LeBrun: NHL Expansion Draft Parameters Discussion ‘Contentious’

[powderjunkie]

I predict a lot of the back diving contracts left get snapped up to help the team's cap hit to dollar spent ratio. Annoying that teams will get out of the painful years of expensive old guys.

[dying4acup]

Not only would this be the first expansion draft in the cap era, but the first since the free agency age dropped from 31. In today's game, entry level players and prospects hold a greater value than they ever did before. For this reason, the previous expansion draft rules are completely irrelevant.

I think they are proposing allowing teams to protect ~25/50 contract players, and 10 non-contract reserves (juniors, college, overseas) to be protected.

This would allow some teams (contenders) to protect more NHL players and others (rebuilders) to protect more prospects and youth.

There would have to be a minimum and maximum number of roster players and goaltenders protected in any scenario, and possibly a minimum level of cap (signed contracts under protection. For instance a team would have to protect a minimum of 5 roster players and $25M, and a maximum of 15 roster players and 2 organizational goaltenders.

Another possible contention could be timing of an expansion draft. In June? Before or after the draft? Status of pending UFAs? In July? Current year drafted (and possibly previous year drafted) players excluded (as the expansion franchise would have participated in that (those)draft(s))?

I'm quite sure that the desire from all parties would be to have an expansion team participate in 2 entry drafts, but would that be possible? If the BOG approves expansion in August, would a team be willing to wait 2yrs to start play?

And finally, an issue in the last 2 drafts was that expansion teams drafted players for other teams and then moved them in trade. Somebody suggested the Flames could choose to expose Gio because he would be ~34 and 5yrs remaining on contract. While an expansion team may have no interest in Gio, perhaps the oilers were to offer LV a 1st rounder to draft Gio and trade him. I feel there should be some protection for any active player drafted to have to play a minimum of 10games before being traded.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I predict a lot of the back diving contracts left get snapped up to help the team's cap hit to dollar spent ratio. Annoying that teams will get out of the painful years of expensive old guys.

I believe cap hit is why the league wants to allow the expansion team(s) to draft younger players, but this isn't why. The only contracts existing teams will want to expose are the overvalued, high priced players or the useless overpaid fourth liners. The salary cap only works because of the mixture of high priced players and value contracts. Vegas (and possibly Quebec) will need access to value players to fit into the system.

[OutOfTheCube]

Come on guys, there's no way the NHL will let young star players like Gaudreau or McDavid or Eichel be plucked off an expansion draft. It'd probably be along the lines of losing someone like Hudler or Wideman or Russell. Contributing NHL players that will help to make a somewhat competitive team, but not stars.

At least I hope.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Come on guys, there's no way the NHL will let young star players like Gaudreau or McDavid or Eichel be plucked off an expansion draft. It'd probably be along the lines of losing someone like Hudler or Wideman or Russell. Contributing NHL players that will help to make a somewhat competitive team, but not stars.

At least I hope.

Not sure about that; from a big picture perspective, McDavid or Gaudreau playing for the Vegas team would draw a lot of interest for that team. And really, the attendance in Calgary or Edmonton would not be impacted significantly by removing Gaudreau/McDavid.

[Resolute 14]

There is literally no chance that McDavid or Gaudreau would even be available. The rules might prevent a team with four or five great young players from protecting all of them, but there is absolutely no chance either of these guys are going.

The jokes about McDavid are lame, and the fears about Gaudreau are unfounded.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Come on guys, there's no way the NHL will let young star players like Gaudreau or McDavid or Eichel be plucked off an expansion draft. It'd probably be along the lines of losing someone like Hudler or Wideman or Russell. Contributing NHL players that will help to make a somewhat competitive team, but not stars.

At least I hope.

I don't think GMs would have much of a problem with that. The OP seems to be suggesting that some good young players may end up being exposed. Why else would they be 'contentious'?

[Jason14h]

Why else would they be 'contentious'?

Because teams don't want to loose any players of value.......

In the past the expansions teams basically got garbage to start a team. Now they may get some decent 23-25 year olds that were birried in teams depth charts.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There is literally no chance that McDavid or Gaudreau would even be available. The rules might prevent a team with four or five great young players from protecting all of them, but there is absolutely no chance either of these guys are going.

The jokes about McDavid are lame, and the fears about Gaudreau are unfounded.

You're a barrel of laughs this morning.

Jokes about McDavid are never lame!

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't think GMs would have much of a problem with that. The OP seems to be suggesting that some good young players may end up being exposed. Why else would they be 'contentious'?

Because a player like Hudler or Russell still has inherent value -- either as a contributor or as a trade piece. It's very realistic that either of those guys could fetch a second round pick or a decent-ish prospect at the trade deadline. A GM doesn't want to lose a guy like that for nothing, even if they aren't a star player. I mean, look at the last expansion draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_NHL_Expansion_Draft

That is a lot of bad players. If you put current Jiri Hudler and Kris Russell into that group, they are probably going first and second (after the teams took care of their goaltending).

I just don't see a realistic scenario where they allow elite prospects or star players to be plucked off expansion. I, like many others, would likely give up on being a fan entirely if we lost someone like Eichel or Ristolainen to that.

[Hockey Fan #751]

That's why they're doing Team North America at the World Cup. They're just going to move that team to Vegas right after.

[Itse]

I don't get why Flames fans would be worried. They're probably not going to allow drafting more than 1 player per team, so it's not like our team would be gutted. We have only 6-7 players worth protecting (Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton and maybe Frolik), which is not much.

For us I think protecting 10 players total (prospects and players) would easily be enough. I'm personally totally okay with losing a solid prospect for the purpose of a having another team in the league that does not totally suck.

Our current team sucks. Losing 1-2 players is not going to make a difference. The expanion draft might actually help our team, as other teams would be likely to lose better players.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Don't forget, a lot of good young players will also be available on the trade market for cheap as teams look to shuffle around guys in order to avoid losing them for nothing. Kind of like when the Flames gave J-S Giguere away for a 2nd rounder last expansion draft go-around. This could benefit teams like Calgary who don't have as much depth as other clubs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Itse

I don't get why Flames fans would be worried. They're probably not going to allow drafting more than 1 player per team, so it's not like our team would be gutted. We have only 6-7 players worth protecting (Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton and maybe Frolik), which is not much.

For us I think protecting 10 players total (prospects and players) would easily be enough. I'm personally totally okay with losing a solid prospect for the purpose of a having another team in the league that does not totally suck.

Our current team sucks. Losing 1-2 players is not going to make a difference. The expanion draft might actually help our team, as other teams would be likely to lose better players.

I agree. I think the Sabres would be in more trouble. They have more younger players who would be desirable.

The expansion teams will also be cost conscious, and not cap teams.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm personally totally okay with losing a solid prospect for the purpose of a having another team in the league that does not totally suck.

I'm not. Screw 'em, I'm a fan of the Flames not the Las Vegas whatevers. They will be a division rival too so I'm not really keen on them taking a young player and burning us for years with him.

[Cappy]

It could be similar to the NFL expansion drafts. The salary cap meant plenty of talented, but overpaid vets, were left exposed.

I highly doubt prospects are included (they never have been) and I'm sure there will be enough coverage to protect a team's core. A great team may lose a solid 2nd or 3rd liner. Its tough, but if the NHL is really committed to getting an extra Billion out of 2 new teams, Im sure the owners would suck it up.

[Yanda]

To me Good young players means;

- Ferland
- Granlund
- Bouma
- Colborne


These are the players that would likely be unprotected. I would throw Klimchuk and Poirier in that list too if it gets pushed back an additional year or 2.

At that point I could see the Flames leaving Gio unprotected as he would be older and playing a lesser role, likely solidifying the second pairing with whichever defence prospect developed the fastest.

[Cappy]

What about players with NMC, rather than NTC?

I assume these guys would have to be protected, contractually?

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.

(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.

Maybe not, because it doesn't specify.

Some NMC's:

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html

[getbak]

Apparently, the League's official position is that NMCs don't protect a player from being taken in an expansion draft. The players who have NMCs probably won't like that very much.

The easiest compromise would be to say that a NMC doesn't automatically exempt a player from the expansion draft, but teams must use one of their protected slots in the expansion draft for every NMC contract they have, unless they get the player to agree to waive the NMC for the draft.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

There's no chance the expansion draft happens this summer, right?

Being forced to protect Wideman would be horrific.