Chris Pronger

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.

And it affects a lot of teams' ability to make moves.

I think we would see a lot more moves throughout the course of the season outside of the deadline if there weren't so many limited no-trade or no-move clauses.

There's a lot of stuff I think that gets turned down.

I think it still has some value to it.

You keep Nyes.

There's a good base of players that they can keep around.

You've got Joseph Wall.

You've got Matthews, Nyes, a couple of young guys, Cowan.