NHL players have had more control over their careers than ever before, and they are exercising that power. How will it impact the long-term outlook of the league?
As we’ve seen for quite some time now, NHL players have determinedly been taking full advantage of the no-trade or no-move clauses they’ve negotiated into their contracts.
There was St. Louis Blues defenseman Colton Parayko vetoing a trade to the Buffalo Sabres last season. Then former Ottawa Senators winger Brady Tkachuk (and his brother, Matthew) engineering a trade to the Florida Panthers.
Then most recently Winnipeg Jets superstar goalie Connor Hellebuyck and Detroit Red Wings captain Dylan Larkin went public with trade demands of their own, showcasing how players are using their negotiated leverage to dictate where they’ll be playing for the foreseeable future.
On top of multiple trade requests – even in the early years of agreements – we're also seeing contracts with large cap hits and shorter term. In some ways, players have more say than ever before.
Call it the 'Player Empowerment Era', if you will. It's not changing anytime soon.
Why’s that? Well, you can start with the fact that no-move and no-trade clauses were negotiated 'wins' for the players in the most recent collective bargaining agreement.
Team owners and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman prioritized getting a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue. The NHL Players’ Association decided that, if they couldn’t win the labor war in terms of the overall amount of revenue they can lay claim to, they were going to push for improved control of their everyday lives.
It’s entirely possible that, when the league’s current labor deal expires at the end of the 2029-30 season, Bettman and the owners will try to claw back no-trade and no-move clauses. But make no mistake, if the owners want labor peace in the long-term, they’re going to have to give back to the NHLPA in one area or another.
Having only a small amount of players with no-trades or no-moves – the way it is with the NBA – would help make trades easier to pull off. However, do we want to return to the days where players are indentured servants, with zero say in where they want to raise their families?
That feels less than fair to athletes who come up through the amateur hockey system making virtually no money at all as they pursue their dreams.
Until team owners are willing to give the NHLPA another percentage point or two in hockey-related revenue, it feels like no-trade clauses are here to stay. Unless there’s another area in which owners give back to the union, players are going to insist on having a strong say in where they work.
And remember, nobody is pointing a gun at the heads of NHL GMs who are handing out these clauses.
When this writer spoke to Toronto Maple Leafs GM John Chayka last spring about his policy on no-trades and no-moves, he spoke as if they were just a fact of life. If one team isn’t willing to give a free agent protection, you’d better believe another team will do it.
That said, the way things have evolved, teams can still give themselves an edge recruiting and retaining players by doing some key things.
First, they need to win. Winning cures almost any issue a player might have. It’s no coincidence Larkin and Hellebuyck played on teams last season that failed miserably just at being a Stanley Cup playoff team, let alone being a true Cup front-runner.
This is also one of the reasons why teams like the Florida Panthers and Vegas Golden Knights are attractive options for players right now. When there’s a track record of playoff success, it’s like a flame attracting flies.
Secondly, teams need to treat players’ families like gold. The NHL is no different than any other sport in that the intangibles that separate a winning franchise from a consistent loser team are never going to change. If you look after players well enough, you give yourself the best chance of keeping them by setting the bar for their treatment off the ice.off-ice lives.
Sometimes, there’s nothing a team can do to stop a star player from leaving, but that’s why it’s on a team’s management to draft and develop elite players – if you do lose one star, you have talent capable of stepping in and making a difference.
Hellebuyck and Larkin may not have a lot of fans in their respective cities right now, but there’s no doubt more players will follow their lead as they chart a course for themselves in a city of their choosing.
Players are only human, and humans like the feel of a place they’re familiar with. And the next time a player forces their way out of a town, they’ll be doing what’s best for them, just as teams inevitably do what’s in their best interest.
Villainizing players for that might feel good to spurned fans and their hurt feelings. But the truth is that almost any line of work allows workers to have a say in where they live.
That’s not something that should change in the NHL anytime soon.
For action-packed issues, access to the entire magazine archive and a free issue, subscribe to The Hockey News at THN.com/free. Get the latest news and trending stories by subscribing to our newsletter here. And share your thoughts by commenting below the article on THN.com or creating your own post in our community forum.
