The Sheet with Jeff Marek - On the Sheet: Hart Levine on the Evolution of No-Trade Clauses in the NHL

Episode Date: October 13, 2026

Hart Levine joins the show to dive into the evolving landscape of no-trade clauses in the NHL, how players are using them to gain leverage, and the challenges they create for general managers, agents, and organizations navigating today's rapidly changing league. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With that, I want to bring aboard Hart Levine, the conceptual genius and the founder of Puckpedia. And really nice piece. By the way, Hart, how are you, man? I haven't talked to you for a while. You've been good? Everything good, your end? I'm doing well, yeah. Thanks so much for having me back.

I like the blue backdrop. I wish, I wish, like, for the Winnipeg Jets for the Heritage Classic, that they went with that blue instead of the darker blue. Because that, anyway, that color just pops. I do want to ask you about the latest from the Puckpedia newsletter. This is on your substack. Numbers behind NHL, no trade arms race is the title of the piece. Not exactly a secret. I think fans have a certain frustration,

and certainly managers have a certain frustration with the propensity of players, seemingly most of them, all carrying with some type of trade protection. in as efficient a manner so we can get to other areas of no trades, as efficiently as you can, how did we get here? And where are we at by way of numbers and percentages

of players that carry no trades? Well, that's the part that interested me when you said seemingly everyone. And I wanted to see how many players have clauses. So only players that are in a potential UFA season can have a clause. That's the first thing to point out. So we looked at one-way players

that were eligible for them. it was pretty steady around 40 to 44% from 2018 through the flat cap era through 21-22. And then it just started exploding. Every year it's been increasing. And this year we're at 63% of players that are eligible for a clause have one, which that's a pretty big number. The other way of looking at it is like new UFA deals that are signed. That number was around 20% of UFA deals included a clause.

This summer we're up to almost half, 48%. So again, pretty much everyone that can have a clause is getting them now. question is why. So I spoke to a bunch of agents and executives. And the theory was, the most prevalent theory was there's more teams with CalfSpace. That means more teams are bidding on UFAs. And if you're bidding for a UFA, that's the cost of doing business. You're going to have to give a clause. And so it's just like a self-fulfilling thing. And, you know, there's teams set precedent. A lot of actually, several people brought up Nashville. They said Nashville never gave clauses. They gave clauses to Yossi and Forresburg. Poil retired. Now, Nashville,

has clauses all across. And that's one of the reasons why there's more clauses. So, you know, it's like, it's very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Once everyone has the clause, it's hard to be the GM that says, no, I will not give one. You know, it's interesting that you mentioned Nashville in the piece as well because I was thinking of one player specifically. And why Nashville is important is, like other teams, it's a tax-free state. and the idea of if you're going to sign in Nashville, you better, or Vegas or Dallas or any of the two Florida teams,

you better get a no trade or a no move if you can to block from being traded into a highly tax state because you're going from a low, if not zero tax state into a situation where, listen, if you get moved to the Montreal Canadiens, that's half. That's over 50%. And you've already given the debt. discount in exchange. So that's and the and the interesting thing with poyle was so much of it was done on

his word too. Like that was David poyle wasn't from the old school. He was from the school they burned down to build the old school. And if he gave you his word, you know, that you weren't going to get traded. But then there was one situation that I go back to. And this is the one that I always point to. And that's Ryan Ellis. So Ryan Ellis didn't have trade protection. and I'm not sure if he was promised that from David Poyle or not. I've been told multiple different stories about it. He ends up getting traded to Pennsylvania to play with the Philadelphia Flyers. So he goes from Tennessee to Pennsylvania and the accompanying tax issues that go along with it.

I know a no trade would have obviously kept him in Nashville. That's why it's important when you're in a no tax state to try to secure that no trade. I just filibuster for a bunch. Your thoughts on that? No. No, and that was one of the common answers from the people I spoke to was if you're going to take a lower price on your contract to sign on a no-tax state, it's kind of worthless if you can then get traded to your point to another state or province with high taxes.

And the question I asked to return is, well, but they've always had no-state taxes, what's different? And they said the common answer back was, yeah, but teams didn't really lean into that before. But coming through the flat cap era, teams are really leaning into, you got to take less money because we're in a no state tax state. And that's where you get the, okay, I will, but I need a trade protection for it. So yeah, that was definitely a very common answer. It's a huge impact on your pocketbook going from, you know, at Tennessee to California, Ontario or in your example, Pennsylvania. You know, the history of the no trade is fascinating to.

the first player, I believe, to get a no trade. And it was just like handwritten by Tommy Gorman, who would have been the owner of the Ottawa senators in 1923, was Frank Clancy, King Clancy, was the first to have on his actual contract that written in. He was living at home. He had a part-time job working for the government. He wanted the stability of knowing that he was going to play.

