Mats Sundin, Auston Matthews and the Maple Leafs' Loyalty

The story of Mats Sundin refusing to waive his no-trade clause in 2008 has been told so many times that it's easy to forget just how unusual the situation was. The Maple Leafs were out of the playoff race, Sundin was still one of their best players, and general manager Cliff Fletcher wanted him to accept a trade so Toronto could get something back for him.

Sundin wanted to finish his time with the Maple Leafs and refused to waive his no-trade clause.

Sundin said no. He wanted to finish the season in Toronto rather than become a rental player somewhere else. He stayed, finished the season with the Maple Leafs and then became a free agent. At the time, some people thought Toronto had missed an opportunity. Looking back, I think there's a more interesting question: was Sundin's loyalty actually good for the Maple Leafs?

I've always found the Mats Sundin trade story interesting because it depends on which side of the desk you're sitting on. From Sundin's perspective, I don't see much of a problem. He had a no-trade clause. The Maple Leafs asked him to waive it. He said no. He wanted to finish the season in Toronto rather than become a rental player somewhere else. Fair enough.

But from the Maple Leafs' perspective, this was a franchise that desperately needed to start rebuilding. Sundin was still a very good player, and there was a pretty good chance another team would have paid a significant price to get him for a playoff run.

Toronto got nothing.

That's where the story gets more complicated.

We tend to remember Sundin's decision as one of the great examples of loyalty in Maple Leafs history. And I understand why. He stayed when he could have left. He didn't chase a Stanley Cup by forcing his way to a contender. He finished the season in Toronto and left with the respect of most Maple Leafs fans.

But there's another way to look at it. What if the Maple Leafs had traded Sundin and received a couple of good young players and draft picks? What if one of those players became part of the next good Toronto team? We don't know.

That's the frustrating part of hockey history. We can judge the decision, but we can't run the alternative universe. And I think there's a bigger lesson here about loyalty and professional sports.

Fans expect loyalty from their players, but don’t mind if their teams are disloyal to the same players.

Fans want players to be loyal to their teams. But teams aren't always equally loyal to players. The business side of hockey doesn't really work that way. If a player isn't producing, he's moved. If a contract becomes a problem, management looks for a way out.

So when a player uses a contractual right to say, “No, I'm staying,” I'm not sure we should be angry about it. But we also shouldn't pretend there wasn't a cost. Sundin had every right to stay. Toronto had every reason to want him to leave. Both things can be true.

Could the Sundin story come into play with Auston Matthews next year?

And maybe that's why the Sundin story has lasted so long. It wasn't really about whether he was a good Maple Leaf. It was about whether being a good Maple Leaf and doing what was best for the Maple Leafs were actually the same thing.

Now you have to wonder how Sundin will feel if Auston Matthews uses his no-move clause to stay in Toronto for another season, or eventually leaves as a free agent because he sees a better situation somewhere else. Funny how that might put the shoe on the other foot.