Its actually not that bad regarding NMCs, most of the players that have them earned them and the