Jump to content


Photo

Expansion Draft - Potential Players We Could Lose


  • Please log in to reply
559 replies to this topic

#51 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 22 March 2016 - 11:43 AM

 

For the management groups to OK the expansion, Id hope that they demanded to have the option. Only way I see there being a mandate is if they determine NMC/NTC are automatic protections and the number of protections forces you to go one way or the other.

 

So maybe it will be "All teams are forced to use the 7/3/1 option UNLESS their NMC/NTC protections require the team to use 8/1" or something to that affect.

 

 

Could be something like that, or the opposite.

 

All I know is that it might not be set in stone yet that teams will have the equal option to use either.



#52 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 22 March 2016 - 11:43 AM

I think the notion that somehow the expansion team(s) would be eager to draft players with bad over-priced contracts (contracts that their current team would consider buying them out if they could) is unrealistic.

Sure an expansion team will need to get to the cap floor, but I don't see them solving problem contracts for other teams just to accomplish that. I think that's just wishful thinking.

 

Lots of wiggle room in that one. If you need centers and Kesler is available, his contract might not be ideal but hes a damn good center and maybe someone you just need regardless of contract.

 

I'd say that out of the 30-60 players selected (or whatever number it is) you could wing up having the expansion team(s) taking on a bad contract or two if the NMC/NTC players are made available. WOuldnt be a mass number of them, but a few.



#53 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 22 March 2016 - 11:53 AM

 
Lots of wiggle room in that one. If you need centers and Kesler is available, his contract might not be ideal but hes a damn good center and maybe someone you just need regardless of contract.
 
I'd say that out of the 30-60 players selected (or whatever number it is) you could wing up having the expansion team(s) taking on a bad contract or two if the NMC/NTC players are made available. WOuldnt be a mass number of them, but a few.


I was speaking only to contracts that, for example, a team would buy out now but for the fact that they have already used up their max. number of buyouts.

I don't see Kesler's contract as falling into that category.

I just don't see that there will be a need for an expansion team to take on such a contract IMO.

#54 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 22 March 2016 - 11:57 AM

I was speaking only to contracts that, for example, a team would buy out now but for the fact that they have already used up their max. number of buyouts.

I don't see Kesler's contract as falling into that category.

I just don't see that there will be a need for an expansion team to take on such a contract IMO.

 

Oh, buy-out contracts, yeah I agree. I think some contracts like Keslers where there is a NMC in place with a large amount of money due on top of a large amount of years could be ont he table depending on the players.



#55 DucksScore

DucksScore

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,259 posts
  • Location:Laguna Niguel, CA

Posted 22 March 2016 - 12:04 PM

Where are you seeing that notion?


The article floated that idea that a team could leave "do over contracts that have a lot of $ and a lot of years" as exposed contracts that an expansion could possibly pick up.

#56 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 22 March 2016 - 12:07 PM

The article floated that idea that a team could leave "do over contracts that have a lot of $ and a lot of years" as exposed contracts that an expansion could possibly pick up.

 

Got it.

 

After I put RG on "Ignore", I thought it might have come up from him.



#57 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 22 March 2016 - 12:09 PM

 

Got it.

 

After I put RG on "Ignore", I thought it might have come up from him.

 

You did not LOL



#58 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 22 March 2016 - 12:10 PM

 

You did not LOL

 

Gotcha! 

 

:P



#59 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 23 March 2016 - 09:39 AM

Some more info/clarification on a couple of the rules:

 

19. In the aftermath of the GM meetings, I admitted to being confused about players who will be completing their sophomore professional seasons — Connor McDavid, Jack EichelWilliam Nylander, etc. — and their eligibility for a potential June 2017 expansion draft. In asking for clarification, I was told, “Players who have only earned two years of pro service are second-year pros and are exempt.” So there you go. Unless the framework is changed, teams (and their fans) need not worry.

 

20. In all of the discussions about potential expansion draft rules, a couple execs warned the “25 per cent rule” did not get enough play. If you spend to the projected ceiling of $74 million, you’ll have to expose at least $18.5 million of unprotected salary. That’s not going to be easy, especially if players with no-move clauses can’t be exposed.

 

http://www.sportsnet...raft-questions/

 

 



#60 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 23 March 2016 - 02:20 PM

Some more info/clarification on a couple of the rules:

 

 

 

Ducks could do that right now without too much of an issue.

 

Perron, Silfver, McGinn, Garbutt, Horcoff, Thompson, Pirri, Stoner - that alone gets you $18.937



#61 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 23 March 2016 - 02:41 PM

 

Ducks could do that right now without too much of an issue.

 

Perron, Silfver, McGinn, Garbutt, Horcoff, Thompson, Pirri, Stoner - that alone gets you $18.937

 

So you'd expose Jakbob?

