Does Dylan Larkin Want to Stay in the United States?

Here’s a question worth asking about Dylan Larkin’s trade list: could playing in the United States be part of what he wants? The clue is pretty simple. Larkin’s reported list of 10 teams has no Canadian clubs on it. Montreal isn’t there, but neither are Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver. Every team on the reported list is American. That doesn’t prove why he picked those destinations, but it does make you wonder whether location is part of the picture.

Maybe it is. Players have families, routines and personal ties. Staying in the U.S. might matter to Larkin for reasons fans don’t know about. He may also simply see a better hockey fit among those teams—or have other personal reasons for favoring them. The list tells us where he’s reportedly willing to go; it doesn’t give us his explanation.

That distinction matters. It would be easy to turn the pattern into a headline like “Larkin refuses to play in Canada.” But that’s stronger than what we know. He hasn’t publicly said that, and a trade list can reflect more than one thing. The 10 teams might appeal for their chances to win, their rosters, their locations—or some combination of factors.

Still, I don’t think the question is out of bounds. NHL players make huge career and family decisions, and geography could be one factor. It’s also interesting that Larkin has represented the United States internationally. That doesn’t tell us where he wants to play in the NHL, of course—playing for your country and choosing a club are separate things. But it’s part of why fans may wonder whether returning to, or staying in, the U.S. matters to him.

As of November 2, Larkin has reportedly gone beyond requesting a trade. He told Detroit he would no longer play for the Red Wings until he is traded, and the club suspended him without pay. His reported 10-team list still contains no Canadian teams.

So here’s the fair version: Larkin’s reported list raises the possibility that he prefers American destinations. It doesn’t tell us whether that preference is about national identity, family, lifestyle, hockey fit, or something else.

That’s not a verdict on the player. It’s a question suggested by the pattern—and one worth discussing as long as we’re honest about the difference between a clue and an answer. Larkin’s choice, while just that – his choice – reflects what seems to be a growing trend in the NHL.

Is that what’s happening with Larkin? We don’t know. If location is part of his thinking, he may have perfectly understandable personal reasons for keeping that to himself. There’s no reason to blame him for having preferences about where he wants to live and work. But it’s a question Canadian hockey fans are entitled to ask.