The famous contract clauses that provide players more stability and control over their destiny appeared in the NHL when the 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed. With the salary cap came the need for cap room and the possibility of burying a contract in the American Hockey League. From then on, contract negotiations changed. General managers started handing out all kinds of clauses to surrender some control to the players so they would agree to a lower salary.
There are full no-trade clauses (this one is pretty self-explanatory), but for clarity’s sake, let’s add that they do not provide control on other roster decisions the GM could take (waivers, demotion, expansion drafts). The modified no-trade clause (MTC) provides that a player can give a list of X teams they do not want to be traded to (hello, Canada!). Then there is the more powerful clause, the no-movement clause; with this one, players are golden; they cannot be traded, demoted, exposed to an expansion draft, or put on waivers. To save money in the now, some GMs are willing to handcuff themselves for the future which can be a big problem. Let’s look at the Maple Leafs roster and at Mitch Marner’s contract to comprehend the damage it causes later down the line (from “Inside the NHL’s NMC/NTC mania: Why trade protection is booming, and is it changing the deadline?”, The Athletic, March 6, 2004).
Kyle Dubas and the Core Four, or is it Five?
Lou Lamoriello, the Leafs’ general manager before Dubas took over, now makes it a policy not to give full NMC to his players with the New York Islanders. Even when he was in Toronto, the only player he gave one of those to was Morgan Rielly for a single year. Enter Dubas, who wanted to sign John Tavares so much that he offered him a full NMC for the entire duration of his seven-year contract, opening the floodgates.
Is it any wonder William Nylander held out so long before signing his second contract? He saw how much control and money Dubas had surrendered to the newcomer and asked why not me. In the end, Dubas gave him a single-year NMC, but it was the starting point of handing them out like candy.
Related: Could Maple Leafs Repeat Kadri Mistake by Trading Marner
In less time than it takes for the Maple Leafs’ brass to have enough of Brendan Shanahan’s Shanaplan, the Core Four or Five is now fully armed with complete control of their destiny. Now that the honeymoon phase is over with this core, how can Brad Treliving find a way to dismantle it? There’s absolutely no doubt it will take some time to sort this out, just as discussed on the 32 Thoughts podcast.
Marner Cannot Be Sacrificed if He Doesn’t Want To
All signs seem to point to Marner being the player Treliving wants to move, but with his NMC, Marner is entirely within his right to refuse. In other words, if Marner feels at home in Toronto and wants to see out his contract there, Treliving can do absolutely nothing.
Should Marner start the season with no extension and still be on the Toronto roster, it could be an awful distraction for the locker room during the regular season. As for Treliving, the pressure will increase toward the trade deadline each week. They might want to trade him, but Marner is way too big of an asset to let him walk out with no compensation come July 1, 2025.
Treliving must now be in “charming Marner into agreeing to the trade” mode, and that must make for truly awful conversations. How do you tell a player who was bled blue and white for nearly ten years that he’s overstayed his welcome? You can’t flat-out tell him, “Look, we just don’t want you here anymore,” or do you just put it all on the fans? “they will make your life a living hell, Mitch, every time we play at home, a fan will chuck his Marner jersey onto the ice at the end of the game,” doesn’t give a great look to the organization that would be admitting to letting the fans run the show.
Should he tell him, “Mitch, the media was cruel to you during the playoffs, but you’ve seen nothing yet?”. How is that any better than using the fans’ excuse…I don’t know which would be the worst for the Maple Leafs’ credibility. Go the “Look Mitch, if we cannot move you, it will become a major distraction for the locker room. Even though it’s not what you want, you will hurt this organization. I think you’ve got to take one for the team now” way? That would be quite the guilt trip…
However, I wouldn’t want to be Treliving… he will always be stuck with this issue. He signed Auston Matthews and Nylander to new contracts, giving them the NMC for the entire duration. Once the player has that bone, he won’t give it back, and why would he?
The silver lining for the Maple Leafs is that at least they are in this position with Marner while he is still a very worthy asset, not when his game has started declining. Life isn’t any better for the Montreal Canadiens, who are paying Brendan Gallagher $6.5 million a year to provide leadership and be an example to follow regarding work ethic. Even though he only has an M-NTC and submits a list of six teams he can’t be traded to, no team will want to take on that cap for what he brings to the table now. In Montreal, he’s very respected for what he gave to the team from 2011-2012, but it wouldn’t be the same if he arrived in an all-new environment.
GMs around the league should take notice of the battle of will taking place in Toronto these days. It’s not the first time something like this has happened, and it won’t be the last either, but it can be avoided by not giving out so many full NMCs. As Guns N’ Roses once sang, “Nothin’ lasts forever, even cold November rain,” or a team’s love affair with a player, for that matter. Surrendering these clauses to the players to get them to agree to a lower salary might be more costly in the long run, but in time, money, and reputation.
