I dont think teams want a NMC heading into the expansion draft, Unless its voided once he waives it, you might be stuck with him

This

Zucc isn't waiving his NMC, And i doubt teams want his NMC with the expansion draft coming up in 2021.

I agree. If he agreed to waive it to the team he was traded to, what scenario do you see as making sense?

teams only have the "opt-out" if the player is traded before the NMC contract starts. even if zucc waives, the new team will have his full NMC.

Columbus declines. We already have several players like Zuccarello. We’d rather keep Anderson who plays a much different style and has a size factor we don’t really have on the right side, outside of him.

To get the best value back at least 1m retention starts to become tempting. Zucc at 4 years 5m aav...would be hard press to find that UFA value for a2nd line winger.
Thats how I see it at least, give a team an option they cant find in UFA

good to know. So no team really wants that unless they are getting rid of a NMC in a deal as well

I believe this is true. Zuccarello has and will always have a NMC no matter where he goes. Making him very unattractive for a team until the expansion draft business is settled. After that, if he can still play, I could see some team making a move for him but it surely won't be for the guys you mentioned.

Would you do Kase for Zucc

Not true.

What is a No-Move Clause (NMC)?
A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties:
- Player cannot be traded without his consent (however, the clause can specify a modified no-trade clause that limits the NTC to a certain number of teams)
- Player cannot be placed on waivers without his consent
- Player cannot be assigned to the minors without his consent
- Player is not exempt from a buyout or contract termination
- The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
-- This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
-- If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
- If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc

lol ok if the player deliberately agrees to waive it and not keep it going forward also, the team claiming him doesn't have to keep it either. I kind of feel that was a given. That involves the player agreeing to not have it any longer.

If Zuccarello decides he still ants the NMC clause but will waive it for the purposes of a single trade only, his agent will make that part of the trade process. Meaning it will stay with him and his contract.

Not a given. The statement @grok made is false.

Are you sure? It happened with Subban awhile back. His NTC was not honored once he was traded to Nashville, before his NTC kicked in. If the players NTC/NMC has not kicked in yet, the team trading for him apparently has the right to not honor it. Once its in play however and the player wants to keep it, there is nothing a team can do to "remove" it without the players consent.

I posted the FAQ sheet from this site above. Re-read that and it should answer your query.

In a heartbeat!

Thank you for this! There has been a lot of confusion about this on this site...and I’ve probably been the one most confused.

Yeah i see that but im saying Zucc can agree to be traded WHILE also keeping his NMC if he wants to. As per stating it in the trade agreement prior to being traded. Right?

If I was Zuccarello and the team I just signed a 5 year deal with decided to tear it down and rebuild, I would definitely waive my NMC and waive it for the team acquiring me if that’s what it would take to get moved. However, I would only do this to go to a contending team.

Sure, but the statement I was responding to was "teams only have the "opt-out" if the player is traded before the NMC contract starts" which is incorrect. There is a way to trade an NMC'd player and have the clause removed, but it requires all parties to agree.

So as you say it's possible for the player to agree to the trade while not agreeing to remove the clause. It's hard to see Edmonton (or anyone) doing that right now because it impacts the expansion draft charts - they'd really have to like the player. This is one of the reasons why the Lucic-Neal trade was so good for Edmonton: Lucic needs to be protected while Neal does not.

Lol Ok fair enough. Semantics it is.

He'd only waive for the Rangers I bet.

Maybe Dallas too.