Senators owner Eugene Melnyk is seeking to get a huge chunk of change back from Dany Heatley. $4 million big ones to be exact; the amount in bonuses paid to Heatley once July 2 rolled around and no trade had been made. Only Edmonton had the cojones to offer a deal before the deadline, offering to absorb the sum themselves. Heatley refused because of his no movement-clause. And therin lies a technicality that I hope Melnyk rides all the way to a full refund.



First, a bit of legal jargon: a no-trade clause (NTC) means a player cannot be traded without his consent, but the consent is not required for waivers for assignment to minors. A no-movement clause (NMC) specifies that a player cannot be traded, waived for a claim by another team, or assigned to the minors without his consent. There's the rub. Heatley asked for the trade. By the very fact of asking for a trade, he effectively waived the part of his NMC that says he can't be traded. The CBA article in question says a NMC "prevents the involuntary relocation of a player". But that's just it: if you want to be traded, then it's voluntary.

Nowhere does it say the player has the right to veto a trade once he has agreed to be traded. In Hheatley's case, the club could (and should) have accepted the offer and shipped him to Edmonton. The fact that the club didn't do this sets a dangerous precedent. I think it can be argued that, since Heatley refused to comply with a duly established trade following his own wishes, he was thereafter in breach of contract, making the contract void until arbitration or judgment. Including any monies owing at the time.

A crack team of lawyers could make this happen. I applaud Melnyk's move. The circumstances of Heatley's departure from Ottawa have left a bad taste in our collective mouths. It's time to get a little back for ourselves.