[News] Official expansion alignment, expansion draft rules, and 2017 entry draft rules

[Parallex]

Of note: As of now the Flames do not have a D-men (outside of our top three) under contract to expose under contract for 17-18 nor any Goaltender.

Not to worry. That's an easy qualification to meet just sign Brent Krahn to a 1 year deal on June 16 and put him on $125.00 waivers on June 21.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Teams do not declare players available. They protect players who are not available, and players with two or less years of pro experience are exempt. The remaining players in the organization are available. If the available players do not meet the minimum league requirements, the team is penalized. The exact penalties are not known, but they seem to involve possibly losing additional player(s), and have been reported to be severe.

It says they can elect a RFA goalie. Maybe this will limit the Flames to our two actual RFA goalies, Rittich and Gillies but it seems to be able to be done. At this stage at least it looks like Rittich could be the one.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Of note: As of now the Flames do not have a D-men (outside of our top three) under contract to expose under contract for 17-18 nor any Goaltender.

Not to worry. That's an easy qualification to meet just sign Brent Krahn to a 1 year deal on June 16 and put him on $125.00 waivers on June 21.

I'm pretty sure the league will see through that.

I think the Flames are more likely to trade for someone who is a pending RFA and just give them a qualifying offer. Or as Vulcan suggested perhaps they are allowed to expose players they don't need to.

[Finger Cookin]

An RFA goalie can be elected - but without a goalie that meets the minimum exposure requirement of two+ years pro experience under a SPC, there's no goalie to elect so it doesn't matter. All of the minor league goalies are exempt from the draft.

Not having a goalie to meet the exposure requirements is probably not worth the penalty.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

An RFA goalie can be elected - but without a goalie that meets the minimum exposure requirement of two+ years pro experience under a SPC, there's no goalie to elect so it doesn't matter. All of the minor league goalies are exempt from the draft.

Not having a goalie to meet the exposure requirements is probably not worth the penalty.

That rule is there to protect the team's prospects but if the team chooses not to protect a prospect, why can't it be done.

And of course they are going to meet the exposure requirements, they won't be guessing like we are.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yes... but how many teams are there with better players (albeit past their prime) with cap hit > $$$ that also don't have something more tempting available? Throw me a name or two.

Plekanec - 5M for 6AAV (1 year) - 34 yo after next years

Bouwmeester (even) - 33

J Carter (32) - 1 year of $$>AAV, then the savings become substantial
Gaborik (35) - some major savings

Jason Garrison (32) - $2.5 vs 4.6AAV (1 year)...Tampa would likely have something more tempting

Bozak (31) - $4 vs 4.2AAV

Another unlikely one is Phil Kessel - is his NMC still valid? declining salary 9, 7, 7, 6, 6 for 8AAV (-1.2M all of those numbers retained salary from the Leafs).



Calgary would have something more tempting relative to Stajan (33) than these situations. Turns out Stajan is $2.5M salary (actually 2M salary + 500k bonus if it makes a difference) vs. 3.125 hit. It's all of the other Calgary bad contracts right now that aren't at all front loaded.

I'm sure there's plenty more examples (only made it down to $4M AAV on capfriendly list), but I'd take almost any of these guys as my expensive 'veteran presence' over Stajan.

[sureLoss]

The rules state:

* 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).

doesn't say anything about choosing to allow them to be selected. IMO without any other wording it seems to indicate that first and second year pros cannot be selected regardless if the team is willing to let them or not.

Also where it says elects to expose an RFA goalie, it is referring to the contract status in the previous statement. Not a blanket statement to choose any RFA you want.

[Finger Cookin]

Any sense that the teams' protected lists will be publicized between June 17 and 20? Or is it more likely that only Las Vegas' selections will be publicized on June 21?

[Alberta_Beef]

I suspect at the deadline or after the season the Flames will acquire a pending RFA goalie that will need to be protected.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I suspect at the deadline or after the season the Flames will acquire a pending RFA goalie that will need to be protected.

Do you mean exposed?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Do you mean exposed?

Both terms work, if you have to protect a player they are not exempt

[Finger Cookin]

I guess when you said "will need to be protected", I assumed you meant a goalie the team would choose to protect, which wouldn't make sense to me. But you're right, a goalie that meets the minimum exposure requirements needs to be acquired.

[powderjunkie]

In the past, teams would trade assets in exchange for the expansion team to not select a player. I wonder if it will be possible for teams to trade assets to make the expansion team select a certain player (ie. bad contract) from their team?

[FanIn80]

I think the plan is wait until about a week before the expansion draft before working out any strategies. By then, Benning will have announced on the radio every idea Vancouver's come up with, which will be brilliant for knowing what not to do, and LA will have figured out enough loopholes that we won't have to expose anyone at all if we just follow their lead.

[sureLoss]

list of players the NHL & NHLPA agree must be protected (barring the players waiving NMC, buyout, injury exemption, any new contracts signed from today til the expansion draft, etc)

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/o...ins-surprises/

Anaheim (4)
Kevin Bieksa
Ryan Getzlaf
Ryan Kesler
Corey Perry

Arizona (1)
Alex Goligoski

Boston (4)
David Backes
Patrice Bergeron
Zdeno Chara
David Krejci

Buffalo (1)
Kyle Okposo

Carolina (1)
Jordan Staal

Columbus (5)
Sergei Bobrovsky
David Clarkson
Brandon Dubinsky
Nick Foligno
Scott Hartnell

Chicago (8)
Artem Anisimov
Corey Crawford
Niklas Hjalmarsson
Marian Hossa
Patrick Kane
Duncan Keith
Brent Seabrook
Jonathan Toews

Colorado (2)
Francois Beauchemin
Erik Johnson

Dallas (2)
Jamie Benn
Jason Spezza

Detroit (1)
Frans Nielsen

Edmonton (3)
Milan Lucic
Andrej Sekera
Cam Talbot

Florida (1)
Keith Yandle

Los Angeles (1)
Anze Kopitar

Minnesota (4)
Mikko Koivu
Zach Parise
Jason Pominville
Ryan Suter

Montreal (2)
Jeff Petry
Carey Price

Nashville (1)
Pekka Rinne

New Jersey (1)
Ryane Clowe

N.Y. Islanders (3)
Johnny Boychuk
Andrew Ladd
John Tavares

N.Y. Rangers (4)
Dan Girardi
Henrik Lundqvist
Rick Nash
Marc Staal

Ottawa (1)
Dion Phaneuf

Philadelphia (1)
Claude Giroux

Pittsburgh (5)
Sidney Crosby
Marc-Andre Fleury
Phil Kessel
Kris Letang
Evgeni Malkin

Tampa Bay (4)
Ryan Callahan
Valtteri Filppula
Victor Hedman
Steven Stamkos

Toronto (1)
Nathan Horton

Vancouver (3)
Loui Eriksson
Daniel Sedin
Henrik Sedin

Winnipeg (2)
Dustin Byfuglien
Toby Enstrom

---

Teams without any players that they’re required to protect: Calgary, San Jose, St. Louis, Washington.

[OmegaV4]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

list of players the NHL & NHLPA agree must be protected (barring the players waiving NMC, buyout, injury exemption, any new contracts signed from today til the expansion draft, etc)

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/o...ins-surprises/

so If I'm reading this correctly...that means....we are good?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by OmegaV4

so If I'm reading this correctly...that means....we are good?

We're not forced to protect anyone.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by OmegaV4

so If I'm reading this correctly...that means....we are good?

That means we can trade Wideman for Hjalmarsson so the Hawks can protect Van Riemsdyk

[sureLoss]

For those thinking this was a loophole:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-on-expansion-d...xempt-1.616726

NHL teams received clarification this week closing a perceived loophole in June’s upcoming expansion draft.

Multiple teams inquired with the league about the potential of voluntarily exposing exempt first and second year professional players as a means of perhaps protecting another player who might otherwise have to be exposed.

For example, both Canadiens minor league netminders Zach Fucale and Charlie Lindgren are on Montreal's exempt list. The Canadiens still need to find a goaltender to expose that meets the contractual requirements. Rather than re-sign Al Montoya to a new contract for 2017-18 just to meet the exposure requirements, the Canadiens could have explored possibly choosing to expose one of Fucale or Lindgren instead. Unlike skaters, who have a games played requirement of 40 games this season or 70 over the last two, goaltenders don't have the same requirements and both goalies have the required contract - but they are on the exempt list.
(The above example is purely for illustration purposes only.)

Instead, sources confirmed the NHL notified teams that “exempt players are exempt” for purposes of the expansion draft.

In other words, any first or second year professional cannot be made available to Vegas by his club – no matter whether they’re seen as expendable or not.

[sureLoss]

Frank Seravalli @frank_seravalli
Vegas @GoldenKnights expansion draft selections will be announced on June 21, same day as #NHL Awards. May be in same TV event or separate.

Frank Seravalli
@frank_seravalli
#NHL has a few ideas to "jazz up" Vegas exp draft selections in a made-for-TV event. Still deciding exactly how to present.