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

[Poe969]

but if a pick doesn't sign with the team that picks them and they aren't protected then they're taken in the expansion draft, could they just not sign with the expansion team?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That's the dumbest. Just the dumbest. They're not even employees yet and yet the NHL wants to put them in an expansion draft?

IMO this only makes sense for European prospects taken more than 2 years ago. You can't sign an NCAA player until they leave school, so potentially punishing a team for that is absolutely ridiculous and CHL players have to be signed within 2 years or they re-enter the draft (or become UFAs) anyways.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Poe969

but if a pick doesn't sign with the team that picks them and they aren't protected then they're taken in the expansion draft, could they just not sign with the expansion team?

They could... if the player was a 1st rounder they'd (the expansion team) would get a comp pick thou.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yup. I've long held the same belief. It's the easiest, cleanest way to get a second team in the GTA.

As far as the rest of MLSE's assets go, I see two reasonable scenarios: The one I think more likely is that one party sells all of their shares in MLSE to the other in exchange for $x and the right to operate an NHL expansion team in the market.

The other possibility is to divide MLSE by facility. One side keeps the ACC, Leafs, Raptors and Rock. The other gets BMO Field, TFC, the Argos and the NHL expansion team.

Small point - but the Argo's aren't owned by MLSE. Bell owns a portion of them with others, Rogers doesn't have a stake.

I do wonder if the Bell would give up the Leafs in return for the expansion team and a portion of the Jays.

[TheScorpion]

One thing I've taken from this thread: could the NHL possibly make this any clearer?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

One thing I've taken from this thread: could the NHL possibly make this any clearer?

Yes, but they have no reason to

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I wouldn't rule out the Islanders either, they already want out of Brooklyn and have nowhere to go. The move out of Nassau has also alienated some of their fan base so moving from Brooklyn may not generate the same level of backlash as it would have before.

I would also suggest Seattle is a better idea for relocation as it gives them more time to get their arena problems fixed. But then again any of Portland, Kansas City or Houston would also be considered for relocation if they have an ownership group willing to buy or relocate them.

I could see that too. It would be really sad to see a former dynasty move like that though.

Edmonton on the other hand...

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I could see that too. It would be really sad to see a former dynasty move like that though.

Edmonton on the other hand...

It would, but what got me thinking about it was the realization that I personally care less if they move now then I did before them moving to Brooklyn. While they are the same team, it's not the same if they are in Brooklyn rather than Nassau.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

One thing I've taken from this thread: could the NHL possibly make this any clearer?

This is still a preliminary discussion.

Now that an idea has been presented to the GMs, they can go back and discuss it with their owners and amongst themselves and suggest any tweaks or clarifications.

They still haven't made a final decision on whether or not to expand, and if they do, if it's by 1 or 2 teams. Once that's known, they can finalize the expansion draft details.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

I don't think there is a lot of worry about losing middling prospects like Hickey or Jankowski. An expansion team is only allowed to draft at max 23 players. They can't afford to draft these kinds of prospects if they hope to be competitive from day 1. Now, if there are guys who are clearly ready to step in, that is different. Project prospects don't help them.

Do we know that? In 2000, each team took 26 players (1 from every team except Atlanta and Nashville, for obvious reasons).

I would think an expansion team would look to take around 14 NHL ready players, ~8 prospects ready to to compete for a job, and ~8 more that are a few years away.

If they did limit it to 23, 26, etc. teams, then the teams at the bottom of the standings should be exempt.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Do we know that? In 2000, each team took 26 players (1 from every team except Atlanta and Nashville, for obvious reasons).

I would think an expansion team would look to take around 14 NHL ready players, ~8 prospects ready to to compete for a job, and ~8 more that are a few years away.

If they did limit it to 23, 26, etc. teams, then the teams at the bottom of the standings should be exempt.

I seem to remember that each team will lose one player (1 expansion team drafts 30 players) so yeah they'll probably be picking mostly NHL players with some prospects for the farm and as injury replacements. The odds are we won't lose any undeveloped prospects, but maybe a tweener such as the departed Granlund.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

That's the dumbest. Just the dumbest. They're not even employees yet and yet the NHL wants to put them in an expansion draft?

You can already trade the rights to unsigned prospects. This would be no different in that regard.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Small point - but the Argo's aren't owned by MLSE. Bell owns a portion of them with others, Rogers doesn't have a stake.

I do wonder if the Bell would give up the Leafs in return for the expansion team and a portion of the Jays.

Yeah, true. I forgot that they are still separate. Though the owner of the BMO Field holding company would take over the lease rights then.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Well, the Flames are very safe right now I think in terms of the expansion draft.

However, I think it is really difficult to project 2 years from now on a rebuilding team, especially on defence.

So we all know the protected list will probably be Giordano, Brodie and Hamilton. Easy.

Well, hold on a second.

Giordano is 32. At some point (and I hope and expect later rather than sooner, but it is inevitable) that he will start trending down. Maybe age 35? Hopefully later, but the organization HAS to plan for this.

Now, we have Kylington, Andersson and Hickey. Kylington will for sure be exposed. Andersson MAY be depending on what year this ends up happening in. Hickey may also be depending on what they decide to do with NCAA prospects.

If anyone one of these guys are looking like they will be a top 3 defencemen - and that is not out of the question - what does the team do? Do they expose a trending young player to the expansion draft who is cost-controlled and could be a big piece of Calgary's defensive backbone for the next decade, or do you expose your captain? Tough decisions.

