clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

NHL trade rumors: Danny Briere doesn't want to move, but is it really up to him?

New, comments

Danny Briere has a no-trade clause, but as we've learned, that doesn't necessarily matter. Is it up to him whether or not he's traded?

Eric Hartline-US PRESSWIRE

The Daily News has the scoop this morning: Danny Briere has been a subject of trade talks, and the Flyers have discussed him with other teams. But No. 48 has a no-trade clause, and he doesn't want to go anywhere.

[Blues] general manager Doug Armstrong visited Philadelphia for the second time in three home games, and also caught the Flyers in Toronto on Feb. 11. According to sources, Armstrong has been asking for forward Danny Briere. He isn't the only one. Boston inquired about Briere last week, among others.

Briere, 35, is one player who isn't going anywhere. The Flyers have not asked Briere to waive his no-trade clause, and it isn't clear whether they're interested in moving him, but he provided an answer Tuesday. Briere has a full no-movement clause - meaning he can't even be sent to the minors without his permission - and will not waive it to be dealt to any team in the NHL, regardless of destination.

"I don't want to comment on anything at this point," Briere told the Daily News. "Trades are not my department. I've been a Flyer for a long time. My heart belongs in Philadelphia with the Flyers. I can't see myself playing anywhere else."

(The story goes on to say that Blues defenseman Kevin Shattenkirk is a player the Flyers are interested in, but that it would definitely take the Flyers more than Briere to snag him away from St. Louis. Shattenkirk is just 24. We'll abstain from commenting on the merit of this for the time being, but obviously feel free to discuss that and the merits of trading Briere in the comments.)

Notice Briere's quote, though. It doesn't explicitly say he'd turn down a trade. It says he wants to be here. It says he can't see himself playing anywhere else. It says he doesn't want to comment. But it doesn't say explicitly that he'd turn down a trade.

Understandably, he doesn't want to be traded. He's raised a family in the South Jersey burbs, he has roots here and when he signed his big contract here as in the 2007 offseason, he probably saw himself staying in Philadelphia forever.

We know Briere's in good company there. Did Simon Gagne want to get traded in 2010? Nope. He even told reporters the exact same thing Briere's quoted as saying above, although Gagne was even more direct about it.

That's just one example (and a timely one given the events of yesterday). Paul Holmgren has not been shy about trading away cornerstone players, nor has he been shy about pulling back and asking players with no-trade and no-move clauses if they'd like a free plane trip out of a town and a bunch of new equipment in another team's color.

We know from recent history that just because the Flyers haven't asked a player to waive his NTC doesn't mean they won't down the line, and just because a player has a NTC and doesn't want to move, doesn't mean they won't waive it and move on.

Think of it like a marriage: Unless you're crazy, you probably don't want to be with a spouse who doesn't want to be with you. If the Flyers draw up the divorce papers, and as long as those divorce papers don't make him marry the Blue Jackets, he'll probably sign away -- whether he's truly happy with it or not.