I remember when only the best of the best could control potential movement. I remember when GMs would fight hard against the agent for a no trade clause and I remember when the media would yell and scream at the GM on behalf of the fans for not caving on the no trade clause.
Fast forward and just about every contract of significant value comes complete with a NO MOVEMENT CLAUSE. This means that you cannot even send the player to the AHL. People complain about professors at universities with tenure. Now hockey players have tenure.
The players want this to avoid being sent to "Siberia" in effect. But there have been cases recently where the player is not only controlling the location of his new team, but also what assets are being traded for him. It is used in a vendictive way to hurt the previous team.
The NHL should act with the NHLPA and revise this no movement trend. Here is a suggestion that would make players easier to move and still benefit the current team. I recommend that each no movement clause be replaced with a clause that would allow the player to name 6 teams (that is 20%) of the league where he will not play. This leaves the team to make trades with almost 80% of the league.