J.I.A.H.N Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Hey, I am ok with you guys calling me on this one, because I may not have it exactly right......but here is my read on this...... My understanding is that Las Vegas will probably come into the league in 2017-2018, and the expansion draft will most likely be held prior to the draft in late June of 2017. That being said, it seems to be bang on with the Canucks rebuild and our draft picks...my understanding is that. Baer and Horvat would have to be protected, but that Virtanen, Tryankin, McCann, Broeser, Demko, Hutton, and Briscois, would not have to be, as they would just fall under the protection of the 2 year exemption for prospects. Subban, Gaunce and Cassels would not be exempt and would have to be protected if they were deemed important enough. (They are not) In addition, anyone that we pick this year would of course be protected under the same exemption.......Benning should keep this in mind while wheeling and dealing. Just keep our picks, add a few more before this draft and relax....... Edmonton, however may have a little bit of a problem, trying to keep all their talent, and depending on what they do this summer, could find themselves in deep do do...it will be an interesting expansion draft and way better than when the Canucks came into the league. I am sure there will be other teams in somewhat the same do do pile, and there will be some interesting player movement happening before next years draft, as teams try to keep as much talent as they can, by moving assets around. I hope Benning can be up for the task, it will bode well for the Canucks to take advantage of this. For this reason the Canucks should not sign UFA's unless trading same type players.......I hope this is worthy of discussion This will be long term planning 101, I hope he took the class, I am sure there are things we will not fore see or not finalized yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 We do not know yet whether or to what extent all the versions of No Trade, No movement etc clauses will be honoured during the expansion draft. For unprotected players I think there is the option of protecting 8 skaters and 1 goalie or 7 forwards, 3 D and 1 goalie. At least, that is what has been talked about. I don't think anything is final. The expansion draft will be anything but simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Soldier Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 7 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: Briscois, I'm less bothered by the things people say on this forum than the fact that they allege to be fans of this franchise and yet don't care to learn what the names of the players are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 13 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: We do not know yet whether or to what extent all the versions of No Trade, No movement etc clauses will be honoured during the expansion draft. For unprotected players I think there is the option of protecting 8 skaters and 1 goalie or 7 forwards, 3 D and 1 goalie. At least, that is what has been talked about. I don't think anything is final. The expansion draft will be anything but simple. Thanks CC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Winter Soldier said: I'm less bothered by the things people say on this forum than the fact that they allege to be fans of this franchise and yet don't care to learn what the names of the players are. What ever! Thanks for the concern! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenman92 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 The other thing is you need to make at least 25% of you cap availible, which the Canucks would be like 18 million based on a 72 million cap number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, chickenman92 said: The other thing is you need to make at least 25% of you cap availible, which the Canucks would be like 18 million based on a 72 million cap number Never heard that one, but very interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, chickenman92 said: The other thing is you need to make at least 25% of you cap availible, which the Canucks would be like 18 million based on a 72 million cap number That's where the Sbisa and Dorsett contracts will come in handy - still reaching 18M will be complicated as expiring contracts don't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenman92 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, mll said: That's where the Sbisa and Dorsett contracts will come in handy - still reaching 18M will be complicated as expiring contracts don't count. For sure. Guessing they'll be around 60 million, so about 15 million will have to be availible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 8 minutes ago, mll said: That's where the Sbisa and Dorsett contracts will come in handy - still reaching 18M will be complicated as expiring contracts don't count. It isn't going to be easy or pretty.......my bet is they take Dorsett for the under card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 It will be very interesting to see how it all unfolds, also the potential of two expansion teams thickens the plot a little. The protection rules and cap dollars made available will need some serious work. If a team chosen to protect players that account for 79% of their cap, so be it, losing potentially two players will be enough of a wound for Betman to bathe in, why should the cap % have any impact? I'm not a fan of that proposed rule. I'm of the thinking that if you want an expansion franchise you should have to deal with making your team out of other teams' third liners, plain and simple. Why make it easy on them? Expansion teams are supposed to suck and build through the draft, just like every expansion team before them.. If these new rules are for the sake of "league parity", gag me with a spoon, the whole notion of giving a new team a leg up just because they're new pisses me off. If anything the league has too many plugs and needs less teams to better showcase the best players in the world. Betman sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, luckylager said: It will be very interesting to see how it all unfolds, also the potential of two expansion teams thickens the plot a little. The protection rules and cap dollars made available will need some serious work. If a team chosen to protect players that account for 79% of their cap, so be it, losing potentially two players will be enough of a wound for Betman to bathe in, why should the cap % have any impact? I'm not a fan of that proposed rule. I'm of the thinking that if you want an expansion franchise you should have