JaXm t1_j8bj0fm wrote
I'm ignorant of what this means. I'm not a big team-sports fan, but I do find it interesting.
So I have some questions if someone doesn't mind answering.
What is a trade? What's the purpose?
Why would a team want to trade a player? Wouldn't they want to keep any good players they have?
Why would a player want to be traded? Or in this case, to not be traded?
chocobo-selecta t1_j8bxa7i wrote
I’ll answer as people seem to be rude and downvoting you.
- A trade is the move of swapping a player’s rights for another player or draft picks.
- a team would trade a player in an effort to improve their team. Carr, while a decent player could have potentially better trade value than his worth in the Raiders setup.
- most of the time a player doesn’t want to be traded, however in this example Carr’s position is untenable. He’s been thrown under the bus by the Raiders this season.
Hope that helped.
JaXm t1_j8dcuxn wrote
It does helo. But i think there are nore questions now. For instance, In what way has he been thrown under the bus? I've also seen that he has a ni-trade clause in his contract, so what would rhe team gain by even attempting this? Did they break contract to force this? Buy it out?
chocobo-selecta t1_j8ddcd8 wrote
Great questions.
- The Raiders have underperform this season, and lost a fair few games by a one score margin. The blame for those losses, regardless of circumstance have been put on Carr’s shoulders. Unfairly in some instances.
- A no trade clause is usually inserted by the players side during a negotiation. It helps them have control over their careers. You have to remember, a lot of these folks have families in school, so the idea of having to uproot them and move to the other side of the country is extremely stressful.
- Teams gain literally nothing from a no trade clause. In fact, it’s rather rough for their forward looking potential. They’ve effectively lost all leverage.
JaXm t1_j8eqnwo wrote
That all makes sense. And this has been fun to discuss and learn. Though I messed up the wording of my last question, which I meant to ask as, what does the team gain by trying to trade him, despite the no-trade clause? Aren't they just opening themselves up to some kind of contract dispute?
chocobo-selecta t1_j8esv70 wrote
No, because ultimately the player controls their destiny. If the player chooses to stay at their current team, then the only other option is to release them on a free and pay a huge fee. Not really any chance of a contract dispute as the player has the leverage, and the team only has no power.
zdfld t1_j8bytqv wrote
In this case, the team can either trade him to get something, or lose him for nothing, since Carr is going to leave the team one way or another.
In general, teams would make a trade because each side of the trade fits a need. For example a team that's rebuilding may trade a high value player for a lot of draft picks to a team trying to win the championship. Or a team strong at one position trading with another to strengthen a different position.
A player would always benefit from being a free agent rather than a trade, so it's rare for a player to want to be traded. If a player is a free agent, they can choose a team and negotiate a new contract. If they're traded, they have no say to who, and their existing contract stays. (In this case, Carr has a "no trade" clause in his contract, so he can say no).
JaXm t1_j8dcj7j wrote
So if he has a no-trade clause in his contract why is the team even trying this? Are they ignoring/breaking the contract to trade? Are they buying it out?
zdfld t1_j8deys9 wrote
They asked him, he said no, that's what's getting reported.
The purpose of the clause is to avoid a surprise trade to a team the player doesn't want. In this case, it wouldn't be a surprise and the teams are known, so sometimes players can waive it out of goodwill.
So I guess it's a "doesn't hurt to ask" thing. Though Carr was probably pretty unlikely to say yes anyways.
[deleted] t1_j8byoky wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments