The no-trade clauses that quarterbacks have are frequently discussed. Never should anything be created from it.

The no-trade clause present in Jimmy Garoppolo's revised contract provides the most recent illustration of a no-trade clause's lack of significance. 

If he didn't want to play for that team, no team would trade for Garoppolo, even if the new contract didn't include one.

It's simpler to treat a player like a component of a machine for other positions. It's challenging for a quarterback to want a player who doesn't want to be wanted.

Only when a starter on another team is injured, when that team wants Garoppolo, when that team is willing to give the 49ers what they want for Garoppolo, and when Garoppolo wants to leave will a trade take place.

If Garoppolo doesn't want to fill in for the injured starter, the team won't invest in a temporary rental for him.

Garoppolo had a no-trade clause up until this point even though he didn't have one because no one was willing to trade for his $25.62 million salary. 

It may make more sense for a team to trade for a deal that offers a $6.5 million guarantee and a potential upside of $15 million, but it makes no sense for Garoppolo to twist his left arm so that he can throw the ball with his right arm.

For any starting quarterback, that holds true. A team won't deal with a player who doesn't want to be there, so a no-trade clause has no meaning.

 Garoppolo was not going to be traded if he didn't want to be, even in the absence of a no-trade clause.