It was a different time, folks, that he was going to play in Ottawa. Now, inevitably, the Ottawa senators did sell him to the Toronto Maple Leafs after three or four years. But nonetheless, like that was the league's first no trade. And it was just handwritten on the contract. Can't move them, can't assign them, can't cut them, can't do anything with them other than dress them to play for the Ottawa senators. It's come a long way since then. And now openly we have the NHL commissioner musing about, you know, do we bring this up with the players' associations? at some point. Do we leave it until it becomes a CBA negotiating issue?

I don't know if this is at the crisis levels for the NHL. I think if you ask certain managers, I'll tell you it's at crisis level. And the difference now is the NHL and some teams feel that these are being used as weapons for players to escape from their team and get to a very, very specific location. How do you see no trade clauses? Well, I think it all depends on your perspective. So you talked about how teams are viewing it, that players are using it to push their way to a destination. I had an agent tell me as part of this.

He said, the reason why there's more clauses, teams don't care because they know they'll just bully the player and pressure them and get them to waive it anyways. So they feel like it's not worth anything. So it's all a matter of perspective. I think, you know, if you compare clauses in NHL to the other sports, there's way more. That's because in other sports,

You have to have certain experience requirements. It's different in the CBA what allows the player to be eligible for it. But it's very hard to unwind that, right? Because it is one of those issues. I think that if players were to, or the NHL was to ask for some more restrictions, well, that just opens up the box.

Okay, well, let's look at when does players reach UFA eligibility. You know, what are, let's open up some other areas. And I think that's probably a slippery slope. I think where we're heading, though, is you have to look at Carolina. They're off in the trendsetter after the, Shane Dohn had deferred salary many, many years ago, but kind of in our modern era, Carolina was the first to do deferred salary, and then we saw other teams copy it.

Right. And I had a contract that we put on the site when I looked at the details, really got my attention. That was Taylor Hall's extension with Carolina. And he has what's called a conditional trade clause where he has a no move clause, but if he doesn't play a certain number of games and score a certain number of goals, it reduces to a partial no trade. I think that's maybe the future. You're like, let's be a little more creative. The GMs don't want to give a trade clause.

The player wants it. Let's say, okay, well, you have to earn it. Let's have some conditions in here where you earn the trade clause. To me, that's like the evolution. That's in the CBA now. That can happen between now and a potential CBA fight. You know, it's interesting. Clause is like that.

We used to see situations all the time in the NHL. A lot of this was in the late 70s and early 80s where players would have their performance bonuses. And, you know, coaches would go around the room in like the last three or four games. Okay, so who has a bonus for, you know, if they get one goal or two goals and those players would find themselves with more power play time. And what happened was, and I'll look to Toronto on this one and their late owner, Harold Ballard, who would, you know, getting late in the season, maybe playoffs aren't a thing. He doesn't want to come out of pocket anymore for bonuses. So the players that were close to earning bonuses got scratched, didn't play their games. The coaches were instructed to sit those players.

for fear of that player hitting their bonus. Again, it's a much different time. But, you know, just thinking about that Taylor Hall of contract too. And knowing the reputation of the owner. I'm not saying he's going to go down to Rod Brindamore and say, like, you know, Halsey's getting a little bit closer, a couple of extra bucks here. And I would like to keep that in my jeans. All I'm saying is it kind of opens the door for things like that again.

And I always found that really distasteful, even as a kid watching. hockey when all this was like out in the open and obvious and they would discuss it at hockey night in can then the intermissions that's fair but i do think you know teams that do that there is a price yes they're saving a few bucks on the bonus or in this case a clause but there's a price to pay like you look at anaheim right there is a reason why anaheim got hit with that big offer sheet and that's that was you know agents especially feeling like this is a team that grinds us on every opportunity try to save a dollar here and so like they deserve an offer sheet right You look at in baseball, what you're talking about, teams do that all.

Teams in baseball, they manipulate what's called service time, right, to stop players from getting arbitration eligibility. And, you know, if you could track that, those are the players that leave in for agency or like hold out later. You know, so, yes, just like in any business, you can treat your employees, you know, in that type of a way. And we'll come back around because it doesn't breed loyalty and it doesn't make players or employees want to work with the team. It makes it very adversarial. You know, the idea that the NHL would, it's funny because when Gary Bettman mentioned what he did about no trades and how they're being used and do we talk to the PA about this type of thing,

you know, one agent that I talked to right away said, if they even want to talk about it, let's put the buyout on the table then. You want to do something about no trades? Let's get rid of the buyout. Okay, how about that then? Buyouts, free agency is, I think it does open it all up. And that's a slippery slope. and I just don't think either side has the appetite for that kind of a fight.

