Much is always made of quarterbacks who have no-trade clauses. Nothing should ever be made of it.
The latest example of a no-trade clause being meaningless comes via the no-trade clause included in Jimmy Garoppolo’s revised contract. Even if the new deal didn’t include one, no team would be trading for Garoppolo if he didn’t want to play for that team.
For other positions, it’s easier to treat a player like a piece of a machine. For quarterback, it’s very hard to want a guy who doesn’t want to be wanted.
A trade will happen only if a starter with another team suffers an injury, if that team wants Garoppolo, if that team is willing to give the 49ers what they want for Garoppolo, and if Garoppolo wants to go. The team won’t make an investment on a part-year rental for Garoppolo if he doesn’t want to step in and replace the injured starter.
Before today, when he didn’t have a no-trade clause, Garoppolo essentially had a no-trade clause, because no one was trading for his $25.62 million salary. While it may be more attractive for a team to trade for a contract with $6.5 million guaranteed and an upside north of $15 million, it makes no sense to twist Garoppolo’s left arm to throw the ball with his right arm.
That applies to any starting quarterback. A no-trade clause means nothing because a team wants nothing to do with a guy who doesn’t want to be there. Even without a no-trade clause, Garoppolo wasn’t getting traded if he didn’t want to be.
But with Garoppolo taking a dramatic pay cut for 2021, the least they could do is throw in a no-trade clause.
The far more valuable term for Garoppolo is the decision not to apply the franchise tag in 2023. No matter what he or the 49ers do this year, Garoppolo is heading for the open market in March. And if: (1) he plays; and (2) they get to the Super Bowl, he’ll cash in without limitation or restriction.
