If I negotiated a contract to play in a state or province where taxes are lower and it was a consideration during negotiations for the contract, then I would probably want a clause preventing me from being moved to a place where taxes were significantly higher.
When it comes to negotiating contracts, I think players will often adjust their demand to match a desired take-home amount.
I guess what I am getting at is that a "no-trade" list is probably different than a list of places that a player would not want to go as a free agent. For example, if I negotiated a contract to play in Montreal and asked for more money to cover the higher taxes, I would have no issue being traded to Calgary where the taxes are quite a bit lower. But if I signed in Chicago and took a discount due to their low tax rate, I might include Calgary on my list due to taxes there being relatively higher.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|