Expansion Draft Angst - Why?

[mll]

5 hours ago, Russ said:

I thought the NMC went until June 31st of the 2021 so with the expansion being a few weeks before (early June) that it would still be active.  Same was as how Edler apparently agreed not to exercise his NMC as his contract runs out a couple weeks later because that was always the big issue during that last contract negotiation with him.  

Expiring NMCs don't have to be protected - it's the status on the coming 1 July  that count for the expansion.  

[Arrow 1983]

From Capfriendly

 

First & Second Year Pros

All players who have accrued two or less professional seasons at the end of the 2020-21 season, as well as all unsigned draft choices appearing on the teams reserve list, will be exempt from the upcoming expansion draft.

 

This would make Rafferty and Teves Exempt however, the contracts that undrafted players sign out of University are not considered ELC (entry level contracts). Therefore, their contracts do not slide and the games they played last year are considered full seasons.

 

Therefore, this is both their second season and next year will be considered their 3rd pro season. Even if they don't play 40 games in the NHL all it means is they don't make the requirements, However, if the Canucks don't want to lose lets say Rafferty he will need to be protected.

[Arrow 1983]

If you go to Capfriendly you will notice no ELC next to Rafferty or Teves, names

Edited January 23, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

I referred to the CBA to get clarification on who is eligible for ELC contracts. Refer to age requirement.

 

Article 9

9.1 Applicability and Duration.  Effective with SPCs entered into after the execution of this Agreement: (a) No Club may enter into an SPC with a Rookie that provides for compensation in excess of that permitted by this Article. (b) Subject to subsection (c) below, the period covered by the SPC for every Rookie, and the number of years that such Player will be in the Entry Level System and subject to the compensation limits set out in this Article, shall be as indicated on the chart immediately below, and during such period, the Player shall be deemed to be a "Group 1 Player": 
First SPC Signing Age 
Period Covered by First SPC and Years in the Entry Level System and Subject to Compensation Limits 
18-21 3 years 
22-23 2 years 
24 1 year 
25 and older No required number of years, not in the Entry Level System and not subject to limits on compensation (c) Notwithstanding the chart set forth in (b) above, a Player who at the time he was drafted was playing for a team outside North America or who meets the qualifications set forth in Article 8.4(a)(v) (a "European Player") who signs his first SPC at ages 25-27 shall be subject to the Entry Level System for one (1) year.  A European Player who signs his first SPC at age 28 or older is not subject to the Entry Level System under any circumstances. (d) (i) In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old Player signs an SPC with a Club but does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the first season under that SPC, the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for a period of one (1) year, except that this automatic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC.  Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided, however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all circumstances.

[mll]

2 hours ago, Devron44 said:

Question.. Does anyone know if Rafferty will need to be exposed. First year pro is this year and second year next so he should be exempt no? 

 

2 hours ago, coolboarder said:

I believe that he is exempted as it's stated 2 seasons of professional hockey.  Anything below 10 games is not counted as a pro season.   He was signed late in the season after his NCAA season was over, similar with Hughes.   

Rafferty will be exposed - he will be in his 3rd pro-year.   As of age 20 one game in any top tier pro-league (NHL, AHL, SHL,...) while under a NHL contract counts as a pro season.  Last year with his 2 NHL games was his 1st pro-season.

 

It's only for teenagers where a pro-season is 10 NHL games.  Hughes was 19 and didn't play 10 NHL games.  

 

39 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

 

 

Honestly there is some confusion here Capfriendly has him exposed along with Teves, but it doesn't  make any sense to me because based on the rules they shouldn't be, they should fall under the same exemption as Hughes so either Capfriendly has it wrong or they know something we don't. The only reasons that I can think of are they were undrafted signings therefore the games they played do not follow the same criteria as drafted players (the 10 game rule exemption). Or that University games are considered pro games, which makes no sense cause capfriendly currently has Tryamkin exempt and he is playing in a much more pro league then University.

 

The only conclusion I can come to is that Capfriendly is wrong, and Rafferty and Teves should be exempt.

 

If so this would make protecting all our dmen very easy.

 

Edler and Benn are UFA in 2021.

 

So we could sign Stecher and Tanev and protect both of them including Protecting Myers. If we protect these guys the Canucks are going to need to sign another Dman to expose or suffer the penalties, Cause no one else currently meets the Defenceman requirements. Juolevi puts a slight wrinkle into this equation if he doesn't play 40 games in the NHL he doesn't make the requirements, but he will play next season in the NHL or AHL giving him 3 pro seasons and will need to be protected if they do not want to expose him.

 

Capfriendly get your stuff together and either fix your mistake or give explanation as to why these guys are exposed. 

 

See above.  

 

Tryamkin has 2 pro-seasons so far.  He is no longer under a NHL contract so his time in the KHL is not accruing pro-seasons.  Tryamkin is going to be exposed as soon as he returns to the NHL as it will be his 3rd pro-season.

 

 

[Arrow 1983]

Both Rafferty and Teves contract extends pass their 24 birthday and therefore, renders them non ELC

[Arrow 1983]

1 minute ago, mll said:

 

Rafferty will be exposed - he will be in his 3rd pro-year.   As of age 20 one game in any top tier pro-league (NHL, AHL, SHL,...) while under a NHL contract counts as a pro season.  Last year with his 2 NHL games was his 1st pro-season.

 

It's only for teenagers where a pro-season is 10 NHL games.  Hughes was 19 and didn't play 10 NHL games.  

 

 

See above.  

 

Tryamkin has 2 pro-seasons so far.  He is no longer under a NHL contract so his time in the KHL is not accruing pro-seasons.  Tryamkin is going to be exposed as soon as he returns to the NHL as it will be his 3rd pro-season.

 

 

Correct one more game played in the NHL or AHL and Tryamkin will have to be protected if the Canucks don't want to lose him

[mll]

Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

Both Rafferty and Teves contract extends pass their 24 birthday and therefore, renders them non ELC

They are on their 2nd contracts.  Only 1st contracts are ELCs.   Because of their signing age their ELCs were only 1 year long and expired the same season they signed.   

[Arrow 1983]

Just now, mll said:

They are on their 2nd contracts.  Only 1st contracts are ELCs.   Because of their signing age their ELCs were only 1 year long and expired the same season they signed.   

Yup I was just noticing that their first contracts where only 1 year and that they did sign a second contract.

 

You are right again.

[Arrow 1983]

4 minutes ago, mll said:

They are on their 2nd contracts.  Only 1st contracts are ELCs.   Because of their signing age their ELCs were only 1 year long and expired the same season they signed.   

Based on their signing age they could only sign 1 year. They where both 24 at the time of their first contract and a ELC contract can not extend pass their 24th birthday and they will both be 25 at the end of this year.

[Arrow 1983]

This really complicates protecting their Defensive group

 

Risk losing 1 of Rafferty or Juolevi or protect them both and only be able to protect one other Defencemen.

 

If they re-sign Tanev and Stecher then only one of Tanev, Stecher and Myers can be protected.

 

If they don't sign Tanev and Stecher, both or 1 of either the guys they sign to replace them in the off season and or Myers will have to be exposed.

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

This really complicates protecting their Defensive group

 

Risk losing 1 of Rafferty or Juolevi or protect them both and only be able to protect one other Defencemen.

 

If they re-sign Tanev and Stecher then only one of Tanev, Stecher and Myers can be protected.

 

If they don't sign Tanev and Stecher, both or 1 of either the guys they sign to replace them in the off season and or Myers will have to be exposed.

 

There's basically zero chance they're both back next year, let alone for the ED. Pretty decent chance neither are back in fact.

 

If Tanev is back, I'd not be surprised to see him exposed given his age, injury history etc.

 

Assuming all of Rafferty, Juolevi and Tryamkin prove worthy of protection, that's who we'll be protecting IMO.

Edited January 23, 2020 by aGENT

[Provost]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

There's basically zero chance they're both back next year, let alone for the ED. Pretty decent chance neither are back in fact.

 

IfTanev is back, I'd not be surprised to see him exposed given his age, injury history etc.

 

Assuming all of Rafferty, Juolevi and Tryamkin prove worthy of protection, that's who we'll be protecting IMO.

Barring moving out significant cap, you are right that there is no way both are back and maybe even neither.  To choose one right now is a really close call.  Tanev is still better, but maybe not for long, this season is likely his high water mark and it is all downhill.  Stecher on the other hand is a lot younger and a lot less injury prone, and has proven he can play 20 minutes a game without his stats dropping off... but isn't quite as good a fit as Tanev who pairs with Hughes nicely.

I think the whole concern over what D protect is probably a moot point at this time, because simply considering the asset value, the one of Markstrom or Demko that isn't protected is the one to select by a long shot.  We are super lucky in that we have a lot of exempt players, UFAs, or veterans with short terms left on their contracts... our loss in expansion probably isn't going to hurt much just like Sbisa didn't.

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

We are super lucky

Or maybe JB planned it that way, so luck has little to do with it?

[Timråfan]

22 hours ago, Cup2022 said:

Thought that 9 game losing skids was in second half could be wrong though

Why blame losing skids on the goalie?

I've seen a lot of over reaction against the goalies if they let in a lot of goals. But people don't look at the goals and see if it was even possible to save them. 

If you make a proper analyze of the losing skid and can put the blame on the goalie afterwards  I would be very surprised.

[aGENT]

12 minutes ago, Provost said:

Barring moving out significant cap, you are right that there is no way both are back and maybe even neither.  To choose one right now is a really close call.  Tanev is still better, but maybe not for long, this season is likely his high water mark and it is all downhill.  Stecher on the other hand is a lot younger and a lot less injury prone, and has proven he can play 20 minutes a game without his stats dropping off... but isn't quite as good a fit as Tanev who pairs with Hughes nicely.

