NHL Trade Clauses: Worst Contracts

Apr 1, 2015; Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Philadelphia Flyers center Vincent Lecavalier (40) skates on the ice against the Pittsburgh Penguins during the third period at the CONSOL Energy Center. The Flyers won 4-1. Mandatory Credit: Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

NHL Trade Clauses That Could Pose an Issue at Some Point

There’s been an increase in contract clauses over the years, ranging from no-movement to no-trade clauses. No-trade clauses tend to range from limited, to modified, to full no-trade’s. A more descriptive outline of how these contracts tend to work can be found below, courtesy of generalfanager.com.

"What’s the difference between a No-Movement Clause (NMC) and a No-Trade Clause (NTC)? 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. Many players will have No-Movement Clauses tied to their contracts with Partial or Modified No-Trade Clauses. These prevent the team from moving the player via loan or waivers, but give the team some options for trading the player. Note: a player is not eligible for a NMC or NTC in their contract until they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 accrued seasons or 27 years of age). A player can sign a contract that has a NMC or NTC take effect partway through the contract at the time they would have otherwise become eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency."

Nov 19, 2015; Washington, DC, USA; Dallas Stars goalie Kari Lehtonen (32) watches the puck against the Washington Capitals during the first period at Verizon Center. Mandatory Credit: Brad Mills-USA TODAY Sports

You can find endless countdowns and rankings dedicated to the NHL’s worst contracts, but this is neither a countdown, nor a ranking. It’s simply a look around the league at some of the worst NHL trade clauses. Some of the contracts listed are not a problem currently, but due to length and structure, could one day cause problems.

It’s also worth noting that the possibility of NHL expansion in 2017-18 or shortly after could pose major issues for teams of players listed below. Back in 2000 when the league last expanded, players carrying contract clauses were forced to be automatically saved. There’s a few teams with players listed below, that risk losing good young players to these guys.

These no-trade and no-movement clauses are not deal breakers when it comes to trade talks, but they can limit things. For example, if a player is required to provide a certain amount of teams he would accept a trade to, the GM’s focus are those limited options. Even though the GM can approach a player for a team not on his list, they’re not likely the ones initiating trade talks with those teams. Why would you waste your time working on a deal that could be overturned by the player? Most teams that are willing to take on bad contracts, are usually the bottom feeders, which tend to be the teams players with trade clauses refuse to go to.

Next: NHL's Worst Contract Clauses