NHL Morning Coffee Headlines – September 19, 2026
Evgeni Malkin talks about his future, Simon Edvinsson is in training camp without a contract, Kirill Marchenko ducks questions about trade rumors, and more in today’s NHL Morning Coffee Headlines.
NHL.COM: Pittsburgh Penguins center Evgeni Malkin is entering his 21st NHL season, but he’s not thinking about retirement.
Pittsburgh Penguins center Evgeni Malkin (NHL Images).
“We’ll see what’s going on during the season, you know?” Malkin said. “Right now, I want to say, ‘Yes’ (to playing longer). But we’ll see how my body feels. It’s all about (that) I still love the game. It’s why I’m here, like, 21 years. I love the game. I’m excited every shift, practice, battle. See guys around, you know, have fun. But again, most important, how your body feels.”
Malkin, 40, helped the Penguins exceed expectations last season by qualifying for the playoffs. He had 61 points in 57 games, and signed a one-year, $5.5 million contract with the Penguins in May.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Another season with the Penguins will also depend on the club’s performance and whether he’s still a fit. His bounce-back effort last season helped them improve. More of the same could earn him another season in Pittsburgh, or with another NHL club if he and the Penguins can agree on an extension.
DETROIT HOCKEY NOW: Simon Edvinsson is participating in Red Wings’ training camp despite not having a new contract.
The 22-year-old restricted free agent isn’t allowed to participate in scrimmages, but he is taking part in individual drills. He joked that he’s on a professional tryout offer.
Negotiations between Edvinsson and the Wings stalled when the club relieved Steve Yzerman as general manager. The club has been searching for a full-time replacement. Earlier this week, the team named assistant general manager Shawn Horcoff interim GM.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Edvinsson should have a new contract soon. Nevertheless, the Red Wings are fortunate that he’s been so patient. He’s also been loyal, declining the opportunity to entertain offer sheets from rival teams.
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH: Blue Jackets winger Kirill Marchenko dodged questions from the media about his future in Columbus.
Marchenko, 26, reportedly isn’t interested in signing an extension with the Blue Jackets. That resulted in trade rumors during the offseason.
“I can talk only about hockey,” Marchenko said. He said it’s up to his agent Dan Milstein and Blue Jackets GM Don Waddell to figure everything out, adding that his focus is preparing for the coming season.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Marchenko may not want to talk about his contract situation, but the speculation will persist if he doesn’t want to re-sign with the Jackets. He will become a restricted free agent with arbitration rights next July and is eligible for unrestricted free-agent status in July 2028.
Waddell isn’t interested in moving Marchenko for draft picks and prospects. He wants a return that brings immediate help to his club.
DAILY FACEOFF: Toronto Maple Leafs winger Matthew Knies said he’s “back to 100 percent” after an injury hampered his play last season.
“No issues with it,” Knies said. “It’s not going to be a problem this year.”
SPECTOR’S NOTE: The Maple Leafs need the 24-year-old power forward at 100 percent if they hope to rebound from last season’s poor performance.
DAILY FACEOFF: Anaheim Ducks center Ryan Poehling missed practice on Friday and is day-to-day with a lower-body injury. Defenseman Ian Moore is out for two-to-four weeks with a lower-body injury.
TSN: The Calgary Flames signed restricted free agent Brennan Othmann to a one-year, $975,000 contract.
DAILY FACEOFF: Matt Larkin noted that NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly last week addressed the recent issue of players forcing trades.
“Certainly there’s some sentiment in the league that has concerns with respect to the way things are evolving,” Daly said. “There are several separate but somewhat related elements to that in our collective bargaining agreement. And depending on how this trend evolves, perhaps at some point in collective bargaining, they’ll have to be addressed in a different way than they’re being addressed now. But we haven’t even started our current collective bargaining agreement [as of Sept. 9, the day he spoke to reporters], which is four years. And I certainly don’t expect the need to address this, what looks like it might become a trend, earlier than the next collective bargaining agreement [beginning in 2030].”
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Even if this becomes a trend, I’m not sure what the league could do to prevent it. The collective bargaining agreement doesn’t prevent a player from requesting a trade, and the team isn’t obligated to honor it.