I just don't know that like, because so much of this is bluntly, so much of this is Dylan Larkin. Although you can also say a lot of this is the Kachucks, both Calgary and Ottawa. But I don't know that I'm quite prepared to say that this is a scourge upon the NHL or this is an irreversible trend that's going to somehow damage. the league? Like, heart-up, I'm just not close to being there yet, are you? No, because it's not much different. Like, let's say, like, Quinn Hughes or Matthew

Kachukh, like, when they got traded, they had one year left on their deals, right? Or one in a bit, in Quinn Hughes's case. Like, a team isn't going to trade for him unless they feel like there's a chance to sign them. So players already had that sort of leverage. And so, I mean, yeah, it's the cost of doing business. Now where I do think there's some challenges, you know, let's not call out any specific teams, but there's teams that are on a lot of no trade clauses, right? And I think that makes it difficult. That is like a real competitive disadvantage for a team like that.

If, you know, we're saying 60% of players have a clause and if they almost all are listing your team, like that does make it harder. I just don't know how you get around that. I think like all things, winning helps, right? Like if some of those cities were winners, like look how many players had Buffalo on those clauses. and now Hallow Buck was willing to go there because they made the playoffs and they looked like they're up and coming.

So I do have some empathy for the teams that are on the receiving end of being on the no trade list, but there's a way to overcome that is winning. And yeah, I agree with you. I think the players negotiated for these clauses, the GMs gave them, and you have to just work with it. And I think it's all fair. The teams that kind of leak that the player won't waive it

and put some pressure, I think that's fair. If the player gives into that, I guess it wasn't that important to them. If they can hold the line like Colton Pereko, okay, then he has that clause and he's like, by holding firm, he's earned the right to maintain the flexibility with that. So I think it's all fair. I don't know how you're going to react to this one,

but I've thought a lot about this. Okay, I'm sitting down. Okay, so you're sitting down. Agents do not like hearing this. If you're an agent listening or watching right now, just like stop the show. They really hate it. to your point about certain markets being on pretty much all the all the all the all the no trades um do you think

things would be different if all no trade no move lists were made public would it be salary salary salaries and the details of salis it's all documented of puckpedia bless you for it it's a marvellous resource that we all use multiple times a day but there's one thing that's i that that that that that's not on there, that would be a real eyebrow razor. The list of teams. I would love it. It would certainly be good for business. Pop traffic.

But I think, you know, in fairness to the players and the teams, like, putting that out there, like they have to pick 10 teams, let's say, if it's a 10 team. Like, that doesn't mean they hate your team. And we see how many players waive their clause, right? So is it worth, like, the extra backlash of the screening? I mean, again, I would be for it because I think it'd be interesting and I'd be good for business, but I see the argument not. Every agent hates it. But the argument for it, it's like, well, hold on a second here.

Like everything else is out there. Everything else is public. And it's all, I mean, listen, one of the things that the late Bob Goodenar realized right away was disclosure helps everybody. Now, in this situation, I don't know the disclosure would help the player at all. As a matter of fact, it would probably hurt the player. And I'll tell you where. if he has his hometown on the list because he doesn't want the headache of going back to playing and getting out of his in-laws or his in-laws hometown or something like that but if you're a team

that's you know like okay i get it advantage you know everything is is up on puckpedia everyone can see all that and it helps it raises all tides and raises all ships um why don't we put out your list again i i think it's interesting um but you have these situations i think you'd have a lot more players getting booed when they are on the road, right? 100%. Why do you hate my city? I'm going to boo you. Yeah.

Like, dude, every game, there would be the list of like every player on every team, every player on the visiting team that has it on their own trade. And I guess when there's UFAs, we could cross some players, some teams off the suitors for a UFA because, hey, we know this player didn't want to go there in a trade, so he's not going to sign there. I listen. For me, more information means more coverage, which means more interest. And everybody's all grown up.

and we all have thick skin. So let's just get on with it. I don't know, man. I just got this one on my head and I can't get it out, heart. I just get. And again, any agent still listening, don't call. I don't feel like that. We have a long ways to go, though, because up until the Datanoff situation,

like I don't think anyone even knew who these were like in a drawer somewhere. Okay. That's when I started thinking about this. That's exactly when I started thinking about this. Yeah, that's the exact situation where I'm like, should these be probably? So there's no confusion. Right? Like, wait up, there's a section on Puckpedia for every player profile.

These are the teams that are on this player's no trade list. And every July 1st, when those lists get refreshed, that would be... Yes. There's not much else happening on July 1st. That'd be good for people to come check out the updated list. I love it. Thanks for indulging me on something that'll probably never happen, but I can't get that. Dare to dream.

Yeah, I know, right? You'd be well. Thanks so much for pop and... Bye. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much.