mll Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, lmm said: I meant 40/70 two Fs and 1 D They will simply have to unprotect a player and will have less players protected than the maximum allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAVA-1 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 35 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said: What would that do? The expansion draft list isn't based on how many you expose but, how many you protect. Regardless if Biega is exposed as a forward, Gaunce is still exposed, and so is Sbisa. Thank you!! Wondering where people come up with this stuff but I wish it would stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Just now, mll said: They will simply have to unprotect a player and will have less players protected than the maximum allowed. ouch . I don't suppose it will be Loui either. Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winthecup Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 30 minutes ago, Tre Mac said: Thought it was just NMC. Ah whatever, isn't going to happen anyways but it would be addition by subtraction and one less vet. mailing it in. you are right. I wonder if this can give the Canucks leverage in a backroom deal where Edler agrees to waive his no trade clause or if he doesn't, the Canucks expose him to Vegas. Or a deal where Vegas trades for Edler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said: how does this even matter? I thought that you needed to expose everyone but the protected list with a minimum amount of players exposed (2F,1D,1G). We have this covered unless we are trading one of Horvat, Sutter, Sedins, Eriksson, Granlund, Guance, Dorsett or Baertschi without picking up another expansion player. Protected Players G-Mark D-Edler D-Tanev D-Gud F-Horvat F-Sedin F-Sedin F-Sutter F-Eriksson F-Granlund F-Baer Exposed players G-Bachman D-Sbisa D-Biega F-Gaunce F-Dorsett Among the exposed players at least 2Fs and 1D need to have played 40/70 games and be under contract for 2017/18. Right now they don't have the 2Fs under contract. Dorsett probably doesn't meet the minimum requirements as he missed more than 60 games. Players who meet the game requirements (need at least 2Fs and 1D who are under contract for 2017/18) F: (Dorsett), Gaunce*, Chaput*, Cramarossa*, Skille, Megna (*) RFAs D: Sbisa, Biega G: Bachman Other players exposed F: (Rodin), Boucher* (4 games missing), Zalewski*, Grenier, Rendulic D: Larsen, Billins, Pedan*, Nilsson* G: Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 But why tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted March 21, 2017 Author Share Posted March 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: It's purely a meet guidelines move Forwards 2 under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons Defense 1 under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons Goalies 1 under contract in 2017-18, OR who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2017-18 Gaunce is the only forward we have in that criteria to meet the forward requirement, Dorsett is LTIR so he becomes exempt. That leaves canucks with 2 options Sign a forward to an extension (megna, Chaput, Skillet) or, qualify Biega as a forward It has nothing to do with who will be protected, and it doesn't change that one of the following will still be claimed at the draft: Gaunce, Sbisa, Larsen, Biega, Skilled,Chaput Megna, Miller, Rodin, Boucher, Pedan I guess moving Biega up is more telling of not extending Skille/Cramarossa/Megna/Boucher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bur14Kes17 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 41 minutes ago, Tre Mac said: I wish they would just expose Edler. Well that's a really idiotic thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 46 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said: What would that do? The expansion draft list isn't based on how many you expose but, how many you protect. Regardless if Biega is exposed as a forward, Gaunce is still exposed, and so is Sbisa. Exactly what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Just now, Bur14Kes17 said: Well that's a really idiotic thing to say. Why? I think it's the best plan. If they can trade him, fine. If not expose him and protect the much younger, still improving physical dman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bur14Kes17 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 28 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said: Edler is gone next season. At the trade deadline for sure. Can't see it happening before then though. Benning and Linden said like two weeks ago they went to keep a few veteran d men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said: I guess moving Biega up is more telling of not extending Skille/Cramarossa/Megna/Boucher. Yep, we're only sitting at 47 contract this year and 29 next year. Maybe JB plan's on signing a lot more contracts this off season and needs the space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bur14Kes17 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, stawns said: Why? I think it's the best plan. If they can trade him, fine. If not expose him and protect the much younger, still improving physical dman. Because you don't expose a #2 or 3 puck moving d man that can munch 24 minutes a night for nothing in return. Edler actually has trade value. Surely enough to get a 2nd round pick or prospect at the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said: What would that do? The expansion draft list isn't based on how many you expose but, how many you protect. Regardless if Biega is exposed as a forward, Gaunce is still exposed, and so is Sbisa. The expansion draft is based on both. You CAN PROTECT 3 D's and you MUST EXPOSE one D who has played either 40 NHL games this year or 70 in the past two years (and is under contract for next year). CORRECTION HERE -- I said before that RFAs are okay. That is not true. Players must be under contract.) And the "must expose" requirement has priority. The Canucks are expected to protect Edler, Tanev, and Gudbranson. Hutton, Stecher, and Tryamkin are not eligible for the draft because they are still in their first or second professional year (KHL does not count). Biega and Sbisa both satisfy the requirements to be exposed. Only one needs to be exposed but the way things stand