Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Quote BOCA RATON, Fla. - Let the plotting and planning begin. After months of internal vetting, the NHL informed all 30 GMs of an outline for a potential expansion draft on Wednesday, should the league decide to expand by one or two teams this summer. The exact details still need to be brokered with the NHLPA, but the general gist left most GMs relieved. The expansion draft process was the hot-button issue for teams heading into this week’s meetings; they all recognized a $500-million expansion fee would buy a strong inaugural roster at the expense of the current 30. Each team will lose at least one player if the NHL expands by one. It will be two players should the league decide to expand to both Las Vegas and Quebec City. Teams under the current plan could protect seven forwards, three defencemen and one goaltender or eight skaters (of any position) and a goaltender. That means each team would be subject to losing either a top-four defenceman or a third-line forward should the NHL expand by one team. “You may lose a good player, but it’s only one,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said. “The details are very similar to our previous expansion drafts, except it is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on.” In the last expansion draft, held in 2000 to fill the rosters of the Wild and Blue Jackets, teams were permitted to protect one goaltender, five defencemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defencemen and seven forwards. “If you do your job, I’ve got a guy in mind [to leave unprotected] right now,” Senators GM Bryan Murray said. The most pressing question, Panthers GM Dale Tallon said, was whether teams would be allowed to protect young players and prospects. The answer is that first- and second-year professional players - including those in the minors - will be exempt from the expansion draft. Players entering the third and final year of their entry-level contract would be eligible, though. That will expose a lot of valuable, burgeoning prospects. “We made a point to GMs that they are going to be forced to expose better players,” Daly said. With the addition of the salary cap since the NHL last expanded, there are other nuances and question marks to be ironed out. Will players with no-move clauses in contracts be eligible for the draft? Will they be able to waive their no-move clause and opt-in for a fresh start elsewhere? “I don’t think it’s that complicated, but it’s an issue that hasn’t been resolved in terms of how we intend to treat that,” Daly said. “It’s something that we’re going to have to have a discussion with the Players’ Association.” Will teams attempt to use the expansion draft as a de facto salary dump, exposing only players with unpalatable contracts? Teams must expose at least 25 per cent of the previous season’s salary cap. “And in terms of drafting players, [expansion] teams would have to draft a certain threshold of salary,” Daly said, in order to reach the salary cap floor or minimum. The other interesting factor is that this format will not allow any team to protect more than one goaltender. That will allow an expansion GM to build his new team out from the net with a solid choice. Six consecutive goaltenders were taken with the first six picks of the 2000 expansion draft. It would create an interesting dynamic with a team like the Pittsburgh Penguins. One year from now, would the Penguins protect backbone netminder Marc-Andre Fleury or 21-year-old prospect Matt Murray? Murray is widely considered the best goaltender not currently in the NHL. Fleury, 31, has a no-move clause in his contract which could potentially make him exempt. Then the Penguins would protect Murray. But the NHL’s position has been that players with no-move clauses should be eligible to be picked, since it is not expressly defined in the collective bargaining agreement. That is just one reminder of the refinement left to be done - notwithstanding the cart-before-the-horse decision of whether or not the NHL will even expand at all. In order for the puck to drop in 2017-18 with 31 or 32 teams, the NHL would need to make a decision to expand in the next three months, to allow teams a full year to prepare for the draft. That procedural hold-up won’t stop GMs from projecting and planning until then. Their mock protection lists, as Murray hinted, were likely already being formulated on the plane ride north. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-presents-potential-expansion-draft-plans-1.454239 Thoughts? If an Expansion Draft happens, how do you think they should do it? Who would you protect and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Yup, posted an update there 15 minutes ago: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 I had seen that, but from reading it I saw mostly discussion on potential Expansion Locations and Team Names. This thread is about the Expansion Draft specifically. I'm sorry if you feel it is redundant. However, I did search prior to creating. If the Mods consider it to be redundant, feel free to lock and delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackers Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 That part about players with no-movement clauses being eligible for the draft makes me very happy! I though we were bound to lose Marky since we would have to protect Miller. Bye bye Burrows and Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 I also posed the following questions: Quote Thoughts? If an Expansion Draft happens, how do you think they should do it? Who would you protect and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Mrbigyellowbus said: That part about players with no-movement clauses being eligible for the draft makes me very happy! I though we were bound to lose Marky since we would have to protect Miller. Bye bye Burrows and Miller. You would think players who earned No Movement Clauses wouldn't be very happy to have to move to an Expansion Team. The whole reason they fought for the clause in their contracts is so they wouldn't have to move. Seems like it would be a touchy subject with the NHLPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackers Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 We should protect: H. Sedin (and hope teams don't want to only pick up Daniel LOL) Horvat Baerschi Sutter Mccann Virtanen Hansen Hutton Tanev Edler Markstrom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, Roger Neilson's Towel said: You would think players who earned No Movement Clauses wouldn't be very happy to have to move to an Expansion Team. The whole reason they fought for the clause in their contracts is so they wouldn't have to move. Seems like it would be a touchy subject with the NHLPA. The NMCs are protected, as are players with under 3 years pro experience (so depending on timeline, we wouldn't have to protect Hutton, Virtanen, McCann if the draft happened in summer 2017). NTCs are not it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 1 minute ago, elvis15 said: The NMCs are protected. NTCs are not it seems. That makes sense. Otherwise the pool of potential candidates for the draft would be a lot smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Jay 22 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Expansion talk is dumb. Just move Arizona up north to either Seattle, Wisconsin, or Quebec and then call it a day. But for the sake of discussion, I don't think McCann and Virt need to be protected because they fall under the 1st year/2nd year Pros category. Ditto for Horvat....maybe? Not sure about that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackers Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said: Expansion talk is dumb. Just move Arizona up north to either Seattle, Wisconsin, or Quebec and then call it a day. But for the sake of discussion, I don't think McCann and Virt need to be protected because they fall under the 1st year/2nd year Pros category. Ditto for Horvat....maybe? Not sure about that one. After going back, it seems like you're right. That seems VERY in favour of the existing teams already though. That will include the greatest assets of most teams, and they wont have to worry about protecting them? How will the expansion teams get a future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said: Expansion talk is dumb. Just move Arizona up north to either Seattle, Wisconsin, or Quebec and then call it a day. But for the sake of discussion, I don't think McCann and Virt need to be protected because they fall under the 1st year/2nd year Pros category. Ditto for Horvat....maybe? Not sure about that one. According to their timeline, Horvat would technically be 3rd year by then, and therefor be eligable unless we protect him, which we obviously should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 This becomes a whole new dynamic now. A team like the Canucks will not want to lose any of their prospects, so instead of trading or buying out all the vets talked about this year, might it now make sense to keep and/or re-sign a couple of these guys so that you can expose them in a year or two. Maybe a guy like Burr now hangs around for the rest of his deal? Exposing 25% of your previous years cap means having to expose some good size contracts in a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I am surprised there was no mention of where the new team(s) would draft in the entry draft. Do they get a chance to be in the lottery? What is their % on getting the top pick? If they don't get to be in the lottery, what spot does their pick end up being at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, MJDDawg said: This becomes a whole new dynamic now. A team like the Canucks will not want to lose any of their prospects, so instead of trading or buying out all the vets talked about this year, might it now make sense to keep and/or re-sign a couple of these guys so that you can expose them in a year or two. Maybe a guy like Burr now hangs around for the rest of his deal? Exposing 25% of your previous years cap means having to expose some good size contracts in a couple of years. This would mean we would have to ensure players signed with that thought in mind are signed without a NMC, and then there is still the chance they don't get taken and we are left with the contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 Just now, RonMexico said: I am surprised there was no mention of where the new team(s) would draft in the entry draft. Do they get a chance to be in the lottery? What is their % on getting the top pick? If they don't get to be in the lottery, what spot does their pick end up being at? Very good point. Perhaps they would not be draft eligible in the same year as the expansion draft, and then be subject to the same draft lottery process as the existing teams the following year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeistpriest Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 i'm wondering how many players can be drafted from one team ??? an expansion team shouldn't be allowed to draft more than 2 players from a single team in my opinion. and perhaps they should have to also draft at least one player from every team so there is at least semblance of spreading the pain of the process around a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 14 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said: Expansion talk is dumb. Just move Arizona up north to either Seattle, Wisconsin, or Quebec and then call it a day. But for the sake of discussion, I don't think McCann and Virt need to be protected because they fall under the 1st year/2nd year Pros category. Ditto for Horvat....maybe? Not sure about that one. If it happened this summer (which it won't), yes, but he'd have 3 years pro experience after next season so would need to be protected in a 2017 or later draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Bang Boogie Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, dudeistpriest said: i'm wondering how many players can be drafted from one team ??? an expansion team shouldn't be allowed to draft more than 2 players from a single team in my opinion. and perhaps they should have to also draft at least one player from every team so there is at least semblance of spreading the pain of the process around a bit. It's a maximum of two players I believe. A team like Tampa Bay would be screwed. They will lose either Bishop (elite goalie) or Vasilevsky (top goalie prospect) in net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.