Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
We have to remember these teams actually have to field a team that season. They can't just pick all prospects unless they want to lose every game by 5 goals in their first season. Its not sexy but much more likely they pick actual NHL players than a boatload of prospects.
If they have to hit the cap floor in their first year - they'll need to get some guys with salary as well.
|
Depending on the calibre of players available in the expansion draft, if I were the GM of an expansion team, I would probably take about 20 NHL veterans and 10 prospects in the draft. I would even consider 15 vets/15 prospects if the available veterans were unattractive. I would then be looking to fill out my roster with some high-level free agent signings.
If you're running an expansion team in Vegas, you shouldn't have a difficult time finding players who want to play there (Quebec might be more difficult).
Also, I have a feeling that because of the expansion draft, we might see more UFAs going without contract extensions next season, so the available list of UFAs might be better than normal next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
How about players with NMC don't need to be included in the protected list, but they can't be drafted away as well? Meaning a team can protect a NMC player without using a protection slot - thus they can protect more players from being picked away.
|
That's exactly why they won't allow that to happen. They don't want to give teams a loophole to protect more players. If they did allow that, you'd expect every new contract signed this year to have at least a one-year NMC attached to it.
For example, if the league determines that Jon Gillies will be exposed in the expansion draft next season, the Flames could go and sign Reimer (or any other potential starter) to a multi-year contract and include a full NMC for the first year of the contract and essentially have both goalies protected in the draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
The real ambiguity is that it doesn't explicitly say what happens in an expansion or relocation.
|
The CBA does mention expansion and relocation elsewhere with regards to players receiving compensation and moving expenses in the event that they are forced to move. I wonder if that strengthens the league's position that a NMC is only valid in the specific situations mentioned? The PA could have had expansion/relocation added to the clause, and didn't.
It has been 16 years since the last expansion. The PA should have had a reasonable expectation that expansion could occur during the time frame of this CBA.