5. If a no-trade clause is waived and the player is traded, the clause will be removed from the contract and not affect the new team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros:

1. Gives agents another tool in their toolbox during negotiations

2. Gives agents another way to be involved but shouldn't be time-consuming

3. Gives teams an opportunity to potentially lower contract costs

4. Adds interesting scenarios in the future

 

Cons:

1. Agents could demand a no-trade clause to be included so that they have more control over the player

2. Agents may delay trade negotiations

3. May decrease the amount of blockbuster trades we see

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 10:58 PM, Bubada said:

Cons:

1. Agents could demand a no-trade clause to be included so that they have more control over the player


this would be my concern. Maybe there’s an overall threshold to being able to ask for one. Like an 82 overall player wouldn’t have the clout to ask for a no trade clause, but someone like Nick Hall could. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jmjacobs said:


this would be my concern. Maybe there’s an overall threshold to being able to ask for one. Like an 82 overall player wouldn’t have the clout to ask for a no trade clause, but someone like Nick Hall could. 

Yes, parameters could include OVR, years of service, etc. 

 

I like something along the lines of: must be a 90+ OVR with minimum 5 years of service at time of contract negotiation. If a player drops below 90 OVR, that's just fine, their No Trade Clause remains. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bingo415 said:

Yes, parameters could include OVR, years of service, etc. 

 

I like something along the lines of: must be a 90+ OVR with minimum 5 years of service at time of contract negotiation. If a player drops below 90 OVR, that's just fine, their No Trade Clause remains. 

 

5 years is way too long, should just be eligible if they're 90+ OVR OR if they have some high (5-7?) years of service (for older vets)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

 

5 years is way too long, should just be eligible if they're 90+ OVR OR if they have some high (5-7?) years of service (for older vets)

I like the idea of making it a threshold thing for the overall OR older vet stuff. Even still I like leaning on the longer end of the range you mentioned. 7 seems pretty good to me. At that point you're probably coming off your 2nd/3rd contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely vote yes for this, it gives teams a way to benefit from the fact that they are competitive in a way that just is not present right now and make it so there is more to the negotiation than just how much money you have. I sort of understand the wanting to limit it to certain overalls, so I would be fine with that addition, but I am also not sure its super necessary. Like if an agent demands a no trade clause for an 80 something overall player who isnt really a key to the team I'm probably just not going to give it to him the same way I wouldnt give them a boat load of money they don't deserve. I think if we get into an issue where they are demanding them for a ton of players that don't deserve them it would point to more of an issue with the way agents incentives and mechanics work overall than how this specific rule is structured. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...