VIC_CITY Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 1 hour ago, J.R. said: Just checked. Kling, Lindell, Johns, Oleksiak, Hamhuis, Pateryn, Nemeth all would require protection. They're already going to lose one of Oleksiak, Johns or Hamhuis regardless of what they do and either Tanev or Edler (or other teams D) would be an upgrade on any of them. Even if they don't make a move, they'll be protecting one of Oleksiak/Johns over Hamhuis IMO (my guess would be Oleksiak) and likely losing Johns anyway. So they stand to lose a player of roughly equivalent value regardless of making a trade or not. They either make a trade and lose 'X' value while overall improving theirr D (while getting first pick of the D) or don't trade and lose X value regardless and simply lose depth. Then pay likely even higher prices for D after the ED either by trade or UFA to rebuild that depth. Johns and Lindell are both exempt as they have not played more than 2 years in the NHL. So Dallas would protect Klingberg, Oleksiak and Hamhuis. As it stands right now, they'll be exposing Pateryn and Nemeth on D. Hamhuis is significantly better than both of them and I believe Dallas will want to retain him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Johns and Lindell are both exempt as they have not played more than 2 years in the NHL. So Dallas would protect Klingberg, Oleksiak and Hamhuis. As it stands right now, they'll be exposing Pateryn and Nemeth on D. Hamhuis is significantly better than both of them and I believe Dallas will want to retain him. Not according to CF: https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 3 hours ago, J.R. said: Not according to CF: https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft Interesting. I think it's a mistake. They have Panarin as exempt so clearly experience in other leagues doesn't count... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Interesting. I think it's a mistake. They have Panarin as exempt so clearly experience in other leagues doesn't count... AHL counts. This was Lindell's 3rd pro season (ELC under NHL team) and he: https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592 Quote ...played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons. Same goes for Johns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 4 hours ago, J.R. said: AHL counts. This was Lindell's 3rd pro season (ELC under NHL team) and he: https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592 Same goes for Johns. I don't think it does...otherwise Goldobin wouldn't be exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 2 hours ago, VIC_CITY said: I don't think it does...otherwise Goldobin wouldn't be exempt. Didn't meet the 40 game or 70/70 threshold. Trust me dude, they're exposed like a pervert, in a trench coat, in Central Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, J.R. said: Didn't meet the 40 game or 70/70 threshold. Trust me dude, they're exposed like a pervert, in a trench coat, in Central Park. Hmm...not to keep arguing, but I believe the 40/70 rule you're referring to is this: i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons. ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons. It doesn't make anyone exempt, but each team must leave 1 D and 2 F (that meet this criteria) exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Hmm...not to keep arguing, but I believe the 40/70 rule you're referring to is this: i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons. ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons. It doesn't make anyone exempt, but each team must leave 1 D and 2 F (that meet this criteria) exposed. I guess capfriendly is just lying then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, J.R. said: I guess capfriendly is just lying then Well...I don't know about lying but I don't understand how they aren't exempt but a guy like Goldobin is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Well...I don't know about lying but I don't understand how they aren't exempt but a guy like Goldobin is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: Explain this one for me: William Nylander 1.5 seasons in the AHL 1.5 seasons in the NHL Exempt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Explain this one for me: William Nylander 1.5 seasons in the AHL 1.5 seasons in the NHL Exempt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: More GIFs than answers I see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 31 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: Explain this one for me: William Nylander 1.5 seasons in the AHL 1.5 seasons in the NHL Exempt His first season he played less than 40 games in the AHL and no games in the NHL. Therefore, he's exempt as the first season doesn't count reading the exemption rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp79 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 On 6/2/2017 at 6:31 PM, VIC_CITY said: When it comes to Edler/Tanev, I don't think there's a trade to be made pre-ED. It just doesn't make sense from an asset management stand point. The team acquiring would lose a protection spot and we would have less suitors, likely resulting in worse offers. So I just don't see us being able to acquire any dmen until that domino falls. The only teams that will be interested in acquiring an unprotected player would be if that player was better than someone they were already protecting and then I could see a swap of players with an add on thrown in. So LV would still probably take the player they acquired but they woud get to keep the add on piece (picks/prospects). Does that make sense? So I'm sure Anaheim would probably be interested in the deal you suggested but then we'd be force to leave a guy like Edler or Gudbranson unprotected. So in