NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and top player agent Allan Walsh are not exactly seeing eye to eye on the league’s potentially evolving views on no-trade clauses.
Bettman raised eyebrows Thursday when he said the NHL is monitoring how no-trade and no-movement clauses are being used after a summer in which several prominent players tried to dictate their next landing spots. The commissioner told Sportsnet’s The FAN Hockey Show that no-trade clauses were originally designed to protect players who committed to a team long term, potentially even taking less money to stay somewhere they wanted to be.
But Bettman now believes those clauses have evolved beyond their original purpose.
“This notion now, where you can select where you want to go to, and you can demand a trade, that was never the original intention,” Bettman said. “If this becomes a problem – I don’t think one offseason a problem makes – but if it becomes a problem, it’s something we are going to have to discuss with the players’ association.”
The commissioner specifically pointed to the recent wave of trade requests involving players with significant contractual control over where they can be moved. Dylan Larkin asked the Detroit Red Wings for a trade despite having many years remaining on his contract, Brady Tkachuk used his no-movement clause to facilitate a move from the Ottawa Senators to the Florida Panthers, and Connor Hellebuyck has requested a trade from the Winnipeg Jets.
Walsh, one of the NHL’s most outspoken agents, pushed back on the commissioner’s comments in two social media posts. The disagreement centers on what level of authority these clauses are actually supposed to give players.
“This is revisionist history ignoring the creation of No Move Clauses in 2005,” Walsh said on X. “Gary can pick and choose his history if he wants, but No Move/No Trade Clauses are critical rights players have negotiated (trading off other rights) at the bargaining table.”
“No trade protection being abused?” he added in a follow-up post. “What about a player with full or limited No Trade Clause told by GM he needs to waive a trade to an undesirable team or will be put on waivers, and that undesirable team will claim him.”
One of the most high-profile examples of Walsh’s point came in 2024, when the New York Rangers placed forward Barclay Goodrow on waivers, primarily because they couldn’t find a suitable trade partner not on Goodrow’s 15-team no-trade list. The San Jose Sharks were one of those teams, but the Rangers got around Goodrow’s clause by placing him on waivers, allowing the Sharks to claim him.
As Bettman indicated, the overall situation hasn’t reached its breaking point yet. Still, several major trade situations remain unresolved as the 2026-27 season begins, which means the disagreement probably won’t go away anytime soon.