Also, if I am Treliving, suddenly trading for Harmonic doesn't seem like a good idea at all, even if he comes relatively cheap (or insert any other D-man in this fictitious example).

Yes, there are going to be other teams out there that will have better and more proven defencemen available, but Calgary may be right there with them at having someone who will have to be exposed that we all know would be picked up.

Forwards are going to come into play a bit too. It is an easy list as of this date - Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett for sure, and I would go and add Backlund and Frolik to it for now. That is 5 out of the 7. Easy.

What about in 2 OR 3 years?

Ferland could be realizing more of his potential, and be contributing offensively. Yes, it is a what if, but it isn't that out of reach. On a more reasonable speculative argument, the play of Colborne since joining Backlund and Frolik. If they are together for most of next season, and continuing to do well, I would say you HAVE to add Colborne to your protected list. Other guys can break-through as well from the farm team (Poirier and Shinkaruk would be my best bets if that were to happen). 2-3 years is a LOT of development time. The answers are easy today, but I think they will be much more difficult in 2-3 years (and really, if the answers are still 'easy' then, I would call the Flames' rebuild a failure).

I think the smart GMs would start planning for it now. For instance, let's take a quick look at the draft. IF the expansion draft was 3 years away, then this will have implications for this upcoming draft at the top end at least. The rankings are pretty much:

Mathews
Laine
Puljujarvi
Tkachuk
Dubois
Chychrun
Juolovei
etc. (rankings aren't that important).

Now, think of it this way. If a team selects Mathews, Laine or Puljujarvi, they are basically guaranteed to start their professional seasons right away. Either in the NHL, AHL or in Europe. I doubt very much that a team would force their player into the CHL. Good luck with that. So if the expansion is in 2 years, then not a problem at all. However, if it is 3 or 4 years from now, there is a concern.

I think you still have to take Mathews at least first. But now, does a team balance out Laine or Puljujarvi vs Dubois/Tkachuk/Chychrun/Julovei/Sergachev/etc. + whomever they will have exposed to the expansion draft?

It would be a much easier task to keep an existing CHL player in the CHL for another season, especially if that player is a defencemen since they usually take more development time anyways. I wonder if teams will start planning accordingly during the draft this year.

It makes for a lot of moving pieces. Even trades now have to be done with a lot to consider. Does a team like the Flames go out and acquire a 2nd line RW'er and give up 'x' amount of assets to do so, when they have to factor in that they will then be leaving a better player unprotected that would essentially add to the cost of the acquisition?

The really good GMs are going to prove their worth in the next couple of seasons.

[dissentowner]

I really hate this expansion idea. Not only do we not need more teams but it is garbage that teams will lose players they have spent time and money developing. I get the whole cash grab for the NHL reasoning but as a fan I don't like it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Did a quick exercise to run through protection lists and, not worrying about the NMC/NTC issue, came up with the following scenario.

Your Las Vegas Aces!

Pouilot (EDM) - Nash (NYR) - Read (PHI)
Rousell (DAL) - Plekanec (MTL) - Stafford (WPG)
Clutterbuck (NYI) - Smith (OTT) - Abdelkader (DET)
Hagelin (PIT) - Bouma (CGY) - Burrows (VAN)
Martinsen (COL) - Malone (CAR) - Parenteau (TOR)
Smith (NAS) - Chipchura (PHX) - Hartman (CHI)


Bouwmeester (STL), Kulikov (FLA)
McQuaid (BOS), Pysyk (BUF)
McNabb (LA), Dumba (MIN)
Merrill (NJD), Polak (SJS)
Weber (WAS)

Bobrovsky (CBJ), Anderson (ANA)

It will be interesting to see how the movement clause stuff works out. There will definitely be some talent available and the Vegas team is going to be tough out of the gate.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by New Era

Did a quick exercise to run through protection lists and, not worrying about the NMC/NTC issue, came up with the following scenario.

Your Las Vegas Aces!

Pouilot (EDM) - Nash (NYR) - Read (PHI)
Rousell (DAL) - Plekanec (MTL) - Stafford (WPG)
Clutterbuck (NYI) - Smith (OTT) - Abdelkader (DET)
Hagelin (PIT) - Bouma (CGY) - Burrows (VAN)
Martinsen (COL) - Malone (CAR) - Parenteau (TOR)
Smith (NAS) - Chipchura (PHX) - Hartman (CHI)


Bouwmeester (STL), Kulikov (FLA)
McQuaid (BOS), Pysyk (BUF)
McNabb (LA), Dumba (MIN)
Merrill (NJD), Polak (SJS)
Weber (WAS)

Bobrovsky (CBJ), Anderson (ANA)

It will be interesting to see how the movement clause stuff works out. There will definitely be some talent available and the Vegas team is going to be tough out of the gate.

Puck Daddy did a similar exercise yesterday:

Spoiler!

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nh...211129955.html

[PeteMoss]

Who is St.Louis protecting to lose Bouwmeester? Parayko/Pietrangelo/Shattenkirk?

Suppose that makes sense although I suspect they'd trade one of them before losing for free.

[Poe969]

The issue with the one puck daddy did is that the did the draft for this summer but it would be next summer. Wideman is a UFA a year from now so they wouldn't have to claim him in a draft, just sign him.

[Locke]

It would have been so much easier to just relocate the Oilers.