Jim Kelley

Jim Kelley writes regularly on the NHL for Sportsnet.ca and can be heard on Primetime Sports on the FAN590.

Tomas Kaberle will not be forced to waive his no movement clause, but that doesn't mean he is staying.

Despite being masterful at the trade, GM Burke gets little credit for being careful with his words.

If there's one thing I've learned in 30-plus years covering the National Hockey League it's that talk is cheap, but listening for just the right words can be a very valuable tool.

Take for example Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke's stating (and constantly restating) that he will not ask Leafs defenceman Tomas Kaberle to waive his no-trade clause.

"Kaberle has been a great Leaf, he's a great guy," Burke said as recently as last week. "He's played well and hard for us, and has been a quality citizen. He earned that (the no-trade) fair and square, and I am not going to ask him to waive it."

It's a version of the same statement we've heard for weeks.

I'm fine with that, but I also remember a time during a post-season wrap up with the Buffalo Sabres (when Sabres' ownership had the courage to do that kind of thing) when media asked general manager Darcy Regier whether or not star goaltender Dominik Hasek was going to have offseason surgery.

"I'm not aware of that at this time," Regier said.

The key part of that answer was "at this time." One could argue that just a nanosecond after he said it, "this time" had passed. Needless to say, Hasek went on to have a controversial groin surgery; a decision that may have played a part in his missing the first-half of the following season. The collateral damage of the move also included the team surgeon, who resigned over a difference of opinion as to whether or not Hasek should have passed his training camp physical the following year.

Did Regier lie? Of course not, and there's a very good chance he wasn't informed that Hasek was going to have the surgery until it was actually too late to intervene. Regier is a smart man and he knew that Hasek wasn't just talented, but also that he was unpredictable and usually went along to a tune that was different than others.

This brings me back to the "I" in Burke's statement. There is no reason not to take him at his word but when he says "I" instead of "we". Is it possible that senior vice-president and director of hockey operations David Nonis might ask Kaberle to waive the clause or at least sound him out as to whether or not he would consider waiving it? Is it beyond comprehension to think that Cliff Fletcher might do it, or Dave Poulin? The Leafs have no shortage of front office people who could handle such a thing. Some could actually do it with discretion.

It's admirable that Burke takes a very public stand; it's important to understand that it will resonate with players. Countless have seen clubs apply real pressure concerning no-trade or no movement clauses as a ploy to come around to the club's way of thinking. Those who attempt to stand tall quite often pay a price in terms of being sent to the minors or something equally undeserved.

In making public statements Burke sends the message that he will respect players on the roster who have that clause and indicates its sovereignty to players that might someday want to come to Toronto.

It's a good message to send and Burke has done it well, but understand this: it is in the best interest of Burke, the Toronto Maple Leafs and perhaps even Kaberle to know exactly what the options are.

If Kaberle were to indicate he might want to move, that gives the Leafs an opportunity to make a deal that could improve the team. Burke has an obligation to explore that and though he might not ask himself, having a member of the organization sound out any player or his agent regarding change just makes good sense.

Burke revealed last week that he sent a note to Kaberle's agent, Rick Curran, that he wouldn't question the player and that the notion of fairness to a veteran player outweighs the quality of any offers the Leafs might field for the defenceman's services. In the note he is said to have stated that protecting the integrity of a no-trade clause - even if it was provided by his predecessor, John Ferguson Jr. - is an important sales tool for the Leafs if they want to attract future free agents.

Fair enough and true enough, but just by sending the note to Curran, Burke could be considered signaling the agent (who usually has a few high profile free agents in his stable) that if the player is interested in moving on he, or perhaps a member of his organization would be willing to listen and, perhaps, even provide a list of teams that might be interested in Kaberle's services.

There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, it's darn good hockey management.

If Kaberle or Curran signal there is no interest, fine, the matter dies right there, but if there is interest, then Burke has an obligation to explore it. He can do it quietly, privately, and, knowing full well, that if a deal were to come about it would be a simple matter of getting Kaberle to acknowledge that the idea came from his camp and not Burke.

It's all part of a tight little word game and though Burke doesn't get much credit for being careful with words, in this particular case one could at least argue that he seems to be doing exactly that.