Brad Marchand Claps Back Over No-Trade Clauses: Did He Miss The Point?

Brad Marchand has joined the growing debate over no-trade clauses, and he isn’t siding with the commissioner. Responding to recent comments from Gary Bettman, Marchand called the current setup a “broken system” and argued the issue cuts both ways for players and teams.

The reaction, shared via his Instagram account, came after Bettman said the league has drifted from the original purpose of no-trade protection.

---

According to Bettman, the clauses were meant to protect players who sign long-term deals in a city where they want to stay. They were not designed to let a player demand a trade and also dictate where he is willing to go. Marchand responded, “I guess it’s OK if a team signs you to a long-term deal and wants to trade you but not if you want out during that term.”

Of course, there’s a difference between what Marchand is talking about and what current NHL players are doing. Marchand seems to be forgetting that most of these players are making it hard for their teams to trade them by limiting where they can go. In the case of Dylan Larkin, he’s got three to five teams. Brady Tkachuk only wanted the Florida Panthers. Connor Hellebuyck wants to go to a team in the United States. GMs wouldn’t have as many issues if players were open to being traded anywhere.

The comments land after a summer in which several players with no-movement protection pushed for moves. Some fans pointed to three such cases: one player was traded, another was accused of faking an injury, and a third failed to report. Marchand seems to be ignoring that too.

Fans Are Calling Out Marchand For His Opinion on the Subject

Fan reaction to Marchand’s response was largely critical. Several argued that teams pay the salaries, and that a player on a multi-million-dollar contract can’t expect equal say in his destination. One suggested a rule change: a player with a clause who requests a trade would void the protection, allowing the team to send him anywhere. Why? Because a player with no-trade protection can simply say no when a team asks. That’s the point. These trade clauses weren’t put into place so a player could sign it, ask out, and then demand where they go.

Others took issue with Marchand’s framing, noting that no-trade clauses exist to stop teams from moving players somewhere they don’t want to go. A few placed blame on teams, saying the league wouldn’t have this problem if clauses weren’t handed out so freely.

With the issue now public, expect it to remain a talking point as the season gets underway and contract negotiations continue to draw attention.

Next: McDavid Starts New Tradition, And Newest Oiler Rewarded After Team Escapes with 9-7 Win