to deal with making your team out of other teams' third liners, plain and simple. Why make it easy on them? Expansion teams are supposed to suck and build through the draft, just like every expansion team before them.. If these new rules are for the sake of "league parity", gag me with a spoon, the whole notion of giving a new team a leg up just because they're new pisses me off. If anything the league has too many plugs and needs less teams to better showcase the best players in the world. Betman sucks. Agree 200% no need to water down the league anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawkdrummer Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Yes we do need to plan ahead. I've heard the league must at minimum give it's membership a 1 year advance notice of expansion. Do we hear of expansion before this year's draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenman92 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 10 minutes ago, luckylager said: It will be very interesting to see how it all unfolds, also the potential of two expansion teams thickens the plot a little. The protection rules and cap dollars made available will need some serious work. If a team chosen to protect players that account for 79% of their cap, so be it, losing potentially two players will be enough of a wound for Betman to bathe in, why should the cap % have any impact? I'm not a fan of that proposed rule. I'm of the thinking that if you want an expansion franchise you should have to deal with making your team out of other teams' third liners, plain and simple. Why make it easy on them? Expansion teams are supposed to suck and build through the draft, just like every expansion team before them.. If these new rules are for the sake of "league parity", gag me with a spoon, the whole notion of giving a new team a leg up just because they're new pisses me off. If anything the league has too many plugs and needs less teams to better showcase the best players in the world. Betman sucks. The reason for the 25% rule is because any owner putting up 500 million will want a reasonable team the people will pay to watch. The NHL doesn't want a team that will be a bottom feeder for 7-10 years like the Blue Jackets and Jets/Thrashers. This is time around, the NHL will make sure an expansion team is competitive on a nightly basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 7 minutes ago, riffraff said: Agree 200% no need to water down the league anymore. Exactly. And thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenman92 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 36 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: Never heard that one, but very interesting! Yah, a lot of GMs feel that the media hasn't covered that part enough. If you have a bad contract, it might be a good thing next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, chickenman92 said: The reason for the 25% rule is because any owner putting up 500 million will want a reasonable team the people will pay to watch. The NHL doesn't want a team that will be a bottom feeder for 7-10 years like the Blue Jackets and Jets/Thrashers. This is time around, the NHL will make sure an expansion team is competitive on a nightly basis Well that's just too damn bad. Take your $500m and cram it up your cram hole. No other expansion team before now has had such good luck, and really, why do we need more teams? So Chicago and LA can win the next 5 cups over 6 years? It's not going to help the quality of play or this "league parity" fairy tale the league and media keep telling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortankin Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 39 minutes ago, mll said: That's where the Sbisa and Dorsett contracts will come in handy - still reaching 18M will be complicated as expiring contracts don't count. Sign weber to a 1 year $17M contract. Problem solved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenman92 Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 10 minutes ago, rawkdrummer said: Yes we do need to plan ahead. I've heard the league must at minimum give it's membership a 1 year advance notice of expansion. Do we hear of expansion before this year's draft? I don't know if it was a "must" but GMs and owners asked they have a year to plan. Pretty sure we here by the draft about expansion plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuporbust Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Good post. Food for thought 1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said: Hey, I am ok with you guys calling me on this one, because I may not have it exactly right......but here is my read on this...... My understanding is that Las Vegas will probably come into the league in 2017-2018, and the expansion draft will most likely be held prior to the draft in late June of 2017. That being said, it seems to be bang on with the Canucks rebuild and our draft picks...my understanding is that. Baer and Horvat would have to be protected, but that Virtanen, Tryankin, McCann, Broeser, Demko, Hutton, and Briscois, would not have to be, as they would just fall under the protection of the 2 year exemption for prospects. Subban, Gaunce and Cassels would not be exempt and would have to be protected if they were deemed important enough. (They are not) In addition, anyone that we pick this year would of course be protected under the same exemption.......Benning should keep this in mind while wheeling and dealing. Just keep our picks, add a few more before this draft and relax....... Edmonton, however may have a little bit of a problem, trying to keep all their talent, and depending on what they do this summer, could find themselves in deep do do...it will be an interesting expansion draft and way better than when the Canucks came into the league. I am sure there will be other teams in somewhat the same do do pile, and there will be some interesting player movement happening before next years draft, as teams try to keep as much talent as they can, by moving assets around. I hope Benning can be up for the task, it will bode well for the Canucks to take advantage of this. For this reason the Canucks should not sign UFA's unless trading same type players.......I hope this is worthy of discussion This will be long term planning 101, I hope he took the class, I am sure there are things we will not fore see or not finalized yet. Good post. Yes it will be interesting how it all Unfolds. I'm curious to find out how the NTC/ no movements are delt with. Outside of the guys we protect or are exempt , we don't have much to loose honestly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.