Story Summary
Detroit’s two major personnel questions remain unresolved. Dylan Larkin’s trade request is still in place, according to Elliotte Friedman, while restricted free-agent defenceman Simon Edvinsson is reportedly waiting for a contract agreement before returning to the ice.
Larkin has broadened the group of teams he would consider joining from an initial three to roughly eight or nine, Friedman said, with the list made up of United States-based contenders. The 30-year-old centre requested a trade after the 2025-26 season, a move Detroit has publicly acknowledged, and he remains under contract for five more seasons.
The immediate complication is that Larkin is reportedly injured, leaving uncertainty over when he will be ready to play. Friedman also suggested Detroit’s ability to complete a move rests on finding a return that assists the club now rather than simply collecting future assets.
Edvinsson’s situation is separate but similarly unsettled. Detroit was reportedly pursuing a bridge contract as of the weekend, while the defenceman was seeking more. The Swedish blueliner has returned to Sweden and is skating with Frölunda after participating in training-camp practices.
Key Facts
- Dylan Larkin requested a trade following the 2025-26 season; Detroit has publicly confirmed that request.
- Larkin reportedly expanded his acceptable destinations from three teams to approximately eight or nine United States-based contenders.
- Larkin is reportedly injured, with no timetable for his availability stated.
- Larkin has five years remaining on the eight-year, $69.9 million contract he joined Detroit in March 2023.
- Simon Edvinsson is a restricted free agent and is reportedly seeking more than the bridge-deal structure Detroit had been considering.
- Edvinsson took part in Detroit training-camp practices before returning to Sweden to skate with Frölunda.
- Interim general manager Shawn Horcoff has said Detroit is not interested in a rebuild, a stance that raises the importance of any immediate help in a Larkin transaction.
IHM Discussion
The Larkin and Edvinsson files should not be treated as one negotiation simply because they have surfaced at the same time. Larkin’s request concerns a veteran centre with contractual control and a defined destination preference. Edvinsson’s case is a restricted-free-agent contract discussion, reportedly centred on term and structure.
For Detroit, the Larkin issue is constrained by competing realities. That narrows the practical market without eliminating it. A buying club would need to be comfortable with Larkin’s contract, his reported health uncertainty and the cost of giving Detroit something useful immediately.
That final point matters because Detroit’s public position is not to begin a rebuild. Horcoff’s comments do not establish a trade deadline or a specific asking price, but they frame why a package built solely around distant futures may not match the club’s stated direction. Detroit can listen to interest while maintaining a high threshold for a deal.
Edvinsson’s reported preference for more than a bridge arrangement creates a different pressure point. A bridge deal would defer the larger contractual decision; a longer commitment would settle it now. Neither outcome can be assumed from the current reporting. What is clear is that an unsigned defenceman choosing not to resume on-ice work leaves a meaningful piece of Detroit’s roster business unfinished.
The two matters also carry different levels of confirmation. Larkin’s trade request is established fact. The expanded destination list, the reported injury question and the precise gap in Edvinsson’s talks remain reported information rather than confirmed club announcements.
Why It Matters
Larkin’s status reaches beyond one player’s future. He remains a top-six centre under long-term contract, so Detroit is not dealing with a straightforward expiring-contract situation. Any club pursuing him would be acquiring an established player with five seasons left on his current deal, while Detroit would be weighing the immediate effect on its own NHL roster.
Edvinsson’s unsigned status matters for a separate roster reason. Detroit has already had him in camp, but the reported pause in his on-ice participation means the contractual question now sits directly beside the club’s preparations for the season. There is no confirmed resolution or return date in the available information.
Together, the situations place Detroit in a difficult management window: one prominent player has requested a move, while another remains without a contract. The central hockey issue is not whether either matter must be settled immediately; it is whether the club can protect its stated aim of remaining competitive while resolving both matters responsibly.
IHM Market Outlook
Larkin’s reported preference for United States-based contenders is the clearest market signal in this case, but it does not establish active negotiations with any particular team. His no-trade clause gives him influence over the destinations he will consider, while Detroit’s long-term control gives the club room to reject offers that do not fit its needs. Detroit previously confirmed it received a short list of teams Larkin would consider for a waiver of that clause.
The reported expansion from three clubs to eight or nine would, if accurate, create a broader pool of possible matches. It would not automatically make a deal easier. Contending teams are generally structured to protect their current roster strength, while Detroit is reportedly seeking a return that helps in the present. That tension is at the heart of the market.
Edvinsson’s contract position is not a trade-market development in the information available here. It is a negotiation over structure. The reported bridge-versus-longer-term divide may be significant, but no dollar figure, term proposal or deadline has been confirmed.
Mini Q&A
Has Dylan Larkin been traded?
No. Larkin’s trade request is confirmed, but no trade has been announced. He has five years remaining on his current Detroit contract.
What is holding up Simon Edvinsson’s contract?
The reported gap is contractual structure: Detroit had been considering a bridge deal, while Edvinsson was believed to want more. No agreed term or financial figure has been confirmed.
Are Larkin and Edvinsson connected in the same transaction?
No. Larkin’s case is a requested trade, while Edvinsson’s is an unresolved restricted-free-agent contract negotiation.
Coach Mark Comment
Detroit’s hockey challenge is to keep the two issues compartmentalised. Larkin’s situation concerns how much established NHL capability the club can retain or replace in any transaction. Edvinsson’s concerns keeping a developing defenceman connected to the group and ready for game demands once his contract is resolved. Neither problem benefits from forcing a timetable that is not supported by the available facts.
IHM Final View
This remains a two-track Detroit story, not a completed reshaping of the roster. Larkin’s trade request is confirmed, but there is no confirmed deal, destination or timetable. Edvinsson remains unsigned, with the reported disagreement focused on whether his next contract should be a bridge arrangement or something more substantial.
Detroit’s stated resistance to rebuilding helps explain why the Larkin market may be difficult to resolve: the club would need a return that fits its current needs, while a contender would be reluctant to weaken its own group.