Darnell Nurse's no-trade clause stopped the Boston Bruins cold, and Elliotte Friedman confirmed it in his latest 32 Thoughts column.
The details are blunt. Boston pushed for a deal. Nurse said no.
Elliotte Friedman: Re Darnell Nurse: Boston, they got blocked by a no-trade.
That's the kind of veto that changes a summer. A no-trade clause isn't a suggestion, it's a wall, and the Bruins hit it head first.
Nurse eventually landed with the San Jose Sharks weeks later, which tells you Boston wasn't the only club calling.
But it does raise a question. Why Boston, and why did Nurse shut it down specifically there?
Friedman didn't spell out the reasoning. He just confirmed the block happened, full stop.
For Don Sweeney's front office, that's a frustrating footnote. You circle a name, you make the calls, and then a signature on a contract from years ago ends the conversation before it starts.
Bruins front office left empty-handed on a defenseman they wanted
Nurse carries a cap hit of $9,250,000, the kind of number that forces a team to build a real plan before picking up the phone. Boston clearly had one.
Marco Sturm is running a Bruins group that finished 45-27-10 with 100 points this past season. A rearguard like Nurse fits almost any blue line built for playoff hockey.
Instead, Boston walks away with nothing, and San Jose walks away with the player. That's not a small swing in a summer built around defensive depth.
Should the Bruins have known Nurse's list included them before wasting the effort? Maybe. Maybe not. No-trade clauses don't always come with a warning label attached.
What's left is a front office that swung and missed on a name it clearly wanted, and a locker room now waiting to see who fills that hole instead.
-
Should the Bruins have walked away the moment they learned about Nurse's no-trade list?
Also read on Markerzone.com:
Jason Robertson blockbuster trade proposal sends star to Pittsburgh in 3-team deal with Edmonton
