Who would the Canucks lose in an expansion draft?

[luckylager]

One or two players that really don't matter, that's who.

[HC20.0]

It's gonna be hard to tell, we'd have to see what the roster looks like by then. 

[Mackcanuck]

Some interesting news here

Craig CustanceVerified account‏@CraigCustance

League believes that the ability to expand and do an expansion draft would override any no-trade or no-move clauses. Will work w/PA on that.

 

 

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager  19m19 minutes ago

General Fanager Retweeted Craig Custance

With expansion coming in 2017-18 at the earliest, 116 NTC/NMCs at risk for expansion draft: http://www.generalfanager.com/clauses?clauseyear=2017&position=All&shoots=Both&team=all&NTC=1&NMC=1 …

[WHL rocks]

NHL believes NMC's and NTC won't count during expansion draft so players with those clauses in their contracts could be exposed. They will continue to work with the PA on that matter.

Furthermore there is word from the NHL meetings in Florida that there would have to be certain amount of salary exposed.

They want these new franchises to be competitive sooner rather than later so teams will have to expose some good higher salaried players. We don't know how that will work as the NHL hasn't figured that part out yet.

So having said that it's way too early to start making your protected/non protected player lists. We don't know the rules yet.

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, WHL rocks said:

NHL believes NMC's and NTC won't count during expansion draft so players with those clauses in their contracts could be exposed. They will continue to work with the PA on that matter.

I'm curious as to where you found this out. Do you have a link?

From my understanding, NTCs won't count but NMC's will.

[WHL rocks]

15 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I'm curious as to where you found this out. Do you have a link?

From my understanding, NTCs won't count but NMC's will.

Heard on TSN earlier before the Caps vs Wings game. It was Bobby Mac, Dregger and Lebrun talking about the NHL meetings in Florida and this was one of the subjects they discussed. 

It's not finalized yet as NHLPA would have to sign off on it, but this is the NHL's position. So we'll see how it goes. 

Edit : Cpl posts above this there's a post from MackCanuck with link to twitter feed from Craig Custance with same info. 

 

[coolboarder]

Sbisa is my first choice on unprotected list for expansion draft.  Rest of them, a huge lump of the contract a cap dump would be my next choice for unprotected list and hope that they would take them.   All players on a great contract would be my protected list.

[DeNiro]

If they haven't gotten something for Edler by then, I would hope him.

If he's gone downhill this much at age 29, I can only imagine where he'll be at in 2 years.

[Adamth]

i think Sedins w Hansen - is line 1 - so Hansen wont go anywhere

 

[CanuckGAME]

1 hour ago, Adamth said:

i think Sedins w Hansen - is line 1 - so Hansen wont go anywhere

 

Hansen is NOT a 1st line player...  I love the guy but let's get real. 

[flickyoursedin]

This must be why they gave Sbisa a new contract. You're welcome Las Vegas!

[Quantum]

If I'm not mistaken, Rookies on Entry Level deals don't need to be protected. So that would mean that you wouldn't need to protect Virtanen, Horvat, McCann, or Hutton. They're already automatically protected.

That said, based on the previous Expansion draft rules of 2000, I would protect that this is how the team uses its slots to protect players. This is based on the 23 man roster. I'm also going to assume that there'll be two teams entering the league this season.

I suspect that the Canucks would protect two goalies, three defenseman, and seven forwards.

PROTECTED:

Goalies -- Miller, Markstrom

Defensemen --Tanev, Edler, Sbisa

Forwards -- H. Sedin, D. Sedin, Sutter, Dorsett, Burrows, Hansen, Baertschi

Why are the players who were protected, protected? Simple answer, most of those players have NTCs and I suspect that Benning will want to honor them. Specially, Benning is very high on Sbisa and we don't have many defensemen like him in our system (outside of Pedan, who I suspect will show up as a regular Canucks defenseman next season). Benning clearly sees Sbisa as a piece of the D-core going forward so he won't want to risk losing him. That and it would be sad to watch a piece of the Kesler deal go for nothing. Baertschi is saved over Kenins because there's a chance the Canucks can stash Kenins in the AHL by the end of the year likely negating the need to "protect" him without using waivers (I may be mistaken). Even if I'm mistaken, the chance of Kenins being picked by either expansion team is slim. He'd be a big gamble for an Expansion team, though an enticing one, considering his age and style of play. Baertschi is saved because he'd be a guaranteed expansion pick and it would be bad asset management to expose him... consdering if cost a second rounder to get. Hansen has proved his worth and deserves to stay as does Burrows, who is an expiring contract next year. Dorsett provides the toughness this team needs and is a heart and soul guy... something Benning doesn't want to lose. That and Benning brought in Dorsett, that's why Dorsett stays over Prust (debate changes if Prust is extended). Miller and Markstrom are kept because they'd be likely candidates for an expansion pick if either are left exposed and Markstrom is clearly not ready for full time starter duty. Miller was also brought into the organization by Benning and I doubt Benning wants to lose him for nothing.

UNPROTECTED:

Cracknell, Weber, Bartkowski, Vrbata, Hamhuis, Prust, Kenins, Higgins, Hamhuis, and Biega.

Reasons: Most of these guys are on expiring contracts, so if picked the Canucks could potentially bring them back. This is especially true for Hamhuis and Vrbata... especially if neither is traded at the deadline (the convo changes if they are traded).  Also the chances of either staying with an expansion team and signing an extension with them are slim to none. These two guys want Stanley Cups and they want them now, so they'll sign with contenders if not back with the Canucks. Same can go for Prust who is proving his worth with each passing game, his convo changes if he resigns, although the contender things not so much. If not, you can expose him, have be claimed, but still have him sign back with the club come July 1st. Weber, Bartkowski, Cracknell, and Biega would always be exposed no matter whether or not they had multi year deals or not. None of them are "special" enough to warrant a spot being safe. Kenins can likely be stashed in the AHL, meaning he'd likely be able to escape being claimed. Same could go with Biega, though, truthfully, with the level of play from Weber and Bartkowski, I don't really expect him going anywhere anytime soon. Higgins is unprotected because of two reasons: 1) His role can be filled by either an upcoming prospect (Gaunce, Grenier, and Kenins come to mind) and 2) He was a Gillis guy and with the limited trade interest in him, it's a good chance to shed his contract, though low, without having to worry to much.

If two teams pick:

Team 1) Higgins.

Reason? He's a veteran with NHL playoff experience. He'll be a good guy to lean on as the team finds himself. He'll have a year left on his contract. Could be a source of leadership on a new team.

Team 2) Weber.

Reason? He's shown an acumen on the powerplay. He's likely to sign with the expansion team come free agency to secure a likely top 6 role on the team, with the chance to move up the lineup of what will likely be a weak defensive group. He'll likely be one of the only "offensive" defensemen with sizeable NHL experience left unprotected. He'd likely settle in as a leader on the new team easily (he was the Captain of the Swiss World Junior team in 2008).

Alternative to Weber being claimed is Prust. The likelihood of Prust sticking with the team over Weber is lower.

Those are my thoughts and predictions... based on what the team is now.