Daly’s statement about “related elements to that in our collective bargaining agreement” probably refers to no-trade protection. The recent trade requests by Detroit Red Wings center Dylan Larkin and Winnipeg Jets goaltender Connor Hellebuyck have some fans (and perhaps some NHL owners and general managers) calling for a rule that voids a player’s no-trade clause if they request a trade.
Player agent Allan Walsh recently pointed out that no one forces teams to give out no-movement and no-trade clauses. “They are freely negotiated as part of NHL contracts,” Walsh wrote. That also applies to what the clauses look like over the term of the contract. For example, Hellebuyck has a full no-movement clause through the first three years of his seven-year contract, followed by a 10-team trade list for the final four years.
The NHLPA would push back against any attempt to eliminate or limit trade requests. They’ll point out that teams trade players all the time, often without warning, leaving the player with no say.
There are already limits on no-movement and no-trade clauses. Players are only eligible for those clauses in the years they reach eligibility for unrestricted free-agent status. That’s when they have seven accrued NHL seasons or reach age 27 or older.
No-movement and no-trade clauses tend to be flexible. More than one player has agreed to waive them when approached by management, or to provide a list of preferred destinations.
Simple fix asking out voids your trade protection
Simple to say, Mrbruin4. Good luck getting the NHLPA to agree without getting something significant in return. They’ll argue that loyalty shouldn’t be a one-way street, pointing out that players are traded all the time with no warning, with most having no say on where they go.
Lyle
I agree That union won’t want that added to the next cba and would probably cause a walkout if they tried
Mrbruin4: It shouldn’t come to that. The NHL doesn’t want anything to disrupt those sweet revenue streams. This isn’t a hill they’ll want to die on.
As usual it all depends on how you phrase it and who could be more persuasive.
An NTC protects the player by giving him control of where he plays and gives the team control of having a player committed to the team.
A player demanding a trade while under a NTC and providing a list, big or small, allows the player to maintain control of where he plays.
The team however no longer has control of having the player committed to the team.
The player has the benefit of following his contract AND demanding extra benefit to maintain control.
The team loses control on account of the player usurping extra benefit.
In essence a player is being allowed to unilaterally change his NTC to a modified NTC without it being an agreed upon addendum to the contract.
The NHLPA has to give up something significant in return to the owners, at minimum a negotiated agreement on how to modify the contract.
habfan30: This is something that can already be negotiated. And as Allan Walsh pointed out, no one is forcing GMs to hand out those clauses. They’re freely negotiated as part of NHL contracts. Don’t forget that sometimes a GM will offer a player no-trade or no-move protection to entice them to accept a lower AAV. Whenever you see a depth player ending up with some sort of NTC, that’s one reason why.
If you want to give yourself more leeway, you either don’t give them no-trade protection, keep it to a minimum, or agree that the NTC is voided if the player requests a trade.
Are the teams able to add in the contracts a clause voiding the no-movement when a player is asking for a trade?
To my knowledge, there is nothing preventing a team from having that included as part of the contract if the player agrees to it.
Lyle, i understand the mechanics of NTC and MNTC as well as the benefits for both the player and the team. I’m not averse to the concept as it assures stability at a price.
What you aren’t addressing in my comment is that players like Larkin and Hellebuyck are unilaterally changing the contract, turning an NTC into a MNTC while demanding a trade.
Players and GMs agree on the terms before signing a contract and are bound by them, an NTC goes both ways and I think the CBA disallows any modifications to a contract through it’s span, eg a player cannot agree to a pay cut to give the team cap space during the contract.
You’re saying the ownership has to give up something significant on top of allowing players to re-write their contracts, I’m saying that at minimum it has to be a negotiated settlement, with a CBA addendum allowing for the re-negotiation.
habfan30: Hellebuyck and Larkin requesting trades isn’t “rewriting the contract”. There is nothing in the CBA that prevents them from asking to be traded, and the team isn’t under any obligation to honor the request. Hellebuyck is breaching his contract by refusing to report to training camp, and he’s suspended without pay as per the CBA. Larkin, meanwhile, is honoring his contract by reporting to camp despite his trade request going unaddressed thus far.
