NHL commissioner Gary Bettman made news this week when he publicly discussed no-trade and no-move clauses as an issue the league is actively keeping an eye on. Following an off-season marked by high-profile star players making trade requests and attempting to orchestrate moves to specific destinations by leveraging their contractual trade protections, Bettman expressed growing concern regarding the proliferation of these clauses across the league.
While the commissioner’s focus on the health of the game is understandable, his frustration is currently directed at the wrong target. Rather than taking aim at players who negotiate for maximum job security and leverage within the rules of a collectively bargained system, Bettman should focus his attention squarely on the 32 general managers who hand out these clauses like candy.
The debate came to the forefront as the commissioner addressed the broader implications of trade restrictions on the ecosystem of professional hockey. While it might be good for a player in a particular case—though recent events suggest even that is not always guaranteed—the league must evaluate what is ultimately beneficial for the game, the players overall, and the league as a whole. According to Bettman, the league intends to monitor the situation closely, noting that the current landscape has moved far beyond the original intent behind no-trade clauses.
An examination of current roster data across hockey analytics platforms such as PuckPedia.com and CapWages.com reveals a staggering reliance on trade protections. According to PuckPedia, an astonishing 279 NHL players currently carry some form of a no-movement clause (NMC) or no-trade clause (NTC). This widespread adoption highlights an institutionalized approach to roster construction that treats trade restrictions not as rare perks reserved for elite superstars, but as standard negotiating leverage for a massive portion of the league.
Among all 32 franchises, the Toronto Maple Leafs stand out as the most prominent example of this trend. The Leafs carry an astonishing 17 players with some form of trade protection on their books. That leaves a mere nine players on the entire active roster without an NTC or NMC. Crucially, nobody held a gun to Toronto management’s head. Those clauses were handed out entirely of their own volition, reflecting a broader organizational philosophy that prioritizes player appeasement over future flexibility.
When evaluating how these clauses came to be so prevalent, the reality points directly back to the negotiating table. NMCs and NTCs were created under a labor system fairly bargained between the league and the National Hockey League Players’ Association. Again, no team is ever forced by external forces to hand them out. The ultimate responsibility falls on the GMs who draft and sign the contracts. Until the current collective bargaining agreement is up for renewal in 2030, this is simply the system that owners and players have formally agreed upon.
To understand just how out of step the NHL is with the rest of the major professional sports leagues in North America, one only has to look at the numbers. In the NBA, there are just 11 players in the entire league with some sort of no-trade clause. In the NFL, only eight players enjoy a full no-trade clause. Meanwhile, in Major League Baseball, approximately 70 players possess some variation of a no-trade clause.
Comparing those figures to the nearly 300 players protected in the NHL reveals a stark and undeniable difference. It demonstrates clearly that NHL general managers need to show much more discipline and restraint when negotiating contracts.
With all due respect to veteran leaders across the league, the issue extends far beyond star players. When third- and fourth-line depth players—including names like Brandon Duhaime, Dakota Joshua, and Max Domi—are routinely handed NMCs or NTCs, it becomes clear that something is fundamentally problematic with how front offices operate.
Yet the blame for that systemic creep falls squarely on the GMs who put pen to paper and granted those clauses in the first place. That is precisely where Bettman’s frustration needs to be concentrated. Any individual player has every right to demand the moon and the stars during contract negotiations, as is their prerogative in a competitive market. However, only general managers possess the structural power to change how frequently NMCs and NTCs are distributed across the league.
The National Hockey League will have an opportunity to address these mechanisms structurally a few years from now when the next labor deal eventually comes to the table. As it stands today, however, this is a monster of the league’s own making. It is ultimately on the individual teams and their respective GMs to exercise greater restraint and figure out how to acquire and retain players without tying their own hands and clogging up the trade market with a relentless accumulation of no-trade and no-move clauses.