The ongoing saga that is the Dylan Larkin trade request has led to an interesting discussion. Some online conversations suggest that players who request a trade, despite having a no-trade clause, should automatically lose their trade protection upon the request.
While the idea may seem reasonable in theory, in practice, it’s an automatic no-go. The reason is simple. There is no verbiage in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to make such a situation valid.
But that doesn’t mean there won’t ever be. And that’s where the next NHL labor war could unfold.
The NHL will be starting a brand-new CBA on September 16. Some of the provisions, such as the playoff salary cap, have already been implemented. The remaining changes in the agreement will go into force in about six weeks.
So, NHL owners will likely have to face other situations similar to Dylan Larkin’s trade request. And if other players, like Zach Werenski, for instance, demand trades despite having no-trade protection, owners will gripe about the existence of no-trade clauses.
There is already unconfirmed chatter floating around that owners want some sort of limitation to no-trade protection. That limitation could come in the form of the number of years players can get said protection, or a certain number of contracts with trade protection per team.
If owners really want to push for something like that, the NHLPA may dig its heels into the ground and risk a labor stoppage over something that Dylan Larkin started. It’s something that could happen ahead of the 2030-31 season, when the incoming CBA expires.
Dylan Larkin Situation Remains Relatively Unique
As it stands, the Dylan Larkin situation remains relatively unique. Other stars with trade protection this summer were actually moved by their teams. For example, the Edmonton Oilers asked Darnell Nurse to waive his no-trade clause. He eventually did, facilitating a move.
The Artemi Panarin situation during last season’s trade deadline was also different from Dylan Larkin. Panarin was an impending UFA, with the New York Rangers informing him they wouldn’t be offering him a contract. That’s why the organization moved ahead with a trade. And Panarin was within his right to exercise his no-trade protection.
As for Werenski, he reportedly nixed a trade to the Dallas Stars. Again, that was an organizational thing, not at the behest of the reigning Norris Trophy winner.
But what will happen when another player goes the same route as Dylan Larkin?
What to read next:
NHL Players Will Have to Tread Carefully
Moving forward, NHL players will have to tread carefully. If a situation becomes unsustainable in their current team, such as was the case with Quinn Hughes in Vancouver, the best route might be to let the organization know with as much notice as possible that they do not intend to re-sign.
Such moves would ensure as much transparency as possible in the event of a trade. NHLers will also have to be as flexible as possible in their trade options. Otherwise, submitted three-team trade lists would only make matters worse for everyone involved.
The worst thing players can do at this point is pull a Dylan Larkin. Suddenly dumping a trade request on their current team would only lead to the terrible optics that the Larkin situation cast on the Red Wings and the NHL.
Like HEAVY’s content? Be sure to follow us.
This article was originally published on HEAVY
The post Dylan Larkin Could Have Ignited Next NHL Labor War appeared first on HEAVY.