[Rumour] UPD: Daly says no need to protect expiring contracts with NMC

[sureLoss]

So that would mean Wideman would need to be protected and also makes his contract that much harder to trade.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhl...bitious-teams/

Second, Slap Shots has learned that rules for the 2017 expansion draft that will precede Las Vegas’ anticipated 2017-18 admission to the league as its 31st franchise (“Done deal,” we’re told), will compel teams to protect players with no-move clauses even if they or the contracts themselves expire at the end of 2016-17.

This means if the expansion draft is held, say, on June 21, 2017, teams will be obligated to protect players who, a) would become unrestricted free agents 10 days later; or, b) would be able to be waived or traded 10 days later.

This is, of course, completely illogical … except when applied against Sixth Avenue’s overriding philosophy of punishing teams for following certain regulations within the CBA that for some reasons offend the league. Then it makes perfect sense.

[Lord Carnage]

That pretty much forces the buyout option for Wideman doesn't it?

We can't have one of Giordano, Brodie, of Hamilton unprotected, and the other way exposes too many forwards...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[_Q_]

If this is true, that's so bush league.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Idiotic, but would agree a buyout will be more palatable than losing a big 3 D.

[Yoho]

Shouldn't have to give up much for MAF.

[Matty81]

Wideman absolutely has to be bought out this summer if true. Which would actually be ok when you think about it... It givea the flames cap room next year when they need it and takes away a little the following year when it's needed less

[Samonadreau]

Buyout!

[Fighting Banana Slug]

So if true, I would rank the alternatives 1. Buyout. 2. Protect 8 skaters and 3. (Gulp) leave Gio unprotected.

Protecting Wideman would really suck, but this must affect other teams even worse, no?

[Par]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

So that would mean Wideman would need to be protected and also makes his contract that much harder to trade.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhl...bitious-teams/

When the league came out and said that teams did not have to expose 15% or whatever % of their cap, I knew that players with with no-move clauses even if they or the contracts themselves expire at the end of 2016-17, would need to be protected.

By eliminating the rule that teams don't need to expose a % of their cap, the league makes sure that people can't come back and say that players that are set to become UFA's at the end of 2016-17 should count against that % of the cap because players with no-move clauses expiring at the end of 2016-17 need to be protected.

NHL is going to be first league in Sin City and they will probably go up against the NFL, so they want Vegas to have the best team possible, so they will make other teams bend over.

[Poe969]

I still don't believe it. I think they'll change it some way or have a buy out option right before the expansion draft or something like that

[jmac98]

I find it hard to believe owners would agree to protecting players that would be set to become UFA's only a few days later.

I imagine if this information is true, that the expansion draft would be held after July 1st. I noticed that the above information only gives hypotheticals for what theroretcially 'could' happen based on contracts, but with no hard dates or confirmations the draft would be before free agency.


Edit: this would take Vegas out of the free agency frenzy I suppose, which maybe isnt fair as they may want a roster before adding to it via UFA. But then again, they would be days removed from kind of getting an exclusive shopping spree of their own.

Interesting to see how this will play out.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I still don't believe it. I think they'll change it some way or have a buy out option right before the expansion draft or something like that

Perhaps another compliance buyout period. No future cap hit on the current team, and a larger pool of UFAs for the expansion team (and everyone else).

[SportsJunky]

No way this happens?

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by jmac98

I find it hard to believe owners would agree to protecting players that would be set to become UFA's only a few days later.

Trying to remember, but aren't there only a handful of players (maybe 6ish) who:
- have full no-movement clauses, and
- become UFA on July 1, 2017

Becomes easier to push that through when it affects so few I'd imagine.

Still stupid though...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Par

When the league came out and said that teams did not have to expose 15% or whatever % of their cap, I knew that players with with no-move clauses even if they or the contracts themselves expire at the end of 2016-17, would need to be protected.

By eliminating the rule that teams don't need to expose a % of their cap, the league makes sure that people can't come back and say that players that are set to become UFA's at the end of 2016-17 should count against that % of the cap because players with no-move clauses expiring at the end of 2016-17 need to be protected.

NHL is going to be first league in Sin City and they will probably go up against the NFL, so they want Vegas to have the best team possible, so they will make other teams bend over.

I don't buy this reasoning. It's just as easy for them to say that expiring NMCs don't count *in both* cases - against a % of cap that must be protected and they don't need to be protected.

[jmac98]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Trying to remember, but aren't there only a handful of players (maybe 6ish) who:
- have full no-movement clauses, and
- become UFA on July 1, 2017

Becomes easier to push that through when it affects so few I'd imagine.

Still stupid though...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the number is that little, you are probably bang on. It's funny because I wager if the league says expansion is approved but deferred a year, that a whole different crop of teams will seemingly find fault with it.

[Roof-Daddy]

Total bull####, but won't be surprising since it is the NHL after all.

"Here, use up a protection slot on a player that will not only never play another game for your organization, but will be a UFA in just a matter of days. Meanwhile, go ahead and expose that core piece you love so much. You know, the one who's signed a multi year deal to stay with your team, city and fans long term. Yeah, the guy that might actually help you win something for once because he's really good and you spent years developing him."

That really makes sense.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Perhaps another compliance buyout period. No future cap hit on the current team, and a larger pool of UFAs for the expansion team (and everyone else).

This is what I am thinking will happen, it will help evens things out a bit, having one contract not count against the cap helps out teams a lot, the only thing I don't like is that rich teams, get off the hook.

If there is a compliance buyout, I really hope Flames go to the Blue Jackets, say give us the 3rd overall pick and we will take David Clarkson's contract and use their compliance buyout on David Clarkson and just buyout Dennis Wideman.

Dennis Wideman buy cap hit is not too bad.
https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout_c...dennis-wideman

To Columbus:
6th pick
Mason Raymond

To Calgary:
3rd pick
Sergei Bobrovsky(the Blue Jackets retain $1 million, the Flames get Bobrovsky at $6.4 million cap hit) Flames get their starter
David Clarkson(Flames use their compliance buyout on him)

[jmac98]

I like how you slipped in Bobrovsky there low key. Very wile e coyote.

[Resolute 14]

First, it's Brooks, so probably wrong anyway.

Second, if true, F the NHLPA. They would be the ones driving such a ridiculous rule.

Third, No choice but to buy-out Wideman.