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

Bluejackets are in need of forwards to expose for expansion draft

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Doesn't seem to be an issue.  CapFriendly shows them with 9 forwards under team control for next season who have the required number of games.  They can only protect 7.  

 

 

 

 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mll said:

Doesn't seem to be an issue.  CapFriendly shows them with 9 forwards under team control for next season who have the required number of games.  They can only protect 7.  

 

 

 

 

Sounds like the problem is a team must expose a minimum of 2 forwards if they are protecting 7.

 

CBJ protects:  Atkinson, Nyquist, Domi, Jenner, Bjorkstrand, Roslovic, and Robinson as their 7.

 

These guys are the outliers:

- Grigorenko is off to Europe under contract so won't be available for exposure

- Laine is an RFA

- Stenlund is an RFA

 

That's it.  They have a problem for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HKSR said:

Sounds like the problem is a team must expose a minimum of 2 forwards if they are protecting 7.

 

CBJ protects:  Atkinson, Nyquist, Domi, Jenner, Bjorkstrand, Roslovic, and Robinson as their 7.

 

These guys are the outliers:

- Grigorenko is off to Europe under contract so won't be available for exposure

- Laine is an RFA

- Stenlund is an RFA

 

That's it.  They have a problem for sure.

 

Stenlund just got re-signed.

 

Laine is their only RFA and he will be protected.  Leaves 8 who meet the requirements and there's only 6 spots left with Laine protected. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the writer of this article is any brighter than the Vancouver media. 

Under the caption "Who Are the Blue Jackets Likely to Protect?" he does not include Laine as he goes on to say "Technically, Laine does not need to be protected because he is not under contract for the 2021-22 season". He is correct in saying they don't have to protect Laine but Seattle is free to select him if they don't.

Edited by Rick Blight
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

I don't think the writer of this article is any brighter than the Vancouver media. 

Under the caption "Who Are the Blue Jackets Likely to Protect?" he does not included Laine as he goes on to say "Technically, Laine does not need to be protected because he is not under contract for the 2021-22 season". He is correct in saying they don't have to protect Laine but Seattle is free to select him if they don't.

Exactly. It'd be like if Vancouver didn't protect Pettersson. RFA's still require protection because unlike UFA's the team still owns their rights even if they aren't under contract.

Edited by 204CanucksFan
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mll said:

 

Stenlund just got re-signed.

 

Laine is their only RFA and he will be protected.  Leaves 8 who meet the requirements and there's only 6 spots left with Laine protected. 

 

Oh ok, didn't know Stenlund just got re-signed... I guess CBJ could very well lose a pretty good forward.  I'm sure CBJ doesn't wanna lose any of these guys for nothing:

Atkinson, Nyquist, Domi, Jenner, Bjorkstrand, Roslovic, Robinson

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Stenlund just got re-signed.

 

Laine is their only RFA and he will be protected.  Leaves 8 who meet the requirements and there's only 6 spots left with Laine protected. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

I don't think the writer of this article is any brighter than the Vancouver media. 

Under the caption "Who Are the Blue Jackets Likely to Protect?" he does not included Laine as he goes on to say "Technically, Laine does not need to be protected because he is not under contract for the 2021-22 season". He is correct in saying they don't have to protect Laine but Seattle is free to select him if they don't.

 

1 minute ago, 204CanucksFan said:

Exactly. It'd be like if Vancouver didn't protect Pettersson. RFA's still require protection because unlike UFA's the team still owns their rights even if theu aren't under contract.

Stop making sense people!  REMEMBER LOUI ERIKSSON SAYS HI!

 

loui-meme.png?resize=1424,801&ssl=1

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

We'll let you pick Jarmo:

 

happy ice hockey GIF by NHL

Celebrate Ice Hockey GIF by NHL

Ice Hockey Sport GIF by NHL

happy ice hockey GIF by NHL

 

Alternative pictures of each of the above:

 

garfield_lazy.png

 

hqdefault.jpg

 

33766761_1115ebd461_n.jpg

 

f7e9762ebc1f6dc02e6a1b18ecbc6425.jpg

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

I don't think the writer of this article is any brighter than the Vancouver media. 

Under the caption "Who Are the Blue Jackets Likely to Protect?" he does not included Laine as he goes on to say "Technically, Laine does not need to be protected because he is not under contract for the 2021-22 season". He is correct in saying they don't have to protect Laine but Seattle is free to select him if they don't.

Absolutely not the most brilliant pen in the study drawer! We all squandered 60-90 secs of precious life on this?!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I bet they leave Domi unprotected. He's not playing for 6 months minimum.

 

But can you expose an inured player?

That's an interesting question.  I don't see why not if there isn't a NMC in place although it seems like an issue the NHLPA would possibly have brought up.  Still, it seems more risky for the drafting team than it is for the player being picked, and outside of a NMC, I can't recall other situations that would force a team to protect a player.  Perhaps some may recall if VGK selected any players who were recovering from injuries and not expected to start the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I bet they leave Domi unprotected. He's not playing for 6 months minimum.

 

But can you expose an inured player?

Regardless, considering the Domi contract Seattle (without sweetener from CBJ) isn’t taking Domi.  Domi and Drouin will be exposed, and neither will be selected, because of their contracts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Regardless, considering the Domi contract Seattle (without sweetener from CBJ) isn’t taking Domi.  Domi and Drouin will be exposed, and neither will be selected, because of their contracts.  

Drouin for sure, I could see Seattle flipping Domi for a 2nd if they retain salary?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I bet they leave Domi unprotected. He's not playing for 6 months minimum.

 

But can you expose an inured player?

Not a legal document, so perhaps the article is incomplete, but this was the best thing found so far about injuries and the expansion draft

 

Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a team's player exposure requirements unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/seattle-kraken-2021-nhl-expansion-draft-rules-same-as-vegas-golden-knights-followed/c-302586918

 

Edit: found this later on, with some interesting info, giving insight into what happened with Vegas' draft, and some interesting perspectives: https://soundofhockey.com/2020/11/12/breaking-down-the-seattle-kraken-nhl-expansion-draft-rules/.  A better read than the NHL.com one, and repeats the same injury rule above.

Edited by Kragar
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...