Quick question: Is Myers next year expansion protected?

[Lazurus]

2 minutes ago, ruilin96 said:

Management should talk Edler into waiving his NMC. Reason is his contract is up at the end of the season and if Seattle picks up he can just sign with the Canucks in 2 weeks time when he becomes a UFA. Edler should understand that if he waives, we can protect another young player and he can just relax knowing that the Canucks can sign him basically in the off season if he wish to keep on playing. I don't think Seattle will pick a pending UFA with an expiring contract anyways.

The expansion rules state he has to be under contract the next year to need protection. What will happen is he becomes a free agent and can sign with anyone. I agree he should waive to be traded so the team can get more assets but I think that is why they only did a 2 year deal.

 

[mll]

6 minutes ago, ruilin96 said:

Management should talk Edler into waiving his NMC. Reason is his contract is up at the end of the season and if Seattle picks up he can just sign with the Canucks in 2 weeks time when he becomes a UFA. Edler should understand that if he waives, we can protect another young player and he can just relax knowing that the Canucks can sign him basically in the off season if he wish to keep on playing. I don't think Seattle will pick a pending UFA with an expiring contract anyways.

They don't have to.  Edler is considered UFA for expansion.  

[Lazurus]

27 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

Ferland has a clause that allows him to be exposed. You're barking up the wrong tree here. 

 

The Canucks have no one that needs expansion protection. 

SEASON	CLAUSE	CAP HIT	AAV	P. BONUSES	S. BONUSES	BASE SALARY	TOTAL SALARY	MINORS SALARY
2019-20	NMC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,500,000	$4,500,000	$4,500,000
2020-21	NMC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$3,000,000	$3,000,000	$3,000,000
2021-22	M-NTC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$3,750,000	$3,750,000	$3,750,000
2022-23	M-NTC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$2,750,000	$2,750,000	$2,750,000
TOTAL		$14,000,000	$14,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$12,000,000	$14,000,000	$14,000,000

CLAUSE DETAILS: 2021-22: Player submits a 10 team no trade list; 2022-23: Player submits a 8 team no trade list

[mll]

.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by mll

[JM_]

13 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

SEASON	CLAUSE	CAP HIT	AAV	P. BONUSES	S. BONUSES	BASE SALARY	TOTAL SALARY	MINORS SALARY
2019-20	NMC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,500,000	$4,500,000	$4,500,000
2020-21	NMC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$3,000,000	$3,000,000	$3,000,000
2021-22	M-NTC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$3,750,000	$3,750,000	$3,750,000
2022-23	M-NTC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$2,750,000	$2,750,000	$2,750,000
TOTAL		$14,000,000	$14,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$12,000,000	$14,000,000	$14,000,000

CLAUSE DETAILS: 2021-22: Player submits a 10 team no trade list; 2022-23: Player submits a 8 team no trade list

have it your way 

[Lazurus]

18 minutes ago, mll said:

It was already clarified that it's the status at the start of the following season that applies - ie the 1 July status or whenever that is for 2021/22.  

 

Here's CapFriendly's expansion tool.  You'll notice that no player in Vancouver has an NMC because that clause will have expired for the start of 2021/22 which is the status that matters.  

https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle

 

Interesting but flawed, it is showing players not on the team or after contracts have expired

[Lazurus]

10 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

24 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

SEASON	CLAUSE	CAP HIT	AAV	P. BONUSES	S. BONUSES	BASE SALARY	TOTAL SALARY	MINORS SALARY
2019-20	NMC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$2,000,000	$2,500,000	$4,500,000	$4,500,000
2020-21	NMC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$3,000,000	$3,000,000	$3,000,000
2021-22	M-NTC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$3,750,000	$3,750,000	$3,750,000
2022-23	M-NTC	$3,500,000	$3,500,000	$0	$0	$2,750,000	$2,750,000	$2,750,000
TOTAL		$14,000,000	$14,000,000	$0	$2,000,000	$12,000,000	$14,000,000	$14,000,000

CLAUSE DETAILS: 2021-22: Player submits a 10 team no trade list; 2022-23: Player submits a 8 team no trade list

have it your way

Both, i was correct and here is what makes your statement correct

He agreed to waive his NMC

 

One intriguing case is that of Micheal Ferland. It has been reported that Ferland, who signed a four-year deal with Vancouver this summer, has agreed to be exposed in 2021, just as his NMC comes to a close.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Lazurus

[mll]

5 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

Interesting but flawed, it is showing players not on the team or after contracts have expired

They only have to pick 20 players under contract and can pick 10 UFAs should they wish.  They could select Edler and he would count as the Canucks pick.  Last time Vegas took UFA Engelland as the Calgary pick.  

