New York Yankees second baseman Russell Wilson recently had his baseball agent, Mark Rodgers, negotiate a contract for Wilson to play football for the NFL team in Seattle. In said contract, he finagled a no-trade clause.
No, Russell Wilson’s no-trade clause is most certainly not proof of his devotion to Seahawks
Even athletes who would want to play elsewhere also would like no-trade clauses.
Getty Images
Then Rodgers went out and declared that to be the evidence his client never wanted to play elsewhere and wants to stay put forever. That is terrible logic. Even if Wilson (or any athlete) despised his city and/or organization, of course he would want and embrace a no-trade clause. If 30 teams become more appealing to him than the Seahawks, but there were even one city/organization he’d find less appealing, he has the option of whipping out his contract and saying “ah, ah, ah” if Seattle tries to flip him there.
Because that’s all a no-trade clause is — an option. Who the hell doesn’t like options? Nary a single athlete in the history of Western civilization would find not having the ability to put the kibosh on a trade preferable to having that choice. Seriously, who’s saying “thanks but no thanks” to the idea of having the control to prevent a life-changing event if they’d rather it not occur? The clause can still be waived for any and every potential trade, which Wilson would obviously absolutely do if Seattle worked out a trade agreement with another team that Wilson would rather play for.
Rodgers said “you get a no-trade clause because you don’t want to go anywhere.” Nope, not true. Even athletes who would want to play elsewhere also would like no-trade clauses. The more accurate statement would’ve been “you get a no-trade clause because, uh, why in the name of rational behavior would you NOT want one.”
So it’s entirely possible — likely, even (don’t forget, the plan was for him to never negotiate a long-term deal with them again if April 15 passed without an agreement) — that Wilson did and does indeed prefer to play elsewhere and would waive his no-trade clause in a deal to some, many, most, or even all teams; that it was only because the team fattened its financial offer enough to make him pretend like that’s not the case.
But now that he has the contract, that doesn’t mean he’d mind the checks from that contract being signed by someone else. And even if that’s not the case, it’s not because of the presence of that clause.
Wanting and fighting for a no-trade clause in a contract is irrelevant to the calculus of an athlete’s feelings toward their team. Rodgers almost makes it sound like the no-trade clause is a concession from his side of the negotiation. That is 180 degrees from reality as those clauses are an organizational concession, and suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.
See More:
