Should the NHL and NHLPA Change Their Trade Protection Rules?

For many, the issue is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. With situations involving Detroit Red Wings former captain Dylan Larkin, Winnipeg Jets goaltender Connor Hellebuyck and, previously, Brady Tkachuk then of the Ottawa Senators drawing renewed attention to the problem, calls for changes to the current system have only grown louder across the hockey world.

No-trade clauses are far from a modern development. Variations of the provision date back to the 1940s, when players sought protection from being assigned or traded to the Springfield Indians of the American Hockey League, where playing under Hall of Famer Eddie Shore had become a situation many hoped to avoid. Over time, no-trade protections became a standard negotiating tool for players and have remained a fixture in the sport, eventually being formalized within the NHL’s collective bargaining agreement.

While NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman possesses the authority to implement certain changes deemed “beneficial to the league”, no-trade clauses fall outside that scope. They are collectively bargained provisions negotiated between the NHL and NHLPA and are expressly outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. As a result, any attempt to unilaterally alter those protections would almost certainly face significant legal challenges.

In a radio interview on The Fan Hockey Show, Bettman said: “I don’t think it’s good for the player. I don’t think it’s good for the club. And I don’t think it’s good for fans watching and their connection to the game. The no-trade clause was originally put in place for the following situation: You’re going to sign a long-term contract to be in a place you want to be. Maybe you’re giving a hometown discount, and you wanted to make sure that you could be where you wanted to be and where you were signing up to be.”

Bettman went on to say: “This notion now where A) you can select where you want to go to and B) you can demand the trade, that was never the original intention. And you know, if this becomes a problem, I don’t think one offseason a problem makes. But if this becomes a problem, it’s going to become something we’re going to have to discuss with the players’ association.”

NHLPA Assistant Executive Director Ron Hainsey sounded off to Pierre LeBrun of The Athletic. “First, we think the no-trade, no-move clause is being used as originally intended. It’s a player’s right to negotiate salary, salary structure, term, as well as a no-move or no-trade with their club if they’re able to do so and bargain in good faith. It’s pretty simple if you’ve negotiated a no-trade. Whether it’s 10 teams or 15 or 32, the club isn’t able to trade you to those teams without your consent. Our position is that the clauses are acting as they were intended to work.”

If you want evidence that this could become a major battle between the league and the union, read no further than this comment: “The beginning of this conversation about no-move and no-trade clauses, we do take as an attack on players’ CBA-negotiated rights. And we will treat it as such.”

One point worth emphasizing is that this is not solely a player-driven issue, even if many of the most visible examples appear that way. Teams routinely approach players about waiving no-trade protection when a potential deal aligns with the organization’s objectives. Framing the debate as a player-only problem overlooks the reality that both sides look for a way out of these provisions, making it a shared dynamic rather than a one-sided issue.

Realistically, any meaningful change to this issue is unlikely to occur before the current collective bargaining agreement expires in 2030. Even then, adjustments would certainly need to be negotiated as part of a broader package between the NHL and NHLPA. If the league hopes to secure concessions on no-trade protection, it would likely have to provide something of value in return during CBA negotiations.

Numerous proposals have emerged as the debate has intensified. Among the ideas that have been floated are voiding a player’s no-trade protection if he formally requests a trade, limiting the number of no-trade clauses a team can carry on its roster, and eliminating full no-trade clauses in favor of modified versions. Those are just a few of the potential changes being discussed as the media dives deeper into the issue.

I don’t view this as an issue worth sounding the alarm over. While this past offseason saw more players than usual request trades, it was far from an epidemic. In virtually every instance, there were unique circumstances driving the decision, making it difficult to point to a broader systemic problem.

The concern from many fans is understandable: it often seems as though the same handful of organizations appear on players’ preferred destinations lists. There’s some truth to that perception. However, I view it as more of a cyclical trend than a systemic issue. Success tends to attract talent, and when players find themselves in a position to seek a move, it’s only natural that many will gravitate toward teams with a track record of winning and a legitimate chance to compete for a championship.

From my perspective, the NHL has far more significant issues on its agenda than what amounts to a relatively minor concern. Rather than devoting time and resources to addressing player trade requests, the league would be better served focusing on challenges with a much greater impact on its long-term health. Consider these two examples:

With the salary cap projected to continue its upward climb, revenue sharing is poised to become a much more pressing issue in the years ahead. As the cap rises, so too does the salary floor, creating additional financial strain for lower-revenue franchises. Without a stronger revenue-sharing model, some of the league’s smaller-market clubs could face increasing challenges in meeting those obligations. If that gap continues to widen, much of the NHL’s effort to create and maintain competitive parity could be undermined.

With the NHL’s national television agreements with ESPN and TNT set to expire following the 2027-28 season, and the league reportedly exploring the addition of a third broadcast partner, the cost of following the sport continues to rise for fans. The increasing fragmentation of media rights could force viewers to subscribe to multiple services simply to watch their favorite teams. It’s a challenge that exists in Canada as well, although the league’s long-term Canadian broadcast agreement leaves little room for change on that front in the near future.

They may be approaching a point where growing costs begin to outweigh accessibility for many fans. As viewing options become increasingly fragmented and expensive, there is a legitimate concern that some consumers will simply choose to disengage rather than absorb the additional financial burden. If that trend continues, the league risks pricing out a portion of its audience at a time when retaining and growing the fan base should be a priority.