It wasn’t long ago an NHLer making a trade request was invariably viewed as a traitor – a conscienceless, self-immersed donna of the prima order who’d sooner have his pedicure performed by a non-professional than sacrifice for the team. To insist on some form of control over your destiny was to pull off your glove and slap it across the face of everyone who either bought a ticket to see you play, or who watched you play the game for free growing up.
In retrospect – knowing what we know today about the fleeting nature of fame, about how teams now shuttle players between NHL and AHL cities, about how the waiver wire, the trade market, the buyout and even the contract termination have become essential tools in the salary cap era – that mentality towards players seeking a change of address seems more quaint and unfair than ever. Hockey’s top league has become a better business than at any time in its history, but the tradeoff for that is that – surprise! – players recognize it as a business and increasingly act in their own best interest.
Indeed, when NHL owners focused on improving their overall stake in hockey-related revenues via what seems to be an ever-tightening salary cap, they gave players a different type of negotiating hammer. Where once money was the overriding factor in where a player lived and worked, the capped league ensured paydays for the cream of the crop would essentially be the same across the board. In the new world, things the league couldn’t control or cap – personal circumstances and predicaments – were going to be players’ leverage and drive the destinies of a slew of franchises. Thus, you could drastically improve your team, but only if the stars aligned perfectly, as they did for the Wild in 2012 when Zach Parise and Ryan Suter – two top talents with a connection to Minnesota – signed lucrative, long-term contracts.
Personal preference, quality of life, cultural connections – all these things were increasing factors determining where players wound up working. And more and more, fans understood that, all things being equal, it made sense for a player to choose to live near friends and family if that’s what was important to him. Nobody argued a NHLer needed to be loyal to any team for his entire career. We’ve seen teams do their damnedest to get out from under contracts that included no-trade clauses, and it would be hypocritical in the extreme to argue players were under one set of ethical requirements, and teams and owners, under another.
Which brings us to Travis Hamonic. The Islanders defenseman made news Thursday when he publicly spoke out about his trade request. The 25-year-old blueliner made it clear his actions did not reflect a dissatisfaction with the franchise; instead, he wanted to be geographically closer to his Western Canada home to deal with a family issue. Without going into detail about the family issue, he gently explained how supportive and understanding the Isles have been since he asked to be moved. And the team was publicly supportive in return. It was as professional as it could be, both on his behalf and the organization’s.
Likewise and to their credit, Isles fans haven’t mauled Hamonic’s reputation online since news broke of his request. On some level, they must know GM Garth Snow won’t get equal value for Hamonic, because teams looking to acquire Harmonic don’t have a spare Hamonic to send back in any transaction. Sooner or later, Snow will have to accept the best deal he can in order to help someone who’s asked for it, his team is going to take a hit, and the fans will have to live with it.
That doesn’t mean Snow still can’t make a great trade. Look at what Lightning GM Steve Yzerman managed to do in the blockbuster swap that sent superstar Martin St-Louis – who, like Hamonic, asked out to address a family situation he didn’t elaborate on – to the New York Rangers in 2013. St-Louis only wanted to go to the Blueshirts, yet Yzerman was able to come away with an excellent return (winger Ryan Callahan and two first-round draft picks).
Now, I argued at the time St-Louis made a mistake leaving a Lightning squad that was on the cusp of greater things, but I never said St-Louis was a villain for his choice. He prioritized things the way he wanted to, and had to live with the results. And you get the same feeling about Hamonic, who’s asking to leave a team that is likely to be a legitimate Stanley Cup contender in the next few years. Hamonic’s departure may well hurt them a bit in that department, yet there’s more than enough talent still there to make Isles fans optimistic about their future – and Hamonic may wind up with a new employer in which he doesn’t fit in.
But let’s leave that aside for the time being. What’s most impressive about Hamonic and his trade request is that sense there are no good guys or bad guys to cheer for here. This is a more humane process that’s fairer to players. It’s not perfect for either side, but it’s better than it used to be.
In the past, an NHLer confronted by off-ice issues would’ve been told to suck it up, that the money he was earning was sufficient justification for indentured servitude, and that it was always inappropriate for a player to be done with a team before a team was done with him. Not anymore. Travis Hamonic wasn’t a bad guy because he needed to be closer to home. He’s the same person he was prior to making the trade request. The only change is in his circumstances.
Ultimately, NHL players haven’t changed over the dozens of years they’ve making trade requests for personal reasons. Life happens, life is imperfect, and you deal with the ramifications as you go. You know what’s changed? Society – yeah, you and me – has changed. Our attitudes toward athletes are evolved, and for the better. The majority of us don’t think these guys belong to us, body and soul. We know the cost of a game admission or Centre Ice satellite TV package doesn’t give us eternal control over our hockey idols.
They’re human, fallible, and vulnerable, and not commodities on which to attach our every hope.