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

Questions regarding the Seattle entry draft


Recommended Posts

With the announcement of Seattle coming in on season 2021-22, the teams are going to be looking ahead by next year, to maximize their security. 

This leads me to a couple of questions:

 

1. NHL site says that teams who 'break the rules' may be penalized draft picks in favor of Seattle. This leads me to ask - what/how do teams break the rules ? The only way i see the teams breaking the rules is if they fail to expose enough players or such, due to contract length gaffes. Is that it or is there something i am missing ?

 

2. While teams are expected to protect 8 players + 1 goalie or 7 forwards + 3 defencemen + 1 goalie, they don't have to protect RFAs/UFAs ( they cannot protect UFAs anyways). This may (or already has) lead to the scenario where players who want to continue with their current team but have expiring contracts after 2020-21 season are 'unofficially/de-facto' protected by a 'verbal understanding' with their teams - by not being signed, they are doing the team a favor, which they will be compensated for, by signing with their current team, right after they refuse Seattle's offers. 


An example of that would be say something like giving Edler a 2 year contract with an 'understanding' that we will re-sign him in 2021. This frees up one more spot that we legitimately protect and can work with players who have made it clear they wish to 'continue' with their current club. 

Does this count as 'circumventing' the expansion draft ?

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RFA's aren't auto protected. It's done by years of AHL/NHL experience (2 or less is exempt from selection by Seattle). A player could have 3 years of play and still be an RFA that needs protection.

 

Similarly, since the expansion draft would be before free agency opens, even a pending UFA would still need protection if we wanted to retain their negotiation rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, City-in-state-of-emergency said:

It all depends if we have another lockout and sh*t gets stirred in their smoothie we won't know what will occur until they agree on a new CBA.

If another lockout happens, would that be 4th or 5th in Bettman's tenure? Are the other leagues go through this many lockouts?

 

In any democratic country, if citizens are not happy with the government, there is a way to kick them out, either by applying pressure to senate/parliament for impeachment or by voting for another party at next election. Often, when the government gets heavily criticized by the people and the media, they resign before it gets there anyways.

 

In the NHL, fans are the citizens that pay for the product (tickets, merchandise, or even simply watching at home and consuming the ads) but it's like we are living under dictatorship where we don't have any way to voice our displeasure. Bettman is a great at representing the owners's interests so I don't see any reason that he will be canned anytime soon... I guess we will have to live with the fear of lockout every what like 6-7 years? Sucks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@canuckistani

There were rules in the Vegas expansion draft where you HAD to at least have 1 forward, 1 defenseman, and 1 goalie with a minimum number of games played in a certain amount of time available to be picked (exposed and not a UFA in the immediate summer).  I remember the Canucks gave Biega and Bachman a little extra term so they could be those players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry don't have the link but I did hear Bettman say on a radio interview that Seattle will have the identical rules as Vegas had. 

 

So for the Canucks, this time around we're not going to be able to get away with just losing a 'Sbisa'. 

 

I suspect we'd be protecting:

 

Bo, Jake, EP40, Brock, Gaudette, Goldy and Beagle

 

Tanev, Guddy, Stecher/Juolevi

 

Demko

 

Hughes won't be eligible or any of the other Fs in Utica right now.  Not sure about Juolevi. 

 

We'll lose a decent player, but we'll also have lots of guys that qualify. It'll sting a bit but we don't need to lose a core piece. Even if we did something nutty like sign Erik Karlsson as a free agent, we maybe lose an aging Tanev or Stecher as our worst case scenario. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still doesn't answer my question as to what circumventing the Expansion draft rules mean. Because the NHL article does mention Seattle can gain extra draft picks from teams who circumvent the rules but does not mention how or what the circumvention is. Do we know if Vegas won any draft picks because  a team circumvented the rules ?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Sorry don't have the link but I did hear Bettman say on a radio interview that Seattle will have the identical rules as Vegas had. 

 

So for the Canucks, this time around we're not going to be able to get away with just losing a 'Sbisa'. 

 

I suspect we'd be protecting:

 

Bo, Jake, EP40, Brock, Gaudette, Goldy and Beagle

 

Tanev, Guddy, Stecher/Juolevi

 

Demko

 

Hughes won't be eligible or any of the other Fs in Utica right now.  Not sure about Juolevi. 

 

We'll lose a decent player, but we'll also have lots of guys that qualify. It'll sting a bit but we don't need to lose a core piece. Even if we did something nutty like sign Erik Karlsson as a free agent, we maybe lose an aging Tanev or Stecher as our worst case scenario. 

 

Actually, all the forwards in Utica (Lind, Dahlen, Gadjovich, Jasek, Palmu, etc) and Juolevi will be eligible to be taken

 

Players need to have played 3 years in the AHL or NHL which they all will have by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:

RFA's aren't auto protected. It's done by years of AHL/NHL experience (2 or less is exempt from selection by Seattle). A player could have 3 years of play and still be an RFA that needs protection.

 

Similarly, since the expansion draft would be before free agency opens, even a pending UFA would still need protection if we wanted to retain their negotiation rights.

i know. but RFAs can be 'de-facto' protected, like UFAs. As the rules stand now, any player you have an active contract with, will either require protection or is up for grabs. The player or the team gets no choice in this. But if you are an RFA or a UFA that is unprotected, the explansion team cannot just willy-nilly pick you up. They have to negotiate a contract with you and being unprotected RFA/UFA means the expansion team gets priority to negotiate with you before your home team does. So we can 'protect RFAs in practice', by simply having an 'understanding' with them to reject the expansion team's offer. A good hypothetical example would be Stecher - he is a local kid and his contract is up after 2019-20 season. In theory, we could sign him for 1 season, he still remain an RFA after 2020-21 season and in the summer of 2021, is an RFA. We can have an 'understanding' with him, to not sign with Seattle and once he passes up the offer, sign him.  This effectively, in practice, gives us an 'extra' protection slot for people that are under contract with us. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Sorry don't have the link but I did hear Bettman say on a radio interview that Seattle will have the identical rules as Vegas had. 

 

So for the Canucks, this time around we're not going to be able to get away with just losing a 'Sbisa'. 

 

I suspect we'd be protecting:

 

Bo, Jake, EP40, Brock, Gaudette, Goldy and Beagle

 

Tanev, Guddy, Stecher/Juolevi

 

Demko

 

Hughes won't be eligible or any of the other Fs in Utica right now.  Not sure about Juolevi. 

 

We'll lose a decent player, but we'll also have lots of guys that qualify. It'll sting a bit but we don't need to lose a core piece. Even if we did something nutty like sign Erik Karlsson as a free agent, we maybe lose an aging Tanev or Stecher as our worst case scenario. 

 

Pettersson

Horvat

Virtanen

Boeser

Gaudette

That leaves two spots for Dahlen, Lind & Gadjovich.          Or Baer, Or Goldy. ATM no bigger loss than Sbisa any of them. But hope Dahlen & Lind come good.

                                                                                                      Even then, if we lose Goldy, keep Dahlen? Or vice versa. Same type of player. Its most likely & not going to kill us.

 

Hughes

Juolevi

Hutton                                                                                          Expose Stecher. Tanev, Gudbrandson all UFA by then. And if we signed the, just no NMC and expose them.

 

Demko

 

And we're using the ELC slide on DiPietro. So he will only be a 2knd year pro & therefore safe. We'll have to sign another backup, or re-sign Markstrom the year before expansion. To have an eligible goalie to expose.

 

No big deal really...                                                           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:

Actually, all the forwards in Utica (Lind, Dahlen, Gadjovich, Jasek, Palmu, etc) and Juolevi will be eligible to be taken

 

Players need to have played 3 years in the AHL or NHL which they all will have by then.

not if they haven't met the minimum NHL games, I doubt those Fs will meet that. OJ probably will have the number of games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

not if they haven't met the minimum NHL games, I doubt those Fs will meet that. OJ probably will have the number of games. 

It's 1 pro-game in any top-tier league that counts as a pro-season once players are 20 and under a NHL contract - AHL, SHL, Liiga etc count.  It's only teenagers that have to play in 10 NHL games to be counted as a pro-season.


Every player who are in Utica now will be eligible as they will each have more than 2 pro-seasons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

not if they haven't met the minimum NHL games, I doubt those Fs will meet that. OJ probably will have the number of games. 

2 years pro

 

Unestablished rookies, unless a hotshot (Juolevi?) probably are not a risk to be taken though.  So ^^^ in my list above I protected Juolevi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mll said:

It's 1 pro-game in any top-tier league that counts as a pro-season once players are 20 and under a NHL contract - AHL, SHL, Liiga etc count.  It's only teenagers that have to play in 10 NHL games to be counted as a pro-season.

Yup.

 

So Anaheim has to protect, or expose, Isac Lundestrom for example.  He played 15 games, then was sent down in a curious move. Burning this year. Guys sent down on ELC slides don't count until they play pro next year. Which will make them safe.

 

It may be interesting to see if that impacts us bringing Hughes in at the end of this year.  We don't really have anyone to lose on D. Brisbois? He may be worth something by then, so it could come in to play. And wait till summer to sign Quinn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mll said:

It's 1 pro-game in any top-tier league that counts as a pro-season once players are 20 and under a NHL contract - AHL, SHL, Liiga etc count.  It's only teenagers that have to play in 10 NHL games to be counted as a pro-season.


Every player who are in Utica now will be eligible as they will each have more than 2 pro-seasons.

 

I thought the Vegas rules stated that to be eligible players had to have 40 NHL games in the year leading up to the draft or 70 in the last two, and players on their elc's were not eligible. Aren't all those guys on their last ELC year in the 20/21 season? 

 

or is that just that you have to ensure you expose guys with that amount of experience? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I thought the Vegas rules stated that to be eligible players had to have 40 NHL games in the year leading up to the draft or 70 in the last two, and players on their elc's were not eligible. Aren't all those guys on their last ELC year in the 20/21 season? 

You are confusing eligibility with minimum exposure requirement.   Every player that is not exempt or protected is exposed.  Among the players exposed each team had to have at least 2 Fs and 1 D with those minimum games played.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mll said:

You are confusing eligibility with minimum exposure requirement.   Every player that is not exempt is exposed.  Among the players exposed each team had to have at least 2 Fs and 1 D with those minimum games played.  

 

ah ok. I thought the kids who were on their last ELC year were OK but seems not. Shoot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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