As Oilers Begin Talks With McDavid, Reports Suggest One Contract Term Could Derail Extension With Franchise Cornerstone
The Edmonton Oilers stand at a crossroads as they begin what could be the most important contract negotiation in franchise history. Connor McDavid, the team’s captain, face of the franchise, and arguably the best player in the world, is now eligible for an extension. While the Oilers have made it clear that retaining McDavid long-term is the organization’s top priority, early reports from league insiders suggest there may already be a critical sticking point in the talks. McDavid, known for his surgical precision on the ice and calm demeanor off it, reportedly has no interest in agreeing to a contract with a full no-movement clause (NMC). This unexpected development could alter the dynamics of negotiations and reshape the team’s long-term outlook.
McDavid, who still has two years left on the eight-year, $100 million deal he signed in 2017, is eligible to sign an extension on July 1, 2025. Given the caliber of player he is—four-time Art Ross Trophy winner, three-time Hart Memorial Trophy recipient, and perennial MVP candidate—there’s no question that the Oilers will offer him a deal that would once again make him the highest-paid player in the league. The question is: what kind of deal will McDavid accept?
The Oilers’ front office is in a difficult position. Losing a generational talent like McDavid, either to free agency or via trade, would be a catastrophic blow to a franchise that has only recently returned to relevance after years of futility. General Manager Jeff Jackson, who served as McDavid’s agent prior to taking the GM job, is intimately familiar with both the player’s expectations and his priorities. That inside knowledge may help facilitate talks, but it also raises the stakes. Jackson was hired in part because of his relationship with McDavid; failure to lock him down would be a damning indictment of management’s ability to deliver on its mandate.
The reported impasse over the no-movement clause is a curious one. NMCs are typically coveted by players of McDavid’s stature, offering security and control over their career path. They ensure that a player cannot be traded, waived, or sent to the minors without consent. Most superstar-level deals include such clauses as a show of commitment and mutual respect between player and franchise. That McDavid is hesitant—or even outright opposed—to including one is raising eyebrows around the league.
Speculation around McDavid’s reasoning is rampant. One theory is that he wants to maintain flexibility in the latter part of his career, either to explore other opportunities or to avoid being anchored to a team that might enter a rebuild. Another possibility is that McDavid wants to avoid being part of a power dynamic where the front office assumes he is immovable and builds the roster in ways that might not align with his own competitive timeline. By not insisting on an NMC, McDavid could be subtly signaling a desire to hold the Oilers accountable for remaining competitive year after year.
Sources close to the situation have also noted that McDavid is deeply invested in winning a Stanley Cup in Edmonton. After coming within a game of reaching the Finals this past season, he appears more focused than ever on completing unfinished business. If the Oilers continue to build a championship-caliber roster, he may have no reason to leave. But if they falter, the absence of an NMC would allow both parties to part ways amicably without the burden of a restrictive clause.
From Edmonton’s perspective, the lack of an NMC presents a complicated challenge. On one hand, it gives the team some flexibility in the event that the relationship sours or if a blockbuster offer emerges down the line. On the other hand, it introduces a level of uncertainty that could cast a shadow over the locker room and the fanbase. The Oilers have been down this road before, having seen great players like Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier leave the franchise under complicated circumstances. They cannot afford another chapter of that kind.
Adding further complexity is the fact that McDavid’s linemate and close friend Leon Draisaitl is also due for an extension. Draisaitl’s deal expires at the end of the 2025-26 season, and there’s already a belief that he will command a significant raise from his current $8.5 million cap hit. If the Oilers lock up McDavid and Draisaitl to long-term deals, they will likely commit nearly $30 million annually to two players. That’s a hefty investment, but one the team may have no choice but to make if it wants to stay in the Cup conversation.
There’s also the issue of cap space. The NHL’s salary cap is projected to rise in the coming seasons, which could create room for the Oilers to extend their stars and still build around them. However, the margin for error will be thin. Mistakes in free agency or long-term commitments to aging veterans could hamper the team’s flexibility. McDavid’s reported reluctance to sign a contract with an NMC may also be a way of giving himself an exit strategy if those mistakes become too much to overcome.
In the public eye, McDavid has remained tight-lipped. He has expressed loyalty to Edmonton, praised the city and its fans, and repeatedly stated his desire to win there. But in the modern NHL, loyalty is often balanced against practicality. McDavid is approaching his 30s, and with a decade of high-level wear and tear on his body, the window to win a Cup as the centerpiece of a dynasty is closing. He knows better than anyone how difficult it is to reach the summit. A single injury, coaching change, or cap mismanagement could unravel the team’s potential in an instant.
For Oilers fans, the situation is both nerve-wracking and all too familiar. Edmonton has been home to some of the greatest talents in hockey history, yet has struggled to translate that into sustained success. The specter of losing McDavid, even if not imminent, brings back painful memories of franchise icons departing under less-than-ideal conditions. Management must now walk a tightrope: give McDavid enough incentive to stay while maintaining the organizational flexibility to pivot if needed.
If McDavid truly does not want an NMC, it may not necessarily indicate discontent. In fact, it could be a calculated decision from a player who wants to keep options open without holding his team hostage. It may also be a negotiation tactic designed to apply pressure and extract greater value elsewhere in the deal—perhaps in salary, bonuses, or performance incentives. Players at McDavid’s level operate with a keen awareness of their value and the business side of the sport. Nothing in this process will be left to chance.
As the off-season progresses, the eyes of the hockey world will remain firmly fixed on Edmonton. Every move, every quote, every report will be dissected for clues about McDavid’s future. The Oilers must balance urgency with patience, clarity with discretion. They know they are dealing with a once-in-a-generation talent. And while the absence of an NMC may be concerning, it is not necessarily a dealbreaker—at least not yet.
Ultimately, the success of these negotiations will come down to trust. If McDavid believes the Oilers can deliver on their championship promise, he may not need a no-movement clause. His commitment would be symbolic rather than contractual. But if doubt creeps in—if roster moves, coaching changes, or organizational instability shake his confidence—the lack of an NMC could become the prelude to a farewell.
For now, the puck is in the Oilers’ zone. They have the opportunity to build a team worthy of their captain’s prime years. How they handle these negotiations—and how they respond to McDavid’s stance—will shape the direction of the franchise for years to come. If there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s this: Connor McDavid holds all the cards, and the Oilers know it.
