Dylan Larkin dominated headlines before the 2026-27 NHL season even started.
Along with a few American Olympians, Larkin asked to be traded from the team where he built his career. In this saga, he has handcuffed the Detroit Red Wings into giving him what he wants, largely because of his full no-trade clause.
What Is a No-Trade/No-Movement Clause (NTC/NMC)?
In theory, a NTC makes perfect sense. Empower the players to command stability. Maybe a player is worth a partial NTC, where the player provides a list of teams they’re willing to move to. The flexibility of a partial NTC is a decent compromise. For example, the Larkin contract includes a full NTC until 2028-29, then reduces the clause to a 10-team, trade-acceptable list.
A NMC is very similar, just in a broader sense. This clause prevents a player from being waived, sent to the minors, or traded without their own approval. Essentially, it’s a catch-all guarantee that a player can stay put as long as they want.
The NHL introduced the clause in the 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article 11, Section 11.8) alongside the Salary Cap. The clause was not only used by players to guarantee stability, but by teams as a sweetener in contract negotiations to get players to sign or extend.
This snowballed into a situation where the clause became industry standard for superstars, then for good second- or third-option players, and all the way down to average depth players. Michael McCarron‘s recent extension is a perfect example of the latter scenario.
Seriously, look up a third- or fourth-line player who recently signed an extension. Chances are they have at least partial trade protection.
In fact, the NHL has the most clauses of this kind compared to the other four major professional sports leagues, and it’s not even close.
A Little Too Empowering
Commissioner Gary Bettman chimed in, saying players are using the clause beyond its intended purpose.
Although the clause still serves said purpose, players are using it to force themselves into very specific situations. The Olympics were a major turning point when the United States of America brought home the Gold medal. Afterward, a spark of discussion about movement among American players seemed to signal their desire to force their way to contenders.
Brady Tkachuk‘s trade request, seemingly forcing his way to the Florida Panthers from the Ottawa Senators to team up with his brother Matthew, was the first example.
Not long after, Connor Hellebuyck publicly announced a trade request that had been handled privately prior. The Winnipeg Jets suspended him for not reporting to training camp and are still awaiting a potential trade.
The Red Wings stripped Larkin of his captaincy, even though he kept taking the ice for the team amid his request. Zach Werenski was in a very public struggle with his Columbus Blue Jackets, but a statement cleared up any controversy and confirmed Werenski would stay put. In fact, Werenski’s veto of a trade to the Dallas Stars shows the clause working as intended.
Why It Matters
The common ground among these scenarios is that the teams listed were included in each team’s requests. Each player mentioned above has a full-NMC except for Larkin, who has a full-NTC. As a result, they have full power over which team they want to go to.
Brady, of course, ended up in Florida, and that was likely the expected destination all along. Larkin gave an eight-team list of exclusively high-trade-leverage contenders. Hellebuyck’s list is unknown, but the Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Hurricanes, and Vegas Golden Knights have all been speculated.
In short, these players have used their clauses in a way that undermines stability. In fact, it does the opposite. They handcuff teams into making decisions that damage stability. It forces teams to go even further below value to get an elite player.
What Is the Solution?
If the point of these clauses is to promote stability, then the team should have protections in place as well. Removing the clause entirely would be the wrong decision and would undo much of the work the league has done to protect its players.
One idea, however, would be to remove full clauses and cap the trade list at a certain number of teams. For example, every NMC would come with a 15-team trade list that the player could change at any time. This ensures teams can find suitable trade partners with enough value to make a trade worth it.
Detractors would say this would be too aggressive in favor of the team. Sure, a player is protected from going to a team they don’t want. At the same time, the team still has plenty of options to trade them. One idea to negate this is to allow full NMCs, with the 15-team trade list coming into effect only when the player waives their clause. Others have considered going even further with this idea.
Some have suggested a provision among all NMCs that voids the clause altogether when a player requests a trade. If Larkin wants to be traded, the Red Wings can negotiate a trade with any team. However, the only way to get to this point would be a formal trade request from Larkin. This would still give the player the stability of a full NTC while negating the unfair leverage seen in recent months.
The NHL has a No-Trade Clause problem. They should push for player empowerment, but not at the expense of a noncompetitive trade market.
There’s plenty to criticize Commissioner Gary Bettman for. His apparent desire to reform the NTC is not one of them. Of course, fans expect negotiations to tweak the clause, not eliminate it outright. Putting some power back in the teams’ hands while still letting players fight for their own stability seems both inevitable and very positive for the league’s health.
Leave a comment