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

[sureLoss]

per HNIC the current plan is that no expansion team will draft higher than 3rd in 2017

[AC]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

per HNIC the current plan is that no expansion team will draft higher than 3rd in 2017

Naturally, it wouldn't be fair to disrupt Edmonton's ability to draft #1.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Gillies is a good prospect, but he's not exactly the world's greatest prospect.



They'd have to take Gillies over guys like Malcolm Subban, Juuse Saros, Zach Fucale, etc. We aren't the only team in the league with a good goalie prospect.

But he may be the best prospect exposed the Flames. A valid drafting strategy would be to maximize the value of each pick even if it means foregoing better players at the same position from other teams. Maybe not so much with goal being such an important position

[1qqaaz]

I wonder why they don't want expansion teams drafting top 2. It seems like they'd be pretty good for their respective markets.

I get that their teams but not be as bad as the very bottom teams, but still.

As for Gillies, I'm not worried about losing him. I don't see it actually happening. Our management will have considered every situation by then.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I wonder why they don't want expansion teams drafting top 2. It seems like they'd be pretty good for their respective markets.

I get that their teams but not be as bad as the very bottom teams, but still.

As for Gillies, I'm not worried about losing him. I don't see it actually happening. Our management will have considered every situation by then.

Especially in a lottery situation. It's not like before when they would be robbing a terrible team of an assured top 2 pick. Now there's a decent chance that a team that needs that 1OA far less than LV will get it instead.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by edslunch

But he may be the best prospect exposed the Flames. A valid drafting strategy would be to maximize the value of each pick even if it means foregoing better players at the same position from other teams. Maybe not so much with goal being such an important position

We have to remember these teams actually have to field a team that season. They can't just pick all prospects unless they want to lose every game by 5 goals in their first season. Its not sexy but much more likely they pick actual NHL players than a boatload of prospects.

If they have to hit the cap floor in their first year - they'll need to get some guys with salary as well.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Especially in a lottery situation. It's not like before when they would be robbing a terrible team of an assured top 2 pick. Now there's a decent chance that a team that needs that 1OA far less than LV will get it instead.

Yeah. If anything this potentially hurts the worst teams if they lose the lottery and get bumped down 5 spots (the 3 lottery teams and then the two expansion teams). Why not just put them in the lottery and give them the 3rd best odds.

[#-3]

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.

Finally had a look at the rules, and I kind of agree, I could see a situation where it makes the most sense.


If Hamilton and Brodie keep playing together, and keep putting up 25+ min / game.

If Jokipakka and Kylington play the way we think they will play for the next year or two.

If it is only 1 team

Especially if the Draft is 2 years away, rather than 1 year.


It might not work out in a way that it makes sense, but by exposing Gio you are pretty certain who will be taken, eliminates the worry about who else is exposed. If you have to hit 25% of payroll it makes it easier to protect guys like Backlund and Frolik, I think replacing guys like that in the UFA market would be expensive every team will be short a player at this level with a bit of money to spend, and if all of those ifs come true you will be losing a declining #3 dman from your team with a large salary, who you are almost ready to replace from the farm

Hard to say how things will work out in a year or two, but it's a conversation they probably will have.

[sureLoss]

Lots of info in this tsn piece

The NHL has not yet made a decision on whether teams will be allowed to trade players and/or picks to an expansion team in exchange for a guarantee to not select certain unprotected players. In 2000, the Sharks traded two players and four picks to the Wild and Blue Jackets to ensure Evgeni Nabokov would not be picked. The Sabres also traded Jean-Luc Grand-Pierre, Matt Davidson and two fifth-round picks to guarantee both Dominik Hasek and Martin Biron would be safe. Such trades would seem to go against the idea of icing the most competitive expansion roster possible, but they were allowed in each of the previous three drafts (1998-2000). Then again, it worked out pretty well for Nashville in 1998, acquiring Kimmo Timonen from Los Angeles for agreeing not select Garry Galley.

Last week’s potential expansion draft format revelation left more questions than answers. Do players entering the third year of their entry-level deal require protection? (Our understanding is yes.) Will players with no-move clauses be eligible to be picked? The NHL’s position on that is, yes, the CBA does not specifically mention those clauses protecting from an expansion draft. This still needs to be bargained with the NHLPA. Interestingly, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told the New York Post on Sunday, “no matter where we go with no-moves, they would never be ‘exempt from the process.’ ” In other words, each player holding a ‘no-move clause will eat up one of 10 or 11 protected slots per team. That would hurt a team like Minnesota, for instance. The Wild would protect Ryan Suter or Jared Spurgeon anyway, but what about a guy like Jason Pominville? He will turn 35 in 2017. His protection could mean another valuable asset exposed.

