Quick hit because Deseret ran a piece this weekend on a question that floods my mentions every trade deadline: why does basically every notable NHL player have a no-trade clause when your average NBA star or NFL quarterback has nothing close to it?

Short answer, the CBA. The NHL's collective bargaining agreement lets teams hand out full no-move and no-trade clauses like candy, and GMs keep doing it because it's a cheap way to squeeze salary down. Want a player to take a team-friendly cap hit in a league with a hard cap where every dollar matters? Sweeten the pot with trade protection. Costs the front office nothing on the books today and everything at the deadline tomorrow.

Nobody prices that tradeoff in correctly. Ask any GM trying to make a hockey trade in February. The majority of the era's big names carry some form of trade clause, so every deal becomes a permission slip negotiation. You're not just matching cap hits, you're matching cap hits AND convincing a 31-year-old with a family to uproot to a market he may not have on his list.

Compare the other leagues. The NBA funnels trade protection through star leverage, so a handful of supermax guys have them, not half the roster. The NFL barely has guaranteed contracts at all, let alone no-trade protection; you're more likely to get cut than traded. Baseball has the 10-and-5 rule and full no-trades for elite players, but it's a much smaller club. The NHL is the only league where trade protection is basically standard equipment.

The fantasy angle is why I care beyond curiosity. In fantasy hockey, trade clauses suppress player movement and suppressed movement means suppressed value swings. A guy stuck on a bad team because he can veto a move keeps his floor spot on the power play and keeps his plus/minus in the gutter. When I'm valuing a second-half bounceback candidate, clause status is part of the math same as usage and injury history. Trust me on this one.

Ray Delgado will tell you the real reason is that hockey people are loyal and loyalty means handshake deals, and the numbers guys like me ruined it with spreadsheets. Ray, the data says the clause-per-roster rate is a structural CBA outcome, not a vibes outcome. But he's half right in a way I hate admitting: the leagues with the fewest clauses treat players most like assets, and the NHL's version at least forces teams to talk to human beings before shipping them across the continent. That lines up with something I wrote about the Marchand situation last week, where a veteran's situation matters as much as his stat line.

Anyway. Something to watch as the next CBA cycle approaches, because if the league ever narrows clause eligibility, midseason fantasy hockey gets a lot more chaotic, in a good way. Are you drafting around clause guys differently than everyone else, or did you not even know who has one? Check your roster. I'd bet at least two of your top four skaters do.