The NHL needs to rethink no trade clauses and long-term contracts

For years, NHL general managers have handed out long-term contracts with full no-trade clauses as a way to keep franchise players happy. At the time of signing, it makes perfect sense.

A player commits to a team for seven or eight years, and in return, he gets the security of knowing he can't be shipped across the league without his approval. But lately, it feels like those protections have started working against the very teams that offer them.

We're seeing more star players sign massive long-term contracts with full no-trade clauses, only to request a trade a few years later. When that happens, the team that made the long-term commitment suddenly loses almost all of its leverage. The player decides where he'll go, limits the list of acceptable destinations and the general manager is left trying to make the best of a difficult situation.

Teams assume almost all the risk

When a general manager hands out a seven or eight-year contract worth tens of millions of dollars, the organization is taking a significant gamble.

If the player suffers injuries, his production declines or the contract ages poorly, the team is still responsible for every dollar. Fans don't feel sorry for the organization because it willingly signed the deal. So, if a player later decides he no longer wants to be there, why should the team be the one forced into a weaker negotiating position?

The organization upheld its end of the agreement. It invested in the player, built around him and accepted the financial risk. If the player wants out before the contract expires, there should be some compromise on his side as well.

A trade request should change the rules

Players should absolutely have the right to request a trade. Situations change. Teams head in different directions and coaching staffs change. Sometimes, a fresh start benefits everyone.

Rather than allowing a player to keep a full no-trade clause after asking out, the NHL should require that clause to automatically convert into a modified no-trade clause. Instead of controlling every possible destination, the player would submit a list of 16 to 20 teams he would accept a trade to.

That still gives players plenty of control over where they play while allowing the general manager to negotiate with more than just one or two clubs. It creates a healthier trade market and gives teams a better opportunity to receive fair value for one of their best players.

Shorter contracts would benefit everyone

Right now, players can sign contracts lasting up to eight years with their current team or seven years as free agents. While those deals offer stability, they also create problems when circumstances inevitably change.

The NBA has shown there's another way. With shorter maximum contract lengths, teams and players return to the negotiating table more often, contracts better reflect a player's current value, and organizations aren't tied to decisions made nearly a decade earlier.

The NHL should seriously consider reducing the maximum contract length to four years. Would that lead to more contract negotiations? Absolutely. But it would also prevent teams from being locked into aging contracts while giving players the chance to earn raises sooner if they continue performing at an elite level.

Time for the NHL to modernize

No-trade clauses aren't the problem by themselves. They've become an important part of contract negotiations, and veteran players have earned the right to negotiate for security. The issue is what happens after a player asks to leave.

Whether it's eliminating full no-trade clauses altogether, reducing maximum contract lengths to four years or automatically converting a full no-trade clause into a 16-20 team modified no-trade list after a trade request, something needs to evolve.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow