NHL Confirms a Loophole That Could Change No-Move Clauses Forever

Amid a wave of public trade requests around the league, a quiet contract detail is drawing new attention — and it could change how no-move clauses are written going forward. Making things far less black and white when it comes to these conditions, a team could essentially find a workaround that gives them a lot more flexibility as players change their minds.

---

According to The Athletic, teams and players can already build language into a contract that limits what a no-move clause actually protects against, without needing any change to the collective bargaining agreement. This could potentially deal with what might be a growing issue of players seeking trade protection, then asking out and having all the power during subsequent trade discussions. As it is now, teams are rendered nearly helpless unless a player plays ball and opens up their respective lists.

The NHL confirmed that teams and players can negotiate no-move or no-trade clauses with provisions.

The report points to the Columbus Blue Jackets and general manager Don Waddell as an example of the practice already in use. When Charlie Coyle signed a six-year, $36 million deal with Columbus earlier this summer, his no-move clause included an addendum stripping out one specific protection: automatic inclusion on the team’s protected list in the event of league expansion. In the past, a no-move clause has typically guaranteed that protection by default.

In other words, if the NHL expands and adds more teams, the Blue Jackets are not required to protect Coyle. They’ve written it in, and he’s agreed.

The Athletic reached out to the NHL to see what other kinds of provisions could apply. It sounds like there’s no limit. If a player wanted a full no-trade, but the team could respond, ‘Sure, but if you ask to be traded, that protection goes away.’ Deputy commissioner Bill Daly confirmed it directly, telling the outlet the arrangement “would be freely negotiable as between Player and Club.” The only caveat is that the league’s central registry still has to sign off on the specific wording before a contract is validated, which they do on all contracts anyway.

The option itself doesn’t require any formal rule change — it’s simply a matter of what both sides agree to include.

For years, a full no-move or no-trade clause has functioned as one of the biggest bargaining chips in contract talks, often used as a sweetener to help close a deal. This new wrinkle suggests teams may be finding ways to offer that protection while quietly limiting its scope in specific scenarios.

It would give some power back to the teams in the event a player wants out and then says, “I’ll only go to this one team.” It makes it nearly impossible for the team trading the player to get anywhere near full value. For example, Dylan Larkin couldn’t sit there and say ‘Trade me, but here are my three teams.” He’d potentially have to drop the clause if he wanted out of Detroit or expand the list, based on how it was worded in the contract.

Expect These Types of Trade Provisions To Become More Common

With the NHL’s growing expansion conversations and a rising number of high-profile trade requests putting a spotlight on player movement, it’s worth watching whether more clubs start negotiating similar addendums into future contracts. If the practice spreads, it could reshape how much real security a no-move clause actually provides — and give front offices more flexibility than the clause’s name suggests.

Whether this becomes a broader trend across the league, or stays limited to a handful of case-by-case deals like Coyle’s, should become clearer as more contracts are negotiated this offseason and beyond.

Next: NHL Trade Talk Recap: Jets, Maple Leafs & Oilers Reality Changed