Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

puzzling expansion un-protected list...


smithers joe

Recommended Posts

it is hard to determine who would be on that list as we still have contracts to sign....by my account if we have to make 25% of our salaries available...that is like 17.5 million...

my thought is we'ld have to leave edler, sbisa, hansen and biega available plus 5 mil more...unless, i'm missing something....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

it is hard to determine who would be on that list as we still have contracts to sign....by my account if we have to make 25% of our salaries available...that is like 17.5 million...

my thought is we'ld have to leave edler, sbisa, hansen and biega available plus 5 mil more...unless, i'm missing something....?

That was dropped - there's no more salary component to it. We have to protect NMCs but all else are fair game. 

 

1. Daly said that first and second-year “professionals” will be exempt from the draft, but there’s a “specific procedure” in place to define what a professional is.

2. Daly said that the “minimum cap hit” provision has been dropped; i.e. having a minimum amount of cap-related salary made available in the expansion draft.

3. On the no-movement and no-trade clauses, Daly said the latter wouldn’t prevent a  player from being exposed in the draft. A no-move clause, however, means a team would have to protect that player and they would count against a team’s total.

4. If a team, for whatever reason, violates the expansion draft rules, there will be “significant penalties” including loss of draft picks or players.

Also, Daly said that an expansion team or teams wouldn’t be handed the first or second overall pick in the NHL Draft, but would be placed in the draft lottery.

 

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-offers-pessimism-on-olympics--intrigue-on-expansion-rules-230755474.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks, i didn't hear that..puzzle over...but we do have to make available players signed for 2 years so the team won't lose players after just one year...i still think we should make edler available...just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think regarding Edler's situation, we should try to make him waive his clause so we can hopefully trade him. We will tell him the alternative to not waiving would be to being left open exposed in the expansion draft. Personally I would protect Gudbranson, Tanev, and Tryamkin. This way, Edler can't call out on the bluff and wavie his clause. We get value in return, and we we get to protect the three players mentioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smithers joe said:

it is hard to determine who would be on that list as we still have contracts to sign....by my account if we have to make 25% of our salaries available...that is like 17.5 million...

my thought is we'ld have to leave edler, sbisa, hansen and biega available plus 5 mil more...unless, i'm missing something....?

Lots of discussion on this on the following thread: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smithers joe said:

thanks, i didn't hear that..puzzle over...but we do have to make available players signed for 2 years so the team won't lose players after just one year...i still think we should make edler available...just my opinion.

Well there's still some puzzles - will Tryamkin be considered a 2nd year guy e.g.,?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...