(C) 2003 SportsTicker Enterprises, L.P. All Rights Reserved

By Fred Claire SportsTicker Contributing Editor

LOS ANGELES (Ticker) - It appears that at least one team finally has learned that no-trade clauses mean no trade. Very frankly, it shouldn't have taken so long to figure this out.

BizVantage – A Net clipping service that learns what you need: for business, investment or technology.
Try the free, no-hassle 6 month trial!

Tom Hicks, the owner of the Texas Rangers, has declared his team won't be writing no-trade clauses into future contracts.

At least, Hicks came very close to drawing a line in the sand.

Well, we haven't written out a policy and typed it on Rangers stationary, but I've talked with (general manager) John Hart, and we both feel the same way. 'That's it. No more.' You never say never, but it would have to be an extremely unusual circumstance, Hicks declared in Tuesday's Dallas Morning News.

Hicks made his statement after the Rangers' Rafael Palmeiro turned down a trade to the Chicago Cubs.

Palmeiro's decision came on the heels of Juan Gonzalez turning down a deal to the Montreal Expos.

In both cases, the Rangers were hoping to move veteran players to teams in contention for spots in postseason play. In return, the Rangers would have received young players to help the team in its efforts to rebuild for the future.

Actually, the Rangers are batting .333 with no-trade language in that Carl Everett waived his clause earlier this year and was dealt to the Chicago White Sox for young players.

In 12 years as the general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, we never gave a no-trade clause. It was what is known as a deal breaker.

It was the first item we discussed with high-profile free agents. There was no reason to talk contract language or dollars if the player was going to insist on a total no-trade provision.

The reason is basic you put the player in total control of his contract. It's for that very reason that the agent of the player makes the request for the no trade provision.

For the player and the agent, the no-trade provision not only provides control but it also provides leverage. And you know what - now hold onto your hat - it's usually about the money.

From what I can gather, both Palmeiro and Gonzalez would have agreed to trades if they had received extensions to their present contracts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the agent who requests the no-trade clause. The agent can request anything he wants to request. The team also has the right to say No.

If you really think about it, the no-trade discussion is a very simple subject. The agent declares My player wants a no-trade provision because he wants to be assured he will stay with your team during the course of his contract. He likes your team and city and wants to stay here. He doesn't want to move elsewhere.

If you, as the GM, say No, we will not provide this provision in our contracts, what is the option for the player and the agent?

The answer the player has to go elsewhere, the very thing he is saying he doesn't want to do.

Look, I understand the reasons behind the request. And, don't get me wrong, I have great respect for John Hart. He's trying to build a winning team in Texas.

When Hart was with Cleveland and starting down the road as a GM, he called me and asked my thoughts about long-term contracts to young players. He knew the Dodgers were one of the first teams to provide long-term deals to talented players just starting their major league careers.

I told Hart that if he was comfortable with the makeup and talent of his young players the deals made all of the sense in the world.

I have nothing against players being rewarded with good contracts. However, writing no-trade language into a contract is far different than longevity and financial rewards.

There are times when a strong stance against the no-trade provision can cost you the signing of a player. We were on the verge of signing free agent pitcher Mark Langston after the 1989 season when agent Arn Tellum became concerned about our strong stance on the no-trade issue and pulled a last-minute switch to send Langston to the Angels.

I hated to lose the player. Langston could have been an important player for the Dodgers. We lost the player but we kept our policy.

The problem is thisonce you start giving no-trade deals, where do you stop? If you say yes to Palmeiro how do you say no to Alex Rodriguez or Chan Ho Park or Gonzalez or Everett? The fact is, the Rangers provided no-trade clauses in all of these contracts.

I had to deal with only one no-trade provision as the general manager of the Dodgers and the deal wasn't of my making on a couple of counts.

When Fox executive Chase Carey stepped into the picture in 1998 and sent Mike Piazza to the Florida Marlins in a deal that made Gary Sheffield a Dodger, there was one detail overlooked. Sheffield had a no-trade clause in his contract.

The Dodgers front office was left to clean up the mess and we had to pony up $5.5 million, with help from the Marlins, to have Sheffield waive his no-trade provision.

The other difficult part about all of this is that these provisions put the player in the role of the bad guy. In other words, the player has been given a right to veto a trade, and when

he does, he quite often gets blasted by the
fans and the media.

So, finally, here's my suggestion if you are a GM. The next time a player asks for a no-trade clause, simply reply No, we don't want you to be the bad guy. Now be a good guy and sign the contract without the provision.

If only the life of a GM could be so simple.

(Fred Claire was a member of the Los Angeles Dodgers front office from 1969 until 1998, serving the team as executive vice president and general manager. Fred currently lectures on the business of sports at USC and is a strategic consultant for Performance Health Technologies. Fred can be reached at fclaire@pacbell.net).