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

Seattle Expansion Draft - Who do the Canucks protect?

Rate this topic


lukchin

Recommended Posts

Too early to say. As of now, only Bo, Boeser, EP are locks to be protected. Quinn Hughes is exempted ( will not complete his third year before it and thus, will count only as a 2nd year pro).
Rest, will depend on contract situation, how badly the team wants to win, who is declining and who is rising, etc. 

Sutter for eg, would not necessarily require protection - his contract expires before the expansion draft and we can have a 'verbal understanding' with him to hold out for us (in theory), thus making him a 'de-facto/virtual protected', without eating up a protected slot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My questions are not who we are going to protect, but who we are going to expose...…….and the CBA and expansion and how all that works against each other...…….

I think that those that say they will not worry are partly right in their thought process, however who we move before that is a very relevant question, and probably a more important question now, than the expansion draft...…….

 

Seattle Expansion...……………..2021 - 2022

Possible CBA lockout...……….2021 - 2022

 

Excerpt from  https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-players-planning-lockout-signing-bonuses/

 

Of late, one key point of the CBA has become widely reported. Section 3.1 paragraph (b) of the CBA is the so-called opt-out clause that gives the league and the NHLPA the right to terminate the agreement before the start of the 2020-21 season.

 

So this leads me to think what seasons are before this possible lockout?  2018-19 (Cap 79 M),  2019-20 (Cap 83 M)………..then Hockey Hell!

 

One question, that sits right out on the front of everything is...…..because the Seattle Expansion and the Opt-out are in the same year, is there any chance that the NHL could postpone Seattle's entry by one year, causing even more "Young" prospects to have met expansion eligibly requirements

 

Does this or should this affect our long term and short term asset management ? Tanev's contract expires next year, Sutter and Baertschi's the year after, it is all asset management to me, and looking at the long term health of the team. Looking at those dates and those contracts, and that other more mature teams may want to compete for the Cup, before those deadlines, it seems to me that these players may have strong value this year and to a lesser extent next year?

 

Now some of you may ask what does this have to do with the Seattle expansion, and I will answer that, any picks acquired from these players, will be directly influenced by what happens in the 2020-2021 and 2021-0222 years...….and again who we protect ...…..as well as what we do with our veteran assets

 

I admit it isn't a direct line, but I think it will be effecting how Benning and other GM's think, over the next couple of years...……………….especially at this years TDL

 

There is no such thing as a straight line!

Edited by janisahockeynut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 1:52 PM, dm_ranger said:

Horvat - Pettersson, - Boeser,  Gaudette - Virtanen +2

Juolevi +2

Demko

 

Hughes and Dipietro won't need them yet as they will have 2 or less years pro.

Also, Eriksson doesn't have to be protected -- only a limited no-trade at that point.

If hughes gets a taste at the end of the year like Guadette and Brock did then I think they have to be protected.  And lets be honest, even protecting him theres still not any D that I would be terribly upset with losing. 

 

On 12/4/2018 at 2:08 PM, Rick Blight said:

If Hughes wants to turn pro at the end of this season and burn a year off his ELC do you really want to pee off your prize prospect and say no? I don't think so.....

Exactly, if he wants to sign you damn well sign him.  Its not like we are Nashville and have top end D talent that you are really afraid of losing.  Its pretty much the norm now among the league to sign the college kids and let them burn a year now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

No way this fan base would survive Hughes not being signed ASAP.

 

 

 

 If he wants to turn pro, go for it.  The guy still has to play and if he isn't ready, Utica is right there.  

Letting him get his feet wet with a handful of games versus having an extra player you can protect in the expansion draft doesn't make sense though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2018 at 8:06 PM, smokes said:

Letting him get his feet wet with a handful of games versus having an extra player you can protect in the expansion draft doesn't make sense though

To be fair outside of Stecher and maybe Hutton none of our current roster D are worth protecting, I don't think Edler will be here during the next expansion draft or at the very least his next contract will end that season if Benning is smart. Juolevi, Stecher and Hughes (assuming he needs protecting) are the only ones that I see would need protecting. Woo will likely be in Junior again next year so he's fine, Hutton might get exposed. Tanev might not be here either. Gudbranson is a UFA that year, so maybe we get lucky and they avoid drafting him cause he could just walk in Free Agency. But I don't think Hughes will need protecting. His season will likely be longer than ours, not entirely sure of their schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2018 at 8:06 PM, smokes said:

Letting him get his feet wet with a handful of games versus having an extra player you can protect in the expansion draft doesn't make sense though

If he's ready to play and willing, you give him the same treatment as other college players. I believe Benning said this is the new norm now. So no point potentially upsetting one your top prospects over this. Ideally Hughes would sign an ATO with Utica and play out the year there before making the jump, which I believe Werenski did (and assuming his year is done before ours ends), but if he doesn't then we will be fine either way. At worst we lose our #4 dman which won't affect our rebuild as long as we continue to draft well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:

To be fair outside of Stecher and maybe Hutton none of our current roster D are worth protecting, I don't think Edler will be here during the next expansion draft or at the very least his next contract will end that season if Benning is smart. Juolevi, Stecher and Hughes (assuming he needs protecting) are the only ones that I see would need protecting. Woo will likely be in Junior again next year so he's fine, Hutton might get exposed. Tanev might not be here either. Gudbranson is a UFA that year, so maybe we get lucky and they avoid drafting him cause he could just walk in Free Agency. But I don't think Hughes will need protecting. His season will likely be longer than ours, not entirely sure of their schedule.

Love Stecher, but he's a bottom pairing dman and not worth a protection spot IMO. I would much rather protect Hutton at this point as he's shown to be able to handle top 4 minutes currently. But if Hutton is the player we lose, I'm not going to be too upset and certainly wouldn't make any additional moves to ensure he is protected. Hughes (he may be able to play RD as well), Juolevi, Brisebois and even Rathbone are coming up the left side anyway plus potentially Edler re-signing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Battlemonger said:

Having to protect Louie leaves a bitter taste when we will have to leave a better player unprotected. 

you can rinse and spit now, Loui only had a NMC for his 1st two seasons, he doesn't have to be protected for expansion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why we have to protect Pettersson? at the end of next season it will be his second year pro, so wouldn't he count as this below...?

 

* All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club’s applicable protection limits).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

I don't understand why we have to protect Pettersson? at the end of next season it will be his second year pro, so wouldn't he count as this below...?

 

* All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club’s applicable protection limits).

The draft is for the 2021/22 season - he'll have just finished his 3rd pro-year.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we were just discussing how we would have to sign Quinn Hughes to a ATO in Utica, to avoid being counted in the Expansion list, but really it is any player that might be coming in at the end of the year, through out the league...…………...

 

My question would be, would the NHL deem that to be Expansion circumvention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So today this is my list, it could change if Goldobin or Dahlen do not pan out

 

Protection. List

 

Horvat

Boeser

Pettersson

Virtanen

Gaudette

Dahlen

Goldobin

 

Hughes

Juolevi

Gudbranson

 

Demko

 

Lockwood, DiPietro and Rathbone will be exempt

 

So should we worry about any of the remaining players, who will all be 3 years older, at the start of Seattle's first year

 

Eriksson, Beagle, Granlund, Schaller, Baertschi, Rousell, Motte, Leivo, Sutter, Edler, Tanev, Stecher, Biega, MDZ, Pouliot, Hutton, Markstrom

Lind, Jasek, McEwen, Gadjovich, Palmo, Gaunce, Chatfield, Briseboise, Sautner, McEneny

 

We will only loose 1 of all these, and all seem replaceable, especially in 3 years...……..nothing to worry about IMO

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FedorFedorov said:

Let's be real, who's worth protecting?  The guys on this team have given up on coach green. If he's around in 2021 most of this team won't be. 

Well, I do not agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you are spot on, on this...……….

The best players on the list will be 31 or 32 ish, and really do you protect someone that age over a somewhat lesser, even it that is a concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

So, we were just discussing how we would have to sign Quinn Hughes to a ATO in Utica, to avoid being counted in the Expansion list, but really it is any player that might be coming in at the end of the year, through out the league...…………...

 

My question would be, would the NHL deem that to be Expansion circumvention?

Why would that be circumvention when it is a normal practice throughout the league every year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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