There has been much talk about what the league may do with the number of no-movement and no-trade clauses that players have in the NHL, and I have even been hearing whispers that it will be a significant topic in the next C.B.A... But should it be?

 There has been a barrage of trade requests this year, with the most polarizing one being the Larkin trade request in Detroit, where he asked for a trade and only gave three teams he would be willing to waive to, as per his full N.T.C with five years left on his contract. Brady Tkachuk also requested a trade from the Ottawa Senators two years left and was moved to play with his brother in Florida, while Brad Werenski gave two teams he would be interested in going to but did say he was willing to play out his contract.

 All of this has brought up an ethical debate on whether the league should do something. Some executives are suggesting players should have their N.M.Cs removed or restricted if the player asks for a trade.. Problem is... this can already be written into contracts and I am pretty sure G.Ms in the NHL know it. What the G.Ms and execs would essentially be asking for is the league to do is bargain sanctions that are already available for teams to offer to players. G.Ms can already negotiate this wording to contracts. However they do not? Why? Probably because they would not attract players to their organizations or keep their own if they were to do so because someone will certainly give them the full NMC. Why is this? Because that is their value. That is basically capitalism. If they remove the NMC option that value will come out in different ways. A player will likely be less likely to sign long term contracts and will bargain for shorter term and higher AV. Without location protection players will be less likely to sign long term deals so as to protect themselves from getting stuck in long contracts with floundering teams that give them less of a chance to accomplish their professional goals. And they will get it. Because that is their value.