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

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Do you mean if someone from Calgary gets chosen does Calgary get to choose someone?

Yes.

[bobbylouie]

One problem I see with all this is that a team with 4 defenseman that they want to protect will still opt for the 3-7 split and just list the 4th defenseman as a forward......then claim "says who?" when the league says he's a defenseman. This might sound farfetched at first, but really, it's not like a position is part of somebody's birthright and who really is to say. Plenty of players have switched positions in their career, even within a game. Anybody who's been around long enough to remember previous expansion drafts knows that teams have tried to get away with far worse (the Bernie Wolfe fiasco ring a bell?).

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Yes.

No the existing teams don't select any players. Although that would be fairly entertaining.

[getbak]

With there being 30 teams to pick from, you have to think the expansion teams will be looking to stock up on some prospects and not only immediate roster players.

For example, if Quebec gets a team, I could see them taking either Poirier or Culkin from the Flames. Good young Francophone players on the verge of making it to the NHL. Culkin is a former Rempart captain too.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by getbak

With there being 30 teams to pick from, you have to think the expansion teams will be looking to stock up on some prospects and not only immediate roster players.

For example, if Quebec gets a team, I could see them taking either Poirier or Culkin from the Flames. Good young Francophone players on the verge of making it to the NHL. Culkin is a former Rempart captain too.

Meh, no big loss. It would be nice to see the Flames play a whole new set of rosters twice a year. More teams to trade with, to draft against, to lose free agents, and so fourth. I can't believe people are pissy about losing some sloppy left overs when the value of another two teams greatly improve the product we all sit down and watch.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think one option would be for us to arrange a trade with an expansion team, where they take two 1B goalies and ship one to us right after.

Or trade with the original team before the expansion draft takes place.

The fact that teams can only protect one goalie is an advantage for teams like Calgary. Teams with two good goalies will want to get a return for one of them rather than losing them for nothing.

[lazypucker]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Do you mean if someone from Calgary gets chosen does Calgary get to choose someone?

How can that be possible?

Say if Vegas chooses a Calgary player, then Calgary is picking a player from say Chicago, then Chicago picks someone from LA, LA then picks someone from Tampa, and it goes on and on and on. When will this end?

[Toonage]

I like how it would devolve almost instantly into "hate drafting"

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

How can that be possible?

Say if Vegas chooses a Calgary player, then Calgary is picking a player from say Chicago, then Chicago picks someone from LA, LA then picks someone from Tampa, and it goes on and on and on. When will this end?

It would be like a gift exchange, players can only be taken twice

[sureLoss]

Some clarification on the "years pro" rule

Chris Nichols ‏@NicholsOnHockey
Dreger: Bill Daly confirmed to me that William Nylander, as an example, would have to be protected in expansion draft under proposal. #Leafs

Chris Nichols ‏@NicholsOnHockey
Dreger: Nylander would be considered first-year pro now. Next year would be second year. '17-18 would be Year Three. Has to be protected.

Chris Nichols ‏@NicholsOnHockey
Again, Dreger reiterated in this hit that none of these expansion draft parameters are etched in stone now. Only theory for now.

From the above I think Gillies and Kylington would be considered a 3rd year pro for the expansion draft

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Call me crazy if you want to, but depending on how things play out this could be a great way to free ourselves of the Giordano contract. I'm worried that will be a bad deal for the last few years of it.

For the record I love Gio, just not his contract.

You are CRAZY

if they wanted "out of his contract" as early as next summer why not trade him at the deadline instead of giving him away lol

seriously...you could get a kings ransom for the guy next deadline contract or not

[Lanny_McDonald]

Has the league said how many players each team would be selecting? Would they select an 18 man roster (12, 6, 2) or would they select a 23 man roster? I would hope the league would make sue this was well known, and there were constraints on what a team could draft. Could you imagine an expansion team selecting a 23 man roster, picking two goaltenders, nine forwards, then a dozen defensemen in an attempt to corner the market on defensemen for horse trading before the season starts and the next trade deadline? Not a likely scenario, but an interesting strategy given the lack of defensive talent in the NHL.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But the reason why QC and Seattle are not in this conversation now while Vegas is is precisely because one city has come forward with a significant demonstration of long-term viability where the others have not. One city already has a NHL building and by all reports a strong commitment of season ticket sales while the other two have not. Call me crazy, but I am much more confident in these tangible demonstrations than whatever I can imagine taking place for another market place.

I am calling you crazy if you are contending that Las Vegas is a better hockey market than Quebec City. One is a hockey crazed Canadian city and the other offers a million other things to do besides catch a hockey game.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Some clarification on the "years pro" rule

Chris Nichols ‏@NicholsOnHockey
Dreger: Bill Daly confirmed to me that William Nylander, as an example, would have to be protected in expansion draft under proposal. #Leafs

Chris Nichols ‏@NicholsOnHockey
Dreger: Nylander would be considered first-year pro now. Next year would be second year. '17-18 would be Year Three. Has to be protected.

Chris Nichols ‏@NicholsOnHockey
Again, Dreger reiterated in this hit that none of these expansion draft parameters are etched in stone now. Only theory for now.

From the above I think Gillies and Kylington would be considered a 3rd year pro for the expansion draft

But if Nylander is considered a 1st year pro when he is about to finish his 2nd year in the AHL, then Kylington's 1st year pro would be next season.

Wouldn't he be protected under this definition?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by New Era

Has the league said how many players each team would be selecting? Would they select an 18 man roster (12, 6, 2) or would they select a 23 man roster? I would hope the league would make sue this was well known, and there were constraints on what a team could draft. Could you imagine an expansion team selecting a 23 man roster, picking two goaltenders, nine forwards, then a dozen defensemen in an attempt to corner the market on defensemen for horse trading before the season starts and the next trade deadline? Not a likely scenario, but an interesting strategy given the lack of defensive talent in the NHL.

1 player from each existing team, so 30 overall.

In the past, in a two team expansion, each team could only lose one defenceman or goalie, so if you had a d-man or goalie chosen, the other player you lost would have to be a forward (or a team could lose 2 forwards).

I don't believe there were any other limitations on how many of each position had to be taken.

[Parallex]

When on the calander would this draft be taking place pre-July 1 or post-July 1? I assume post (in which case I think we'll see a few "unworthy" guys get large 1 year deals for the purpose of hitting the 25% threshold).

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Parallex

When on the calander would this draft be taking place pre-July 1 or post-July 1? I assume post (in which case I think we'll see a few "unworthy" guys get large 1 year deals for the purpose of hitting the 25% threshold).

It's usually the day before the Entry Draft.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But if Nylander is considered a 1st year pro when he is about to finish his 2nd year in the AHL, then Kylington's 1st year pro would be next season.

Wouldn't he be protected under this definition?

Forgot about Nylander's previous AHL season... not sure what to think now.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by getbak

It's usually the day before the Entry Draft.

So then the Flames would be able to "expose" Smid, Raymond & Engelland who would still be under contract (albeit only for a few more days)?

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Parallex

So then the Flames would be able to "expose" Smid, Raymond & Engelland who would still be under contract (albeit only for a few more days)?

Well yeah but the new expansion team would have to be pretty dumb to pick pending UFAs when there will be better Flames left unprotected.