right now, both would be exposed. If neither Biega or Sbisa were available (if, for example, they were both traded) then the Canucks would have to expose one of Edler, Tanev or Guddy. WIth forwards, the Canucks CAN PROTECT 7 and MUST EXPOSE two guys are eligible to be exposed. The 7 protected guys seem obvious: the Sedins and Eriksson have to be protected because of no movement clauses. Then Horvat, Sutter, Baertschi, and Granlund will be the other 4. That would mean that guys like Chaput and Gaunce would not be protected and would satisfy the requirement to expose two eligible forwards. (Dorsett will probably be exempt because of his injury status -- potential career-ending injury problem). So it does not make sense to try to qualify Biega as a forward unless some possible change in under consideration. Possibly one or more forwards might be traded so the Canucks could protect Gaunce and might need to have another exposed forward (Biega). Probably the Canucks are just covering the bases and nothing will actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said: I guess moving Biega up is more telling of not extending Skille/Cramarossa/Megna/Boucher. Probably don't want to pay players they don't foresee on their roster. They would also use two contract spots. Biega at F would also mean that they are going to expose Sbisa on D instead of trying to trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyM Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: It's purely a meet guidelines move Forwards 2 under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons Defense 1 under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons Goalies 1 under contract in 2017-18, OR who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2017-18 Gaunce is the only forward we have in that criteria to meet the forward requirement, Dorsett is LTIR so he becomes exempt. That leaves canucks with 2 options Sign a forward to an extension (megna, Chaput, Skillet) or, qualify Biega as a forward It has nothing to do with who will be protected, and it doesn't change that one of the following will still be claimed at the draft: Gaunce, Sbisa, Larsen, Biega, Skilled,Chaput Megna, Miller, Rodin, Boucher, Pedan Thanks! This post should be appended to the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: It's purely a meet guidelines move Forwards 2 under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons Defense 1 under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons Goalies 1 under contract in 2017-18, OR who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2017-18 Gaunce is the only forward we have in that criteria to meet the forward requirement, Dorsett is LTIR so he becomes exempt. That leaves canucks with 2 options Sign a forward to an extension (megna, Chaput, Skillet) or, qualify Biega as a forward It has nothing to do with who will be protected, and it doesn't change that one of the following will still be claimed at the draft: Gaunce, Sbisa, Larsen, Biega, Skilled,Chaput Megna, Miller, Rodin, Boucher, Pedan Gaunce is not under contract. He needs to be signed to meet the requirements. They don't have the 2Fs for now. RFAs with the games: Gaunce, Boucher (4 more games), Cramarossa, Chaput UFAs with the games: Skille, Megna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 42 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Exposing players doesn't really mean much. It's about protection Canucks can protect 7F/3D/1G Everyone else that is not age exempt is technically exposed. It's not like we chose which player gets exposed, all players not protected are exposed The only reason canucks would make Beiga a F is because Dorsett is hurt and under LTRI which makes him exempt, And rules state that we need two Forwards who've played over 40+ games and are under contract for the 17-18 season, The other option would be to sign Skille, Megna, Chaput for a one year extension so they meet that guideline. It really has nothing to do with which players can't be claimed it's just to meet expansion draft guidelines Right, but what I'm wondering is would the league allow us to qualify Biega as a forward for the purpose of having a guy signed thru next season, when he's been deployed clearly as a D most of the time? Wouldn't other teams do that as well, e.g., put a guy in as a D when he was mostly F? Just wondering if there is some kind of rule here where the league would disallow Biega as a F for expansion purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bur14Kes17 said: Well that's a really idiotic thing to say. Didn't say it, I typed it. If he refuses to waive his NTC then this avenue is the best way for the team to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 We have 13 forwards who currently meet the requirement of 40 games played this season or 70 games over the past 2 seasons. In addition, Boucher only needs to play 4 more games this season to qualify as well. The problem is that we only have 7 of these forwards signed for next season at this point but I think it may be relatively safe that we sign Horvat and Gaunce, at a minimum, before the expansion draft. https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft Dorsett is one of the current 7 forwards under contract for next year and can be used as one of our mandatory two forwards made available unless the NHL deems his injury as potential career ending. For those concerned about his injury status affecting this the rule is as follows: Injured Players Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed the previous 60+ consecutive games due to an injury, do not meet the criteria set forth by the league in respect to the minimum exposure requirements for players, and in certain cases these players may even be deemed as exempt from the Expansion Draft selection process. https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft-faq If Dorsett is declared eligible for the draft and we sign Gaunce then I would suggest those would be the 2 forwards meeting the minimum exposure requirements. If Dorsett is ruled out then I would suspect that 1 of Boucher/Chaput would be signed and made available. I really can't see any value in trying to get Biega qualified as a forward nor do I see the NHL agreeing to have him exposed as one of our two forwards meeting the mnimum requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.