Bettman is setting the table for no-trade clause discussions for next CBA

Player control in the NHL is happening like never before, with stars demanding hefty contracts and taking control of their destiny through no-trade clauses and nontraditional approaches to their commitments, despite some details already being signed. 

On a recent episode of Daily Faceoff LIVE, NHL insider David Pagnotta joined co-hosts Tyler Yaremchuk and Carter Hutton to break down how the NHL may approach the evolving situations, including Gary Bettman’s recent comments on a Toronto radio station. 

Tyler Yaremchuk: Gary Bettman had a soundbite that was making the rounds yesterday. He was on The Fan Hockey Show in Toronto, and he said, “We’ve gotten past the way no-trade clauses were intended.”

I thought Alan Walsh had a pretty good rebuttal to that whole thing. He’s obviously going to be pro-player as one of the more prominent and outspoken agents in the game. He said, “No trade protection being abused? What about a player with a full or limited no-trade clause told by a GM he needs to waive a trade to an undesirable team, or he’ll be put on waivers and that undesirable team will claim him? I can think of a couple of instances where something similar has played out. What did you make of Gary Bettman saying we’ve gotten past the way no-trade clauses were intended?

David Pagnotta: Gary Bettman, first of all, coming out and saying that is strategic. It doesn’t. He didn’t necessarily need to have a solution. It was bringing this up publicly so that this can be a topic of discussion in three years when they negotiate the new CBA or start to negotiate the new CBA. That he’s putting this on the docket. He’s putting this. He’s putting a spotlight on it. He’s putting it on the agenda unofficially for this to be a topic of discussion in the next negotiation. What’s the solution? We’ve got three years to try to figure that out, and it’s a combination between the owner side and the player side to try to figure that out

If it is going to change at all, he even said it: one off season is not going to dictate how we’re going to, you know, make changes moving forward. But if this becomes a recurring thing, then they’re going to have to address it in some capacity. 

I don’t think everybody, especially on the league side, knows that I’m more on the player side. Is there a solution that includes? ‘Okay, I’m requesting a trade, and you have to give X amount of teams, a list of X teams that you would accept a trade to.’ It’s not three, it’s not 10, it’s not 15, whatever that number is. There has to be a happy medium that you need at least X amount of teams on your list, however many it is-and that’s got to be agreed upon between the league and the NHLPA. 

I think that would be the only potential solution to something like this, because the players have earned their right to these contracts so far, since there have been no changes. You know, Dylan Larkin can easily say it’s either these three teams or that’s it. 

This circumstance with Connor Hellebuyck and Larkin- I mean, we don’t see this every summer. So until this becomes a recurring theme outside of the other requests that are out there, like Alexander Nikishin, for example, you know, he requested a trade after the Stanley Cup Final ended. They’re still trying to figure that out, so there are certain circumstances that dictate urgency and others that are going well. If you’re only giving us three teams, then you’ve got to kind of suck it up until we can figure something out, or you decide to expand your list, but I don’t think it’s gotten to a detrimental point where it’s this has to be brought up and figured out immediately. This is just something that we’re starting to see. If we do see it more, then they’ll have to address it down the road. 

You can catch the full episode and Pagnotta’s full appearance on Daily Faceoff LIVE, right here…