the end it would look something like this: Van: Manson or Vatanen Retains Sbisa Ana: Hutton LV: Edler Rackal Are we better off now? Is it worth it for Anaheim? If we take one of their dman, will LV end up taking Rackal? Would Anaheim rather have Hutton than Rackal? Pretty complicated! or we just trade Edler or Hutton+ to the Stars for their first and trade that pick to the Ducks for Vats way less complicated and the ducks no way in hell or going to lose A forward like Rackell and Vats. All they have to do is trade Vats for A pick or exempt player get Kevin to waive or buy him out. GMBM would be out of A job so fast if he couldn't pull off any deal involving Vats. Allowing them to protect on D fowler Lindholm and Stoner or Manson can't remember which one is exempt. Bieksa is an idiot if he doesn;t waive as bm has already said he wouls honour the clause after. If he gets bought out he only sees half his money, no contender will sign him, especially for the break even he needs of 1.5 million.. That and he would have to move his family again and lose his best buddy Kes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 17 minutes ago, The Lock said: His first season he played less than 40 games in the AHL and no games in the NHL. Therefore, he's exempt as the first season doesn't count reading the exemption rules. What part of the rules did you get that from? I'm under the impression that AHL seasons do not count. @J.R. seems to think otherwise. Just trying to pinpoint where in the rules it states AHL seasons count and if so, how many games need to be played for it to count as a season. Edit: Gaunce only has 2 years of NHL experience and he's exposed. So I guess I'm wrong. If someone could please state the actual rule though (no grey area), that would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp79 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: What part of the rules did you get that from? Not picking sides but based on the post of yours I quoted you didn't seem to grasp the concept of the ED draftThe ducks need an exempt player not A guy like Edler who they would have to protect t. therefore exposing Vats. And to not pick up on the whole Bieksa thing rather than losing Rackell just seems like you don;t really get how this whole thing works. As for Nylander if he would have played enough games his first year then yes he wouldn't be exempt. Let this one go. these sites are not wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 21 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: What part of the rules did you get that from? Actually, I found a better link from http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/ Quote To add to that, all first and second-year professional skaters (including unsigned draft picks) will not be available for Vegas to select from and won’t be counted as part of the protected player’s list. "Professional" refers to the NHL and the AHL. Combine that with JR's post above regarding the 40 days and it makes things make a lot more sense on that capfriendly.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, bp79 said: Not picking sides but based on the post of yours I quoted you didn't seem to grasp the concept of the ED draftThe ducks need an exempt player not A guy like Edler who they would have to protect t. therefore exposing Vats. And to not pick up on the whole Bieksa thing rather than losing Rackell just seems like you don;t really get how this whole thing works. As for Nylander if he would have played enough games his first year then yes he wouldn't be exempt. Let this one go. these sites are not wrong You clearly have me mixed up with another poster because I haven't suggested trading Edler to Dallas once. I may be wrong but I'm still waiting for a black and white answer of what constitutes an AHL season if they do count. Apparently William Nylander's 37 games don't count. So if you have the answer to my question, please share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp79 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 sorry to vegas., but it still works out the same in your scenario the Ducks gain Hutton and lose Vats and rackell. When all they have to do is what I suggested with Bieksa, therefore, keeping Rackell. I do apologise your post makes more sense except for the whole rackell part. I'm the one who is suggesting Edler to Dallas for their pick. and then flipping that for Vats, but I'm fine with Hutton as well. Just don't;t think the Ducks have any need for Hutton at all. again I apologise that's their pick they got from the Ducks not their 3rd . Here is your post When it comes to Edler/Tanev, I don't think there's a trade to be made pre-ED. It just doesn't make sense from an asset management stand point. The team acquiring would lose a protection spot and we would have less suitors, likely resulting in worse offers. So I just don't see us being able to acquire any dmen until that domino falls. The only teams that will be interested in acquiring an unprotected player would be if that player was better than someone they were already protecting and then I could see a swap of players with an add on thrown in. So LV would still probably take the player they acquired but they woud get to keep the add on piece (picks/prospects). Does that make sense? So I'm sure Anaheim would probably be interested in the deal you suggested but then we'd be force to leave a guy like Edler or Gudbranson unprotected. So in the end it would look something like this: Van: Manson or Vatanen Retains Sbisa Ana: Hutton LV: Edler Rackal Are we better off now? Is it worth it for Anaheim? If we take one of their dman, will LV end up taking Rackal? Would Anaheim rather have Hutton than Rackal? Pretty complicated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.