Quote:
Originally Posted by Finger Cookin
The expansion team(s) that pay $500M in expansion fees benefit from players with NMCs being protected. It uses up protection slots on existing rosters and should allow other players to be exposed that otherwise would not have been.
|
The 7-3-1 or 8-1 allotment is being figured with this in mind (and
*GASP* this allotment is different than past expansion drafts...but obviously we should assume that absolutely every single other detail of past expansion drafts will be exactly the same as it was before).
IMO very unlikely that the teams would agree to a reduced protection list without considering implications of expiring UFA NMCs. They are already making the draft much more appealing for the expansion team...they could have gone even further with a 6-3-1 or 7-1 or any numbers for that matter instead of randomly penalizing a few teams in a specific scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgsieve
I wonder if no move clauses were Johnny and Sean's contracts will be viewed more positively? Opens up two more spots to save if they give them one...
|
AFAIK, beyond a single tweet, everyone is assuming NMC players use up a protection slot, so NMC for Johnny and Sean would be irrelevant. Of course, these same people assume that a single little news source (perhaps their is more) that may be nothing more than a tweeter's assumption is fact...yet anyone speculating on the existence of an equally logical provision is insane.
Alberta_Beef, do you actually believe players like Wideman will need to be protected, or are you just trying to feel smart by playing pretend lawyer?