Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx7N63HCTBWijHpI-qphK3A/join
The NHL offseason has once again sparked debate over no-trade clauses and no-move clauses, but have these contract protections gone too far?
On today’s episode of The Starr & D’Amico Show, we discuss whether no-trade and no-move clauses are ultimately good or bad for the NHL. Should players who request a trade still be allowed to control where they’re traded? Or does asking out mean they should lose that protection altogether?
We debate whether general managers are being handcuffed, how these clauses impact roster building, and whether the NHL should consider changing the rules. Is there a better balance between player rights and team flexibility?
Join the conversation live and let us know:
If a player demands a trade, should their no-trade clause automatically become void?
👍 Like the video, subscribe, and hit the notification bell so you never miss Montreal Canadiens news, NHL analysis, breaking news, and live discussions.
#montrealcanadiens #nhl #hockey
Getting a members only video from Starrico is like getting a birthday gift.
Me most days:
you mean to tell me I get to listen and enjoy the insides of Marco's hockey brain as well as enjoy Shaun's charisma and symmetric face FIRST?!? Before the rest of the world???
FUCK. YES. MUH-DUDES.
🙏🐴
The other issue is with all the no-trade, no-movement deals: how much do teams save in actual salary in offering these?
Shawn , there’s a problem with your volume, by moment it’s low and then come back to normal. Love you guys continue the good work!
I think once players ask for a trade then the maximum number of teams that they can elect to not be traded to is 5-10 teams maximum
Canadians in 2009 gave away Ryan McDonagh in 2017 sergachev don't get rid of David
The real crux of the situation is lawyers need to reword no movement clauses to prevent players from opting for trade with a targeted fee teams max no trade should be 10 team NTC once to say trade me
Spot on, Marco. It's a GM problem.
More restrictions on eligibility to no move or restrictions clauses, that's a GM problem. I think that when a player requests a trade, all trade protection should immediately be null and void.
If things keep going the way they are now, the NHL will soon become like the NBA and MLB. Players will want to play only with contenders (NBA) and the same 6 or so teams will be stacked and compete for the cup every year (MLB). Might as well fold small market teams at that point.
The only option should be a full no trade.. if u decide you want to be traded then u can be dealt anywhere
Can Marco comment…. the hold up with Wifi, is he wants a guarantee not to be traded or sent down.
“We don’t have to end NTC.
GMs just need to stop offering them”
We don’t need to end infinity contracts. GMs just need to stop offering them🤭
Thanks!
Thanks!
How about in next cba instead of too much ntc they modify taxes upwards when teams trade player to new york or mtl with high taxes
I think if a player asks for the trade they should lose there no trade clause protection.
The answer is simple:
A no movement clause was basically there to protect the player from the team trading him
If a player asks for a trade when having a no movement clause, the no movement clause should be voided .
Yeah I don’t care too much to me it’s the GM’s fault. Like if you are signing a player long term you make sure those last two years don’t have any clauses.
I think a pro rated cap structure for teams so that state taxes even out the field is a bigger issue than the number of teams a player with a full no move due to the fact that the teams they are willing to go to just so happen to have no state income tax
Which gives those teams an even more unfair advantage
And if a player with an full NMC asks for trade there should be a minimum of 10-12 he would waive to about a 1/3 of the league
As for the Habs giving Matheson a full no move for 3 years even at a cheap AAV is kinda dumb when we are so loaded at LD with Hutson and Ghule both better in my opinion
That plus if Matheson were to get traded Kent
Would do right by him and send him to good fit for him and his family
The problem is GMs giving out contracts that will outlive them. No incentive ti help out the next guy in line, if it means you get the player to sign on the line which is dotted.
Players loose no trade if they request trade, yes and no. For most contracts yes, others not. It definitely shouldn't be as common. I don't think any player should be given full no trades when signing after thier ELC.
Is there auto-moderating in this comment section? On the last video comment section we were having an interesting discussion on the new CBA, nothing spicy, and the entire thread got removed from the comment section. This is not the first time, what is going on?
i keep saying it NHL will end up with a lock out the greedy are getting too greedy this will hurt the NHL if NHL does not react soon. enough with overevaluating players abd demanding overpaying to acquire them. enough is enough
Not so concerned about a no trade clause in place to protect the player from the team trading them…I get it.
But when the player themselves want out? Then there should be no trade protection.
Or make it so that the max teams they can't be traded to is only half the league. 32 teams, you can only have a max of 16 teams on your no trade. And if you want that, then you have to take less money for that privilege.
Suzuki had a 10 team no trade the last 4yrs of his contract
Slaf, same, last 3yrs
Ditto Demidov
Caufield is 15 teams yr 6, 10 teams yr 7, and 5 teams yr 8
Dobson is 14 teams yr 2 to 8
Hutson is 10 teams last 3yrs
Matheson first 3yrs is a full NTC, yr 4 is 14 teams, yr 5, 5 teams
Guhle is 5 teams, last 2yrs
Dobes is 7yrs in yr 2, and 5 teams in yr 3
I really like Marco's idea of players losing their no-trade clauses when they themselves ask for a trade. Or at least having a cap on the number of teams a player won't go to when the player asks for the trade.
Its just logical than when a player wants to sign somewhere and asks for a full nmc, its because he wants to stay there. So it would only be logical that if the player then changes his mind and wants to leave that the clause would be removed.