If a player has a no-movement clause, his club will be forced to protect him in next summer’s expected expansion draft.
If, on the other hand, a player merely has a no-trade clause, his club will have no obligation to put him on its protected list.
Those details were reported this morning by TSN’s Gary Lawless, shortly after he’d reported that the NHL and NHLPA had come together on a framework for a potential expansion draft.
Per General Fanager, here’s the difference between the two clauses:
A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless permitted by the player to move the player by one of these means. A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.
A No-Trade Clause is less restrictive, as it only places restrictions on movement by trade. A player with a No-Trade Clause cannot be traded by a team unless the player provides consent. A Partial or Modified No-Trade Clause is often less restrictive than a Full No-Trade Clause, and depends on the conditions outlined in the player’s contracts. Often these are No-Trade Clauses with conditions that give the player the right to provide a list of teams to which the team can or cannot trade the player.
So, for example, in Pittsburgh, the Penguins would be obligated to put Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Phil Kessel, Marc-Andre Fleury, and Kris Letang on their protected list. All five have NMCs, per General Fanager. Patric Hornqvist, however, would not require protection, even though he has a modified no-trade clause.
Now, granted, the Penguins weren’t going to risk leaving their superstars exposed anyway.
Where this rule could have consequences is if a team is forced to protect a player with a no-move, at the expense of exposing a player it would prefer to keep.
In Columbus, for example, David Clarkson, Scott Hartnell and Fedor Tyutin have no-moves, as do Brandon Dubinsky and Nick Foligno. So, assuming General Fanager’s information is correct and there aren’t any complicating factors, that’s five players they’d be obligated to protect, whether they’d want to or not.
We’ll let Jackets fans fret over what that may cost them. There will be plenty of fretting league-wide, no doubt.
But just remember, if the NHL only expands to Las Vegas — and that’s the most likely scenario at this point — each team can only lose one player in the expansion draft.