[News] Proposed expansion draft rules. Expansion decision expected before 2016 draft.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

IMO, the perfect scenario for the goalie situation is to acquire two: an experienced UFA on a two-year deal (like a Reimer), and trade for a young guy that a team wont be able to protect.

Run next year with UFA, and either Ortio or traded guy as the backup, and the other with Gillies, in Stockton.

Then expose UFA guy. If he isn't claimed, try to trade him or ride it out for a year.

Longer term, run with the best two from Ortio, Gillies, and traded-for guy.

Good idea

Sign Reimer
Trade for Kuemper

[Strange Brew]

I really hope the Flames don't start signing bad contracts with a view towards exposing them in the draft. That makes no sense. Let's remember one of the rationales for the Raymond and Engelland contracts (cap floor). Different situation but point is, those contracts will stay with the team since your bad contracts aren't the ones that get drafted.

You will only lose one player or two if there are two teams. Everyone is in the same boat and everyone will lose something. If the payroll is $70 million, you have to expose $17.5 million. After Stajan, you are down to $14 million or so. Bouma, maybe Colborne's new deal, new back up goalie and you are down to $7 or $8 million.

And then if its still a problem, you cut a deal with the expansion team to protect a certain player if they are worth that much to you. In my mind, it probably comes down to Frolik if you are up against it. Losing him wouldn't be great but not the end of the world. And no guarantee he would be selected at his contract value.

Just my two cents but I would like the Flames to keep cap flexibility as they start to get more competitive vs. focusing on what they may lose in expansion draft.

[powderjunkie]

Nearly every team is going to have trouble with the 25%. I bet in the end it will either be a slightly expanded number of protectable players with the 25% provision, or they will go with something like 15 or 20%.

Say Marleau and Thornton both retire next year...that's 13.3M vanishing into nothing. Or perhaps it will be 25% of the previous payroll excluding retirements and lost UFAs.

[Alberta_Beef]

I wonder if there is a chance the NHL could hold the expansion draft on July 1st and start free agency a day later July 2nd. I think it makes sense to do it in this manner because then free agents wouldn't be an issue and this would see some NMC/NTCs expire.

[fanman]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I wonder if there is a chance the NHL could hold the expansion draft on July 1st and start free agency a day later July 2nd. I think it makes sense to do it in this manner because then free agents wouldn't be an issue and this would see some NMC/NTCs expire.

It's a good idea as you said to have the expansion draft first, but I can't see them having it just the day before.
That would be an absolutely nightmarish time for management. I'm sure they'd be knocking down Bettman's door if that happened.

[getbak]

They'll have the expansion draft before the entry draft so that the expansion teams have assets to work with in possible trades at the draft. It will also give the existing teams a chance to deal with any players they lose in the expansion draft.

[albertGQ]

From Twitter:

NHL, NHLPA have agreed to expansion draft rules, concpet. Doesn't mean expansion happens but major hurdle cleared, including no move clause

Protection of 7 forwards, 3 D and goalie or 8 skaters and goalie remain in rules. Exemption for 2nd yr pro as well.

[transplant99]

Also...those with a NMC will be honored

[Poe969]

so NMC have to be protected. That's gotta suck

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Also...those with a NMC will be honored

Is there a source for this yet? I've just seen that the parameters have been agreed to, including no-trade clauses. Haven't seen anything yet saying how they'll factor in.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Poe969

so NMC have to be protected. That's gotta suck

Calgary does not have this problem by next year though as Wideman is gone by then. This is definitely a beneficial thing. Let's just say that for Calgary, having the expansion draft happen next is much less problematic than 2 years from now. After next year it gets quite problematic.

Ironically one of the team this hurts the most is Edmonton. Both Sekera and Ference have NMC, and the 3rd defencemen will likely be Klefbom. So unless the Oilers get some seriously housecleaning done, they are in danger of losing Nurse or Klefbom.

Out of their forwards, only McDavid is protected. This leave Eberle, Hall, Neugent Hopkins, Draisaitl that need to be protected. Pouliot would likely be exposed, and anything that Yakupov would be traded for would likely also be exposed.

[Vinny01]

This could force the Pens to trade Murray unless they can convince Fleury to waive his NMC this summer

[Poe969]

Frolik has a NTC but he'd likely be protected anyway. I'm guessing we won't see many UFA signings with NTC/NMC's this summer.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Calgary does not have this problem by next year though as Wideman is gone by then.

Wideman is gone as of July 1, 2017. In past years the expansion draft was done the day before the entry draft... which if the NHL expands for 17/18 is before July 1, 2017. So Calgary does have a problem. Fortunately, they'll have at least two windows to remedy it via buyout. This summer (if he's deemed healthy) and next summer. If he's healthy they should do it this summer and not risk it.

[Vinny01]

Doesn't Stajan have a NTC as well?

[Canada 02]

Is there a scenario were a team may have too many NMC such that they cannot meet the draft criteria?
Eg starting goalie has a NMC, and the backup is exempt due to years in the league

Or 4 defencemen with NMC

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Wideman is gone as of July 1, 2017. In past years the expansion draft was done the day before the entry draft... which if the NHL expands for 17/18 is before July 1, 2017. So Calgary does have a problem. Fortunately, they'll have at least two windows to remedy it via buyout. This summer (if he's deemed healthy) and next summer. If he's healthy they should do it this summer and not risk it.

While the information regarding the process is still sparse, I don't believe the fact that the Expansion Draft happening a month before the UFA period is going to impact the Flames/Wideman.

It doesn't make sense to assume UFAs would be protected or picked, considering they would just be able to walk from their expansion team a month later.

The player that are being picked in a 2017 expansion draft are being picked based on their 17/18 contract.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I'm guessing we won't see many UFA signings with NTC/NMC's this summer.

We'll probably see about the same number (maybe just a few less) that we would regardless of expansion rules. The guys who get NMC are the guys signing long-term big money deals... no GM is gonna sign any guy that he thinks wouldn't be worth spending a protection slot to a long-term big money deal so the NMC protection in expansion rules (in their mind) would be irrelevant.

You might see some teams that have a lot of young quality NHL talent in their RFA years not give out a NMC but those teams aren't typically the ones that would hand out a NMC anyways so I suspect the actual number of folk who would otherwise get a NMC but don't this year to be small.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Frolik has a NTC but he'd likely be protected anyway. I'm guessing we won't see many UFA signings with NTC/NMC's this summer.

I feel like we could leave him unprotected, and he'd be safe.
While his deal is not a hindrance, it is certainly not a bargain for what he brings. I think that an expansion franchise will see more suitable options available to them than Frolik.

[Coach]

Does "NMC clauses being honored" mean they HAVE to be protected? I'm not so sure.

Just that, they would be honored if selected int he draft (ie player could waive).

If those clauses are to be "honored" why WOULD you protect those players (unless they are players you really want to keep regardless)?