 

They show the players that require protection because of their NMCs - see Backstrom in Washington just below Vancouver.  The Canucks do not have any NMCs.

[mll]

1 minute ago, Lazurus said:

Both, i was correct and here is what makes your statement correct

He agreed to waive his NMC

 

One intriguing case is that of Micheal Ferland. It has been reported that Ferland, who signed a four-year deal with Vancouver this summer, has agreed to be exposed in 2021, just as his NMC comes to a close.

 

 

It's automatic because it's a modified-NTC in 2021/22 and it's that year that matters.

[Lazurus]

1 minute ago, mll said:

 

It's automatic because it's a modified-NTC in 2021/22 and it's that year that matters.

then why would agree to waive his NMC?

And no it is the current year as was posted here

Edited October 16, 2020 by Lazurus

[Lazurus]

35 minutes ago, mll said:

 

It's the 2021/22 situation that matters for expansion.  Just like it does for Edler - he is UFA because in 2021/22 he is no longer under contract.

 

It's automatic because it's a modified-NTC in 2021/22 and it's that year that matters.

From NHL.com

Seattle was granted an expansion franchise by the NHL on Dec. 4, 2018 and will begin play in 2021-22. The Seattle Kraken will be in the Pacific Division with the Arizona Coyotes moving to the Central Division.

The 2021 NHL Expansion Draft will be under the same rules for Seattle as the Vegas Golden Knights in 2017. Seattle will select one player from each team excluding the Golden Knights for a total of 30 (14 forwards, nine defensemen and three goalies) not including additional players who may be acquired as the result of violations of the Expansion Draft rules.

 

[RELATED: Seattle NHL expansion approved by Board of Governors | Seattle expansion frequently asked questions]

 

Seattle must choose a minimum of 20 players under contract for the 2021-22 regular season and those with an aggregate Expansion Draft value that is between 60-100 percent of the prior season's upper limit for the salary cap. Seattle cannot buy out players chosen in the Expansion Draft earlier than the summer following its first season.

Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie, under the following conditions.

* All players with no movement clauses at the time of the draft, and who decline to waive those clauses, must be protected and will be counted toward their team's applicable protection limits.

 

Cap friendly -

1. All players who are not under contract in 2020-21 are currently assumed to be extended until the end of that season

Edited October 16, 2020 by Lazurus

[mll]

4 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

then why would agree to waive his NMC?

And no it is the current year as was posted here

The NMC has to be continuing.  An expiring NMC does no count.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592

* All players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

[Lazurus]

Just now, mll said:

The NMC has to be continuing.  An expiring NMC does no count.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592

* All players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

Key words are "At the time of the draft" which occurs before contracts end or the next contract year starts NHL contract year - July 1 to June 30.

 

At this point it kind of a moot point because Ferland AGREED TO WAIVE HIS NMC for the draft.

[mll]

Just now, Lazurus said:

Key words are "At the time of the draft" which occurs before contracts end or the next contract year starts NHL contract year - July 1 to June 30.

 

At this point it kind of a moot point because Ferland AGREED TO WAIVE HIS NMC for the draft.

For the NMC to be valid it has to extend into the following season.  Ferland's does not.  Here's the rule confirmed by CapFriendly - they've verified all the clauses with the NHL.  

 

[Patel Bure]

I might go against the grain here and argue that I wouldn't mind exposing Myers and having him being claimed.    

 

We get 6 million off our books to help us in signing Petey, Demko, and Hughes, while Seattle takes on Myers for what might be the start of his declining years.    Hughes and Schmidt continue to be the kingpins of our defense, while guys like Juolevi, Rathbone, Tryamkin, and Rafferty might be further in their development at that time.   

 

Meanwhile, we'll have had Myers for his full value of 6 million.  