 

And don't forget Freddie's $5mil! ;)



#62 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 23 March 2016 - 02:49 PM

 

So you'd expose Jakbob?

 

And don't forget Freddie's $5mil! ;)

 

I did an extremely quick rundown of current roster players that had no NTC/NMC's and that were; 1st/2nd year guys who would be available. Take out Silfver and toss in Freddys $7mil a year and BOOM



#63 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 23 March 2016 - 02:50 PM

 

I did an extremely quick rundown of current roster players that had no NTC/NMC's and that were; 1st/2nd year guys who would be available. Take out Silfver and toss in Freddys $7mil a year and BOOM

 

Freddie could be the Father of All Sacrificial Lambs under your plan!



#64 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 23 March 2016 - 02:57 PM

 

Freddie could be the Father of All Sacrificial Lambs under your plan!

 

$18.5mil and hes yours!



#65 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 24 March 2016 - 11:31 AM

Here are some fun expansion rule proposals that will never happen but would make things a whole hell of a lot more interesting

 

No, it's time for the NHL to get creative. And we've got some idea to help them out. Here are three big new wrinkles the NHL should throw into their expansion draft plans.

 

Retained salary for exposed players

You'd be adding a whole new element of strategy, for both the old and new teams. We know that nobody in their right mind is taking David Clarkson's $5.25 million albatross of a contract off of the Blue Jackets' hands, at least not without a first round pick or two attached to it. But what if he was on the list at $2 million? Wouldn't the Las Vegas Aces be awfully tempted to take a 32-year-old Dion Phaneuf at, say, $4.5 million, with the Senators paying the rest? Wouldn't they have to think about making Dustin Browntheir first captain if the Kings were offering to eat half of his deal?

 

Allow teams to trade protection slots

It would be a fairly simple tweak. You just treat every one of those slots as assets, available for trade just like a player or a future draft pick. Maybe the trade is slot-for-slot – I give you an extra forward spot, you give me one of your defenceman picks. Or maybe teams trade picks or players to acquire an extra slot or two.

What's an extra goaltending protection slot worth to a team with two good ones? And how much would you ask for in return for your goaltending slot, knowing that you'd have to go into the expansion draft without protecting anyone at the position? What's an extra defence slot worth to a team with a stacked blue line?

 

Bonus compensation for top expansion draft picks

So when the Las Vegas Aces step up to the podium and make their first overall pick, the team that loses that player is awarded the #31 pick in the next entry draft. When the Nordiques make their first round pick, that team gets the #32 pick. Everyone else moves down two spots, so nobody is losing anything. Then we do the same for rounds two through five; a compensatory pick in the second round of the entry draft for the player taken in the second round of the expansion draft, and so on.

 

 

 

Sportsnet - Down Goes Brown



#66 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 08:47 AM

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun  4h

Further detail to Vegas June free-agent window I reported on this week: Vegas must select 20 contracts among its 30 players picked (con't)

 

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun  4h

So only a max of 10 free agents can be picked - RFA or UFA - as part of those 30 expansion picks.

 

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun  4h

This is essentially the reasoning behind the 48-hour free-agent window for Vegas in June. And likely more pertinent as it comes to RFAs

 

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun  4h

Again, Vegas can sign unprotected RFAs like they are their own. No offer sheets needed. Just like they own the RFA, in that 48-hour window

 

 

 

Well that's interesting.

 

I take it to mean they get first crack at players like Brandon Pirri.

 

Of course, the crop of unprotected RFA's is likely to be pretty thin next summer.



#67 Kariya9

Kariya9

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,057 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 09:05 AM

I think we probably lose Manson.

#68 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 09:09 AM

I think we probably lose Manson.

 

 

Who do you think we protect? Have a list in your mind? I'd be interested in hearing it. Actually, seeing it... but you know what I mean.



#69 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 29 October 2016 - 09:35 AM

The rules for the expansion team are pretty interesting. They are almost being forced into being the bad guys, getting cracks at teams RFAs. I guess that at least puts some fire under the butts of GMs and players to get deals done before the offseason. The good thing for ANA is we dont really have any high end RFAs like we did this past season to worry about.



#70 Always Mighty

Always Mighty

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,967 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 09:46 AM

The rules for the expansion team are pretty interesting. They are almost being forced into being the bad guys, getting cracks at teams RFAs. I guess that at least puts some fire under the butts of GMs and players to get deals done before the offseason. The good thing for ANA is we dont really have any high end RFAs like we did this past season to worry about.

 

Agreed. I was just taking a look at our RFAs, and the biggest names would probably be Kerdiles, Sorensen, Sgarbossa, or Cramarossa, and I doubt any of them will be claimed. Apparently Etem will be an RFA again. Right now, I'm doubting he even gets a qualifying offer and goes to UFA.