We will see a lot of roster jockeying this summer with GMs preparing for an expansion draft. Players who will likely be unprotected will be traded. Free agents will be signed to two-year deals to pad rosters with exposable players. But will we also see certain players, particularly with no-movement clauses, bought out this summer to avoid expansion draft wrangling? Exactly 51 players with no-movement clauses have a contract for 2017-18, according to GeneralFanager.com. Columbus defenceman Fedor Tyutin is an interesting case. The Blue Jackets already couldn’t find a taker for him at last month’s trade deadline. Buying him out this June would save nearly $3 million in cash in the long haul, and prevent a no-move headache the following summer. Anaheim’s Kevin Bieksa, Minnesota’s Pominville, Columbus’ David Clarkson and even Winnipeg’s Toby Enstrom could generate similar questions this summer. And what about long-term injured players like New Jersey’s Ryane Clowe? Will the Devils need to protect him

One other big question: What will the NHLPA win from this expansion draft negotiation? It will be something. In exchange for going to the 3-on-3 All-Star tournament format, the NHLPA bargained for one five-day break in every team’s schedule from January through March next season. The NHLPA is concerned about teams honoring no-move clauses and protecting entry-level players. With the expansion draft, the NHLPA is believed to be interested in talking about the pension plan for players, as well as the entry draft age.

[dissentowner]

Sorry Mr. Daley but there is about zero chance the NHLPA will allow players with NMC to be exposed. You are looking at a player walk out if that happens. A NMC is negotiated by the player in good faith to remain with that club, I cannot see it.

[lazypucker]

How about players with NMC don't need to be included in the protected list, but they can't be drafted away as well? Meaning a team can protect a NMC player without using a protection slot - thus they can protect more players from being picked away.

This may give incentives for teams to sign players to NMC with term, but the flip side it will create more risks for the teams if these contracts turn out to be dead weight...

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

How about players with NMC don't need to be included in the protected list, but they can't be drafted away as well? Meaning a team can protect a NMC player without using a protection slot - thus they can protect more players from being picked away.

This may give incentives for teams to sign players to NMC with term, but the flip side it will create more risks for the teams if these contracts turn out to be dead weight...

Well you would think the NHL would want teams to have to protect NMC players if their goal is to improve the expansion team. Otherwise you will get a team like the Sharks exposing Thornton and Marleau knowing they will be UFA's a month later and allows them to protect two more good players that would have been available to the expansion team. Personally I think GM's hand out NMC much too freely and I think they should lie in the bed they made. They should have to be protected and they should count towards your list.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Sorry Mr. Daley but there is about zero chance the NHLPA will allow players with NMC to be exposed. You are looking at a player walk out if that happens. A NMC is negotiated by the player in good faith to remain with that club, I cannot see it.

I don't see how you got that from the quotes sureloss posted...unless you're referring to something else?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I don't see how you got that from the quotes sureloss posted...unless you're referring to something else?

Am I reading this wrong then?

Will players with no-move clauses be eligible to be picked? The NHL’s position on that is, yes, the CBA does not specifically mention those clauses protecting from an expansion draft. This still needs to be bargained with the NHLPA. Interestingly, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told the New York Post on Sunday, “no matter where we go with no-moves, they would never be ‘exempt from the process.’ ” In other words, each player holding a ‘no-move clause will eat up one of 10 or 11 protected slots per team. That would hurt a team like Minnesota, for instance. The Wild would protect Ryan Suter or Jared Spurgeon anyway, but what about a guy like Jason Pominville? He will turn 35 in 2017. His protection could mean another valuable asset exposed.

[Coach]

Just treat the clauses as they are. It's up to the player to waive if they are drafted. Risk to draft them, risk to leave them exposed.

[btimbit]

Not sure how I feel about that. Would suck if, for example, the Coyotes were forced into wasting a spot on protecting Pronger

[Weitz]

So in 11.8(c) of the CBA it reads:

(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.

Would that language open them up to being available to move for an expansion draft? I am no lawyer.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Not sure how I feel about that. Would suck if, for example, the Coyotes were forced into wasting a spot on protecting Pronger

Then they have to buy him out. Considering all the moves to take on contracts like that to circumvent the CBA I think it is kind of funny.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So in 11.8(c) of the CBA it reads:



Would that language open them up to being available to move for an expansion draft? I am no lawyer.

Its open to interpretation. Does "whether by Trade, Loan, or Waiver claim" meant to be the only situations where a NMC can prevent movement? or are they just examples of situations?

The PA will argue that "may prevent the involuntary movement of a Player" is the key point and the rest is an example and does not limit the no-move to those 3 situations and implies that a player cannot be moved in an expansion draft or relocation of a franchise.

The NHL will argue that it is meant to only prevent movement by Trade, Loan, or Waivers.

The real ambiguity is that it doesn't explicitly say what happens in an expansion or relocation.

IMO anyway.

[Vulcan]

One interpretation favours teams with many 'no movement clauses' while the other interpretation penalizes them. Maybe a compromise of allowing one extra player per team that is protected that has a 'no movement clause'. The Coyotes having to use Pronger as one of their protected players is ridiculous.

On the other hand I could see Bettman smiling at the trouble this causes league wide.