Manny's no-trade provision

[Greenrider]

so Manny has a clause in his contract that says that if the Red Sox give no-trade rights to any of their players, Manny automatically gets it as well.

but what happens if Manny is traded to the Rangers? presumably, the original contract is still in place, so does he automatically receive a no-trade clause from the Rangers if they have or acquire a player who has a no-trade clause?

[bell]

so Manny has a clause in his contract that says that if the Red Sox give no-trade rights to any of their players, Manny automatically gets it as well.

but what happens if Manny is traded to the Rangers? presumably, the original contract is still in place, so does he automatically receive a no-trade clause from the Rangers if they have or acquire a player who has a no-trade clause?

Players (or agents?) sure do come up with some crazy stipulations. I would venture a guess that it only applies should Manny still be a member of the Sox and another Sox player receives a no-trade clause. So that would have no bearing on the A-rod for Manny deal. But in the end it really comes down to the fact that I know next to nothing--less than nothing really--in the field of contracts and other legalities.

[Madison]

so Manny has a clause in his contract that says that if the Red Sox give no-trade rights to any of their players, Manny automatically gets it as well.

but what happens if Manny is traded to the Rangers? presumably, the original contract is still in place, so does he automatically receive a no-trade clause from the Rangers if they have or acquire a player who has a no-trade clause?

That's a good question. Probably something that the two teams are trying to work out. Personally, I'd say that Manny will want a no trade clause included if he goes to Texas. That way Texas can't just dump him off wherever if they decide they don't want him. Makes sense to me.

[bell]

Don't I remember someone from the Rangers front office from last season stating that they would never offer a no-trade clause to another one of their players again after the hassle they went through trying to trade Palmeiro?

It would seem to me that Manny having a no-trade clause would kill the deal? (still)

[Madison]

Don't I remember someone from the Rangers front office from last season stating that they would never offer a no-trade clause to another one of their players again after the hassle they went through trying to trade Palmeiro?

It would seem to me that Manny having a no-trade clause would kill the deal? (still)

I think the Rangers would be fine with Manny having a no trade clause. I mean they will only be paying him $10-$15 million anyway. He's certainly worth that.

[wrveres]

so Manny has a clause in his contract that says that if the Red Sox give no-trade rights to any of their players, Manny automatically gets it as well.

but what happens if Manny is traded to the Rangers? presumably, the original contract is still in place, so does he automatically receive a no-trade clause from the Rangers if they have or acquire a player who has a no-trade clause?

great question ..... I would have to believe that the "contract" follows the "player" ... he would stiill get the provision ..

[bell]

Don't I remember someone from the Rangers front office from last season stating that they would never offer a no-trade clause to another one of their players again after the hassle they went through trying to trade Palmeiro?

It would seem to me that Manny having a no-trade clause would kill the deal? (still)

I think the Rangers would be fine with Manny having a no trade clause. I mean they will only be paying him $10-$15 million anyway. He's certainly worth that.

That's true. If it's between A-rod's contract w/a no-trade clause or Manny's contract (reduced, even) w/a no-trade clause, taking Manny's would make sense. Thank you. It's all so clear now.

[Madison]

That's true. If it's between A-rod's contract w/a no-trade clause or Manny's contract (reduced, even) w/a no-trade clause, taking Manny's would make sense. Thank you. It's all so clear now.

No problem at all.

[wrveres]

That's true. If it's between A-rod's contract w/a no-trade clause or Manny's contract (reduced, even) w/a no-trade clause, taking Manny's would make sense. Thank you. It's all so clear now.

No problem at all.

Interesting ... I took that as sarcasim ..

[bell]

That's true. If it's between A-rod's contract w/a no-trade clause or Manny's contract (reduced, even) w/a no-trade clause, taking Manny's would make sense. Thank you. It's all so clear now.

No problem at all.

Interesting ... I took that as sarcasim ..

It wasn't. Honest. Are you trying to instigate something?