Let's talk about Larkin

[Army's Mom]

Larkin isn’t dictating anything. He requested a trade, and Yzerman is under no obligation to oblige. And functionally reducing his full NTC to a 28-team NTC is a benefit to Yzerman, not the other way around because, again, the Wings aren’t being forced to do anything.

Look at it this way. A player can hold a full NTC, allowing the player to veto any trade request put before him; if the GM still wants to trade said player, the player must approve. However, a team ALWAYS holds its own full NTC - the team must approve any trade request from a player. Larkin is free to ask, and Yzerman is free to reject; just like Yzerman is free to ask Larkin to be traded, and Larkin is free to reject. If a player holds a full NTC but the GM still tries to trade said player, does that request now void the team’s NTC and allow the player to force the team to trade him anywhere he wants? No…so why would it follow that Larkin’s trade request voids his NTC?

Probably the best justification for Larkin's side of the argument I've read - I'll give you that! I think that's what BB was also saying - it just wasn't sinking into this thick skull yesterday lol.

I think going public does tend towards "dictating", but A) by itself, without Larkin holding out, it still doesnt violate the contract, and B) I'm not even sure if Larkin is responsible for the leak (I assume so, but thats hardly proof).

To the extent the trade request doesnt pressure Yzerman into a bad a trade, I have no problem letting it drag on and leaving the partial "29 team NTC" as is. But if he holds out or tries applying public pressure to force his way, I still say that should further diminish or nullify his trade protection.

As a policy matter, I also think the League has an interest in modifying future NTCs to specify what exactly happens when a player under full NTC requests a trade (something like a minimum number of teams that must be added to a trade list).

[DawgDad]

There is no provision to force a team to accept a trade, nor should there be. This case has weirded out because Larkin has FIVE seasons left on his contract.

[TheJackBurton]

Them benefiting from under market costs is irrelevant, since it was negotiated and agreed to by Larkin in good faith.

They didn't give him a clause that "allows him to control who he plays for" - they gave him a clause that forbids them from trading him - something he now is asking for. The clause doesn't say "we'll trade you to whomever you wish for, whenever you wish for it, regardless of return" because that would be silly.

The No Trade Clause forbids them from trading him… from where he doesn’t want to go. He can update to based on their contractual agreement.

Just because he asks them for a trade to somewhere doesn’t mean they are required to oblige.

No, the no trade clause gives him the right of refusal if they attempt to trade him. They aren't trying to trade him, he wants to be traded, but only to a team he wants to go to. If he was concerned with Detroit not making the playoffs, he had an opportunity to go to whatever team he wanted to 3 seasons ago as an UFA. He extended because he wanted the money, the security, and negotiated the NMC so that they couldn't trade him. You can't demand not to be traded then treat your NMC like you are a UFA. Not the way these things should work. On top of that Minnesota knows that odds are they only team really in the running, so what incentive is there for them to offer anything of value for him? Would you?

By requesting the trade, he's asking for the "no trades" part of the clause to be voided. He shouldn't get to then dictate its only voided with regards to one team, or three teams, or five teams. Otherwise, where does it end? "Trade me, but only to a team my best buddy plays for, provided they're not trading you any of their good players, because I really want to win. And also, you must retain the maximum amount allowed of my salary, so that they have maximum cap space to sign other players to facilitate my winning, because I hate you."

Again, that would be silly.


By requesting the trade, he should lose the protection of the NTC entirely. But I'm reasonable. I'd settle for half the league - let him veto rebuilding teams or the west coast or Canada.

The bolded isn’t remotely true. I’d love for you to spell out where in the contract language “no trades part be voided.”

That's where this is likely going to be headed. You want the NMC, you will either honor it for the length of the contract or if you request to be traded, it then turns into a M-NTC, or you are going to see very few players getting them. Odds are the majority will be signing a NTC that last for the first 3-4 seasons and the rest turn into M-NTC. The players will cry about it, but they will be the reason for it. They are actively killing their only form of power.

And yes, he should get to dictate where he gets traded… That is what the ‘No Trade Clause’ (NTC) is. A legally-bound acceptance to where he could be traded. I assume his contract doesn’t require him place any teams on his NTC at this point of the contract if he didn’t want to.

The only way he is legally forced to provide a list is if the contract called for him to. It doesn’t appear to. It appears Yzerman is trying to coerce him to expand his list beyond what he’s legally obligated to fulfill so the Detroit Redwings could maximize the return they feel is best for them.

Dylan Larkin couldn’t give a flying F what comes back. Not his problem. That’s a Steve-Y problem.

Minnesota needs a Center. There’s a fit. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Matt Boldy. Minnesota doesn’t need to follow through with that trade. Also, Steve-Y can’t get a deal w/Florida nor Vegas. He pleads w/Larkin to expand his NTC list; which Larkin isn’t required to do.

Larkin obliged and provides Dallas to the list. Despite having zero leverage, Steve-Y asks for the highest possible return in Wyatt Johnston. I imagine the Dallas GM pressed the phone receiver up to his buttock and ripped the best fart he could muster before laughing and hanging up. Dallas doesn’t need to follow through with that trade.

When does it end? Ask Pat Verbeek what happens when you’re late to the party everyone could see from a mile away. It ends when teams get smarter about their contract language.

This isn’t something new to sports. It happens all the time. A player asks for a trade and either the organization obliges or tells them to suck it up they’re under contract. It really is that simple.

Players who have NMC have not previously asked for trades all the time. Now that they are, things will change.

Larkin didn't oblige, he is seeing giving Minnesota as the only realistic option is no option at all, so he very likely expanded in the hopes that Guerin ups the offer to get the trade done. Problem is, he picked another team that also has serious cap issues and a player of their own that only wants to play for a very specific set of teams and I would gather Detroit isn't one of them. He is looking at this and realizing that he could very well be wearing a Red Wing jersey at the beginning of the season and this could be a very ugly season and I would imagine soon he expands the list again because Yzerman has proven he won't cave.