#71 ladiesandgentlemen

ladiesandgentlemen

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,902 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 09:51 AM

The rules for the expansion team are pretty interesting. They are almost being forced into being the bad guys, getting cracks at teams RFAs. I guess that at least puts some fire under the butts of GMs and players to get deals done before the offseason. The good thing for ANA is we dont really have any high end RFAs like we did this past season to worry about.

 

I think I read some place that non-FA players without contracts can still be protected.


 

Agreed. I was just taking a look at our RFAs, and the biggest names would probably be Kerdiles, Sorensen, Sgarbossa, or Cramarossa, and I doubt any of them will be claimed. Apparently Etem will be an RFA again. Right now, I'm doubting he even gets a qualifying offer and goes to UFA.

 

But aren't first and second year players non-eligible to be taken? Not quite sure how it works, though. Can LV pick through your farm system for players that don't have any technical "years" in the NHL?



#72 Kariya9

Kariya9

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,057 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 09:51 AM

 

Who do you think we protect? Have a list in your mind? I'd be interested in hearing it. Actually, seeing it... but you know what I mean.

 

Well you either have to go 8 skaters and 1 goalie or 7 forwards, 3 D and 1 goalie.  I don't think there's any way we pick the first option. 

 

Forwards:

Getzlaf

Perry

Kesler

Ritchie

Silfverberg

Cogliano

Rakell

 

D:

Lindholm

Fowler

Vatanen

 

Goalkeep:

Gibson (obviously)

 

Manson is clearly our best player available that we cant protect.  And we better hope to all hell that Bieksa will waive that NMC for the expansion draft.  If not, we gotta buy him out.



#73 Always Mighty

Always Mighty

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,967 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 10:43 AM

 

I think I read some place that non-FA players without contracts can still be protected.


But aren't first and second year players non-eligible to be taken? Not quite sure how it works, though. Can LV pick through your farm system for players that don't have any technical "years" in the NHL?

 

Right, first and second year players are protected, so Theodore/Ritchie will be okay. I think the years refers to professional years, so it would look at both AHL and NHL. Not 100% sure on that, but I think I remember reading something about how professional years includes years in the AHL. So someone like Sgarbossa, who has been in the AHL for 4 years, could be claimed.


 

Well you either have to go 8 skaters and 1 goalie or 7 forwards, 3 D and 1 goalie.  I don't think there's any way we pick the first option. 

 

Forwards:

Getzlaf

Perry

Kesler

Ritchie

Silfverberg

Cogliano

Rakell

 

D:

Lindholm

Fowler

Vatanen

 

Goalkeep:

Gibson (obviously)

 

Manson is clearly our best player available that we cant protect.  And we better hope to all hall that Bieksa will waive that NMC for the expansion draft.  If not, we gotta buy him out.

 

I think we don't have to protect Ritchie since this is only his second year playing professional hockey, so we could protect someone else, like if we ever trade for a scoring forward.



#74 Kariya9

Kariya9

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,057 posts

Posted 29 October 2016 - 11:12 AM

Well if we dont have to protect Ritchie, then I would not even really care who the 7th forward was (unless it was a new top 6 guy as you suggest) 



#75 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,613 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 29 October 2016 - 11:32 AM

 

Agreed. I was just taking a look at our RFAs, and the biggest names would probably be Kerdiles, Sorensen, Sgarbossa, or Cramarossa, and I doubt any of them will be claimed. Apparently Etem will be an RFA again. Right now, I'm doubting he even gets a qualifying offer and goes to UFA.

 

 

Yeah, not worried about any of those names and Etem might get an qualifying offer, but its going to be a 2 way deal at like league minimum or something.

 

 

I think I read some place that non-FA players without contracts can still be protected.


 

But aren't first and second year players non-eligible to be taken? Not quite sure how it works, though. Can LV pick through your farm system for players that don't have any technical "years" in the NHL?

 

first and second year pros are not eligible for the entry draft and are automatically protected. I believe they can pick through your farm system as long they have been a pro for more than 2 years. I believe 'pro' means AHL or NHL though, not ECHL, WHL, or anything like that. I could be wrong 


If guys like Ritchie and THeodore are auto protected then...

 

a) Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, Vermette*, Rakell, Silfver, Cogs, Lindholm, Bieksa, Fowler, Gibson

 

*I believe Vermette has to be protected

 

If Vermette doesnt have to be protected then you wait an see if Bob makes a trade for a top 6 winger and protect that asset if they qualify. Otherwise youre protecting a nobody like Wagner I guess.

 

I wonder what it takes for a guy to be considered a forward. You could get tricky and make Vatanen or Manson a forward and protect them.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users