Chris Pronger

Here's what our plan is.

Do you fit into that plan?

Are you going to want to be here two, three, four years down the line when your contract's up?

And, you know, if you still want to be married to that player, or if you want to get off and they want to move too, it's like, okay, we're going to need a short list of teams that you'll accept the trade to.

You can't have one team.

There's got to be, you got to have the ability to move somebody to three or four or five teams to be able to garner enough that makes it worth your while to trade the player and get the right assets back.

But

then it becomes always understanding these no moves, no trades, whatever.

You get a third or fourth line player, why do they have a limited no trade?

You either want to play or you don't.

Give me a break.

I think that's where a lot of these GMs, a lot of these teams, they give up so much power for no reason.

If that's the case, then don't sign the guy.

If you're giving up control and power like that to a player that frankly hasn't earned it and is really going to limit your options as the team kind of forms itself and you get a better understanding of what you're working with,

it's just you're hamstringing yourself too much.

You have to have a hard line.

There has to be, okay, these are our three or four building blocks, and maybe you give a limited no trade to three or four guys, or maybe you're keying in on one free agent or one player via trade that you got to sign as an RFA, and you're like, okay, we're going to give this guy a limited no trade because...

We need to get them signed to a longer than a one or two year deal, whatever that term looks like, in order to get them locked up to a number that's going to allow you to continue to build your roster.

But I think there's a lot of players that get a no move.

Frankly, I don't think they deserve it.