now let's think this through together. Why would Marleau waive his full no movement clause to go to edmonton?

Sask boy probably dreamed of being a Oiler, one day

18 in 97 would put him 11 years old the last time the oilers won the cup, everybody has a reach on there builds lol

marleau to edmonton isn't a reach though. it's more of a, "why bother?"

1 year of marleau, better than 4 years of Lucic, Toronto saves cap room this year, and edm gets rid of Lucic deal and buys low on zaitzev and decent bargain on kadri

no. movement. clause.

I can understand why Toronto would want to ship Marleau to Edmonton. I can understand why, if given assets, Edmonton would be willing to take Marleau. There isn't a .00000001% chance that Marleau would waive his NMC to play in edmonton.

What if there’s a threat of being buried in minors, and finish his career as a marlie, they may change his tune on pride, Would be tough on morale In dressing room such a move

no. movement. clause.

movement doesn't mean trade. that's a no trade clause. movement means trade, waivers, expansion draft exposure, and, you guessed it, demotions. They can't send him to the minors. They can't send him anywhere without his permission. He's a leaf.

Ah fair enough I didn’t realize the demotion part of nmc, so leaf he is, even if it’s press box or stay home or whatever he gets paid

here's something i'm curious about. would an NMC still exist after retirement? let's say Dubas is a real jerk to Marleau trying to get him to waive, and Marleau decides to retire. Even after he retired, can he still use his NMC to decline trades? That would really screw the leafs in a kind of hilarious way.

I’d imagine it would still be in place, kinda like if datsuyk or pronger or hossa refused to go to arizona in contract only