Edited October 16, 2020 by DarkIndianRises

[EternalCanuckFan]

Since Hughes doesn't require protection and Edler will be a UFA (not requiring protection), I presume right now the only D the Canucks will most likely be protecting is Schmidt.

 

I'm pretty sure Rathbone won't need protection.  Juolevi and Rafferty might need protection but who knows how either progresses this year.

 

If Myers has a decent year, then I don't see any harm with protecting him.  At this point it doesn't seem like the Canucks have that many D that they need to protect anyway.  If someone displaces Myers, then at least the Canucks still have the option of exposing Myers.  Seattle can have their pick of Eriksson, Myers, Ferland, Roussel and Beagle (assuming the Canucks protect three of Motte, Virtanen, MacEwen and/or Gaudette).

 

I think the Canucks are in a solid position for the expansion draft unless they add a player or two before the expansion draft that mess up their expansion position.  COVID aside, if the Canucks add any more players, then there are a lot of good reasons for the Canucks to only bring in a UFA for 1-year or trade for a player who either won't need protection or who would be an improvement over a player who they would have otherwise protected.

[Quantum]

Tyler Myers can be exposed.

 

However, unless they re-sign Edler before the expansion, I suspect that Myers will be protected (unfortunately). With Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi, and Rafferty are all on their ELC's, they won't need to be protected. Benn is set to become a UFA next season and he won't be protected. Schmidt will be protected, for sure. And with that, the other players that logically could be protected are Myers and someone like Jalen Chatfield or Briesbois?!? If one of those two guys have a breakout season, they'd be a logical protection choice.

 

There's also the likely possibility that the Canucks add an expansion eligible defenseman before the expansion draft. A guy like Oscar Fantenberg could be brought back on a two year deal and protected over a Chatfield/Breisbois.

 

My expectation for protection right now is that the Canucks will protect: Schmidt, Edler, and Myers. But this will probably change before June.

 

Also -- looking at who the Canucks protected at the Vegas expansion draft -- all players but Bo Horvat (and possibly Alex Edler) will have been traded/left in free agency/retired/not good enough to be protected anymore. That's good turnover. It's funny how the Canucks actually protected Erik Gudbranson, Markus Granlund, and Sven Baertschi at one point in time.

 

 

[mll]

Just now, Quantum said:

Tyler Myers can be exposed.

 

However, unless they re-sign Edler before the expansion, I suspect that Myers will be protected (unfortunately). With Hughes, Rathbone, Juolevi, and Rafferty are all on their ELC's, they won't need to be protected. Benn is set to become a UFA next season and he won't be protected. Schmidt will be protected, for sure. And with that, the other players that logically could be protected are Myers and someone like Jalen Chatfield or Briesbois?!? If one of those two guys have a breakout season, they'd be a logical protection choice.

 

There's also the likely possibility that the Canucks add an expansion eligible defenseman before the expansion draft. A guy like Oscar Fantenberg could be brought back on a two year deal and protected over a Chatfield/Breisbois.

 

My expectation for protection right now is that the Canucks will protect: Schmidt, Edler, and Myers. But this will probably change before June.

 

Also -- looking at who the Canucks protected at the Vegas expansion draft -- all players but Bo Horvat (and possibly Alex Edler) will have been traded/left in free agency/retired/not good enough to be protected anymore. That's good turnover. It's funny how the Canucks actually protected Erik Gudbranson, Markus Granlund, and Sven Baertschi at one point in time.

 

 

 

ELC players need to be protected if they have more than 2 pro-years.  Juolevi and Rafferty are not exempt and require protection.  

[grandmaster]

Given that Edler will be most likely gone at the end of next year, we need Myers even more. Is he overpaid? Yeah but not by that much. He brings a good forecheck with that long reach and is more than capable to take down any big forward in the NHL.
 

A poster once referred him as a Willie Mitchell 2.0 and he truly is. Makes our defence better. 

[CaptKirk888]

12 minutes ago, mll said:

 

ELC players need to be protected if they have more than 2 pro-years.  Juolevi and Rafferty are not exempt and require protection.  

This is true. But according to Cap Friendly we must leave one defenceman unprotected who has met the requirements indicated in the graphic here. 

At the moment that would mean we would have to expose Schmidt, Edler or Myers unless one of the others plays the required games remaining shown. Benn at 19 RG seems likely, or they could expose Edler as a UFA?