As noted earlier, general managers can already negotiate with the player and his agent regarding what the terms of the NTC and NMC will be. Both sides can agree that the player’s no-trade protection will be voided if they request a trade, or that they must submit a list of a mutually agreed number of destinations.
If the league pushes to change or restrict the current NMC/NTC setup in the next round of collective bargaining, the NHLPA will rightly point to the fact that teams can trade players without trade protection at any time, giving them no say in where they go. They’ll also point to the fact that there are already limitations in place for NTC/MNC eligbility, with NHL players waiting until age 27 or seven accrued seasons before they’re eligible for no-trade protection.
With all due respect Lyle, teams are being forced to give out NTC and NMC. The players’ agents won’t let them sign without anymore. At least the elite players. Walsh is an agent but if he wanted to take a pay cut and become a GM he would complain about the clauses.
Ed, teams aren’t being “forced” to give them out. They are freely negotiated. If the player and his agent insist on having an NTC or NMC, then the general manager should negotiate what the terms will be. That why some players will have full NTC or NMC at the front half of their contracts, and reduced NTCs in the latter half. In Hellebuyck’s case, he has a full NMC in the first three years, followed by a 10-team trade list in the final four years. And don’t forget, sometimes a general manager will offer those clauses to entice the player to accept a lower AAV.
Probably because Larkin is requesting a trade, whereas Edvinsson wants to stay.
Heading out so will miss the Trade post today–
the Wild have their next 4 1st round picks. Kiril is not getting any younger and they most likely lose Hughes this summer.
There has to be a trade for Larkin where a third team sends a center back to Detroit for Wild assets which would probably include 2 1sts.
This could be the best Wild roster even with Boldy/Faber being young.Billy G has to go all in
Maybe, Detroit finally settles for Yurov, Hartman or Trenin, and Stramel.
With Trennin the salary that needs to go is a wee bit short, so another move would be necessary.
Seems to me that one Martin StLouis demanded a trade and only gave 1team as to where he would go. His problem was with Steve Yzerman.
Larkin had never seen eye to eye with Stevie, but the other wrinkle seems obvious now that Larkin’s problem is with Chris Illich and his control on Stevie Y and the team. Ironically, it was reported that it was that same Illich that stopped Y from trading Larkin when Larks’ last contract was up, and gave him a new contract and the captaincy.
I wonder if Malkin was approached and “asked” to be in the Russian propaganda video?
Doubtful, considering he and his famly spends most of their time in Florida when he’s not playing in Pittsburgh.
Ownership “interferes” Fred? Who do you think is writing the cheques?
Lyle has it right, IMO. The way to deal with these “I want to be traded” requests is manageable in the terms of the contract. Effectively, it means eliminating a true NT or NM clause.
Does this mean players have superior leverage? Only the best of the best.
Players often have personal considerations including staying where they are where the kids won’t lose their friends, where wives are happy where they are, maybe they like the tax situation, or maybe they like the team they are on. Lots of considerations in a negotiation.
Teams aren’t required to respond to “trade me” requests and considering that the players are under contract for a number of years there is no “trade me” that has any reason to be entertained.
Demanding a trade while using the existing NMC to limit where they can be traded to is extortion.
There is a reason for NMC ” Players often have personal considerations including staying where they are where the kids won’t lose their friends, where wives are happy where they are, maybe they like the tax situation, or maybe they like the team they are on. Lots of considerations in a negotiation. ”
All true and acceptable- Teams negotiate NMC as an inducement to get lower AAV and long term stability.
We can phrase it any way we want but at it’s core, there is a contract that the player wants to change unilaterally. The team doesn’t need to accept and can tell the player to stfu and honour the contract.
There are ways to negotiate around it, I just don’t believe the owners need to give up something significant. It’s the players who want to get the right or ability to change the existing NMC in their contracts to facilitate a trade to their team of choice.
Why should or would the teams agree without getting something in return??
HF30: I agree with much of what you say. In essence, what you are saying is that such players are in a breach of promise, a moral, and perhaps unethical violation but not a legal one. They should not be rewarded.
But are they? Two things to consider:
First, Larkin and Hellybuyck are finding out that they have less leverage than they thought. Imagine Larkin’s chagrin, stripped of the C, no team of his liking willing to pay the price to acquire him, and having to walk back in to a dressing room where the players know that, effectively, he doesn’t believe in them. What Larkin has said is essentially: I can’t win a Cup with you lot. Hellybuyck’ situation is different only in that he is trying to force a trade by not reporting. Not what he imagined either.
Thus what we are often seeing is Instant Karma. IMO these situations will not be lost on other players contemplating the same thing.
And while GMs have to consider the consequences of retaining a player who wants out, the Sabres did ok with the Eichel fiasco (of their own making), the Sens did ok trading Tkachuk, and the Bolts made out like bandits trading Drouin. So to respond to your question, teams don’t typically agree to move an unhappy player unless they get a fair market return.
And Helly having to beff up security for him and his family after returning from a victorious Olympics has nothing to do with living in Canada.
“Demanding a trade while using the existing NMC to limit where they can be traded to is extortion.” No, it isn’t. It’s within the rules of the collective bargaining agreement, based on what the team and the player agreed to in their contract.
“We can phrase it any way we want but at it’s core, there is a contract that the player wants to change unilaterally.” The player isn’t changing the contract at all. There is nothing that prevents him from seeking a trade, and the team has no obligation to honor that request. If the player wants to be traded, and has a full NTC or NMC, he must provide a list of acceptable trade destinations. And if the teams on that list aren’t willing to pay his team’s asking price, he must accept the situation (as Larkin has, albeit grudgingly), expand his trade list to improve his chances of being traded, or refuse to report and suffer the consequences of breach of contract.
“It’s the players who want to get the right or ability to change the existing NMC in their contracts to facilitate a trade to their team of choice.” No, the player is requesting a trade as is his right. He and the team negotiated the NMC and both must abide by it as noted above. He’s not “changing the existing NMC”, he’s abiding by what was agreed upon when the contract was signed. He’s not requesting a trade and refusing to waive the clause because that’s silly. If he’s requesting a trade, the team needs to know where he’s willing to be traded.
“Why should or would the teams agree without getting something in return??” Because they already have limitations on eligibility for no-trade/no-move protection. They have full control over the player until age 27 or seven accrued seasons, whichever comes first. They can demote that player to the minors or trade him without the player’s consent at any time during that period. It’s difficult to tell the PA with a straight face that you believe the players should have even less control over their fates once they reach the eligibility to negotiate no-trade protection into their contracts.
The shortage of NYR fans in this discussion is notable. Look at how the Rangers treated Goodrow, Trouba (who, like Larkin, was team captain) and Kreider. This is the billionaires vs. the millionaires. I ain’t either, and I have little sympathy for both. But frankly, between the owners and the players, I pay money to see the players.
I dont mind players wanting a trade even after a year or two after they signed up long term with a team. I just think the team should take their time and get the best deal possible. Hellebuyck loses roughly 1 million for every 10 games sitting out. Kevin is saving the owner hard cash. Dont rush it. Some team will get a serious goalie injury in October or Devils and Sabres will realize that what they have now will not get them into the playoffs. thx
What about the following
If a player has a no movement clause and then requests a trade before the contract is over the no movement clause goes away and the team can trade him to any team that wants the player
Sure, if the player’s camp and the team’s management agreed to that during the contract negotiation. They are currently allowed to do so. The league doesn’t need to do the GMs job for them.
I certainly the NHL has to get rid of the NMC/NTC, Hopefully that will happen this summer.
The NHL cannot do anything to change NMC/NTC until the next round of collective bargaining. The current CBA doesn’t expire until September 15, 2030. And the league can’t unilaterally change it, they need the NHLPA to agree to it.
There is nothing wrong with the system except maybe the players don’t have enough control for too long. 27 is edging towards the sunset of prime. Owners gms need to be able to tell a Larkin or helly “if the right deal comes along great… till then play and be paid or don’t play and don’t be paid.” Only change is make is if a player sits out to start the season the team can choose to suspend for the entire year so they know what their cap situation is.