Gary Bettman questions no‑trade clauses, but NHL GMs control the real problem

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman put contract protections under the spotlight this week, voicing concern about how widespread no‑trade and no‑move clauses have become around the league. In an appearance on Sportsnet’s The FAN Hockey Show, Bettman said he doesn’t believe the current trend is good for players, teams or the way fans connect to the sport.

Bettman acknowledged that trade protection can benefit an individual player in a specific case, but stressed that the league has to focus on what works for the game overall. In his view, the NHL has moved away from what no‑trade clauses were originally meant to accomplish and now needs to monitor how they are being deployed.

Hundreds of players now carry trade protection

Cap‑tracking sites illustrate just how far things have gone. According to PuckPedia, 279 NHL players currently have some form of no‑move or no‑trade clause written into their deals, whether full or modified. That figure stands out sharply when stacked up against the other major North American leagues.

The Toronto Maple Leafs are highlighted as the most striking example, with 17 players on their roster holding some level of trade protection. That leaves only nine Leafs skaters without a no‑trade or no‑move clause, a situation created entirely by management’s choices at the bargaining table. No league rule compelled the team to structure its contracts that way.

By comparison, the NBA has only a small handful of players with full no‑trade clauses, the NFL has even fewer, and Major League Baseball’s total sits far below the NHL’s despite carrying larger rosters. The disparity underscores that the NHL’s issue is not the existence of such clauses, but the frequency with which teams choose to grant them.

Why the finger points back at NHL general managers

No‑trade and no‑move clauses are part of a labour system negotiated between the league and the NHL Players’ Association. Nothing in that framework forces clubs to include them. The decision to offer protection rests with the 32 general managers, who often use it as a sweetener to close a deal or to secure a target player at a given salary.

That is why the piece argues Bettman’s frustration should be trained primarily on front offices rather than on players. Skaters are entitled to ask for maximum security; only GMs can decide whether a contract actually includes those protections and how many roster spots they are willing to lock in that way.

The analysis notes that trade clauses are no longer confined to franchise stars. When depth forwards such as Brandon Duhaime, Dakota Joshua and Max Domi receive some form of no‑move or no‑trade protection, it raises questions about how teams are managing their long‑term flexibility. The more contracts are shielded, the harder it becomes to retool a roster when performance dips or direction changes.

Change will have to start in NHL front offices

The current framework is in place until the collective bargaining agreement expires in 2030, meaning any formal limits on trade protection would have to be negotiated in the next round of talks. Until then, the league can raise concerns, but the real levers remain in the hands of owners and their hockey operations departments.

For now, the article concludes, the NHL is wrestling with a situation it helped create. If clubs want to restore more freedom to make trades and reshape rosters, the solution is straightforward but not easy: general managers must show more restraint when they sit down to negotiate and resist the impulse to hand out no‑trade and no‑move clauses as a routine part of doing business.