I think the whole concern over what D protect is probably a moot point at this time, because simply considering the asset value, the one of Markstrom or Demko that isn't protected is the one to select by a long shot.  We are super lucky in that we have a lot of exempt players, UFAs, or veterans with short terms left on their contracts... our loss in expansion probably isn't going to hurt much just like Sbisa didn't.

Yup, we're in relatively good shape heading in to it.

 

Really though until we know who, if either, of Tanev/Stecher are getting re-signed, whether Marky re-signs, whether we trade Demko etc, etc nobody REALLY has any clue who we'll be protecting. I mean we presently only have what, 7 current ,NHL roster players even under contract for the ED at this point? 

 

On top of that, maybe Brisebois becomes irreplaceable as the 'next Tanev' in the interim? Maybe Jasek turns in to the 'next Kesler'? Maybe Rafferty never translates, Juolevi has further injuries and Tryamkin never returns or goes back to Russia after one year? There goes my suggested list! 

 

Yes the discussion and debate on here is fun! But people focusing on present players are missing the mark IMO. The team is going to see a LOT of flux the next few years.

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by aGENT

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, gurn said:

Or maybe JB planned it that way, so luck has little to do with it?

If he planned on us being so terrible for several years that we got a bunch of top level prospects who would be on the roster but not eligible for expansion, and also signed a bunch of veterans to contracts that make them severely unattractive... just so he wouldn't have to give up much of a player in expansion... then he should be fired and probably have worse done to him.

There is little he has done so far in terms of planning.  You can point to the Edler contract and the Myers/Ferland's NMC dropping as the only real clear examples of consciously prepping for the expansion draft.  Basically every team stopped giving out NMCs for the expansion year, so that isn't any particularly adept planning.

[theo5789]

Am I really reading that we are worried about losing Teves and Rafferty in the expansion? If Rafferty can translate his game to the NHL, then he's protected. Not even worried about Teves. If they take him, we are laughing.

[Timråfan]

18 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

As some might notice, I am one of the greatest proponents of not signing Markstrom. Where you, I believe are wrong is the the expansion draft is actually a minor reason as not to sign Markstrom. The expansion draft is just another element in the long list to not sign Markstrom.

 

So here in point form and in order of major reason to minor reason is the list why not to sign Markstrom.

 

1) Markstrom next season, will be 30 years old, why does this matter, I agree he could have maybe 3 more good years before he starts to decline, he could also start to decline next year and ever year during his new contract.

2) He is a UFA that could seek 6-7mill per year and ask for term of 5-7 years. IMO this would handcuff the Canucks if he where to start to decline. Examples SJS and NJ.

3) We as fans must ask what would be the purpose of signing Markstrom, the only purpose IMO would be if we were a cup contender now and in the next 1-2 years. My belief, is we are not. We are 2-3 years from even having that window open as this year we are fighting to make the playoffs never mind compete for a cup. So if my assumption is correct 32-33 years old by the time the window is opening to contend for a cup and 34-35 before the Canucks might actually win it.

This is based on guys like Hughes, Boeser and Petey coming into their primes 23ish years old.

4) who else would be coming into his prime in 2-3 years? Demko is now 24 will be 25 at the end of this year and will be 27-28 years of age in 2-3 years. Demko will develop into a starter as the Canucks players are going in to their prime.

5) There are better options then Markstrom next year and going forward. The Canucks could sign a veteran goalie for 2 years for 3.5-4 mill to back up Demko. 1 suggestion is Cory Crawford, he is 35 currently and a UFA.  He is no longer a starter in this league and 4 million would be an over payment but might convince him to sign a shorter term deal and become a back up. In this case Demko could play 55ish games well Crawford could pick up the rest. Who knows Crawford or a guy like him could still have a good season or 2 left on a better team.

6) A guy like Crawford could be exposed in the expansion draft as he meets the requirements. The Canucks could protect Demko.

7) If Crawford like goalie gets picked up then Dipietro has had another year in th Ahl and could be Demko's back up or if he is not ready the Canucks could find another back up for that season.

8) This is just my believe, IMO Demko is ready to be a starter, and the arguement doesn't fly with me. A starter doesn't need to play 60 games.

9) If Crawford wasn't taken in the Expansion draft then that would allow Dipietro 2 years in the Ahl before he becomes Demkos back up.

 

IMO, the only reason to sign Markstrom is if Benning and crew believe this team Can compete for the cup now and for the next 3 years. I also believe if it is greater then 6 mill per and longer then 3 year term it will handcuff the team in the back end of a long term contract and we will lose good goaltenders in the process. Demko for sure either by trade, expansion draft, or when he becomes a UFA.

 

You lost me completely when you want to pay 4 mill for a goalie that are 35 years old now... Than you can pay Marky 6 mill for 6 year and get a much better outcome. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Timråfan

[Timråfan]

14 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

This list, is the reason, I protect Demko, as IMO, Seattle will not go with 2 veterans and Markstrom isn't the best one on that list

So I see them picking another Canuck

I see one of Holtby/ Bishop/Allen...….then a lesser...………..and no way they put 10+ Million in Goaltending

Just of interest, who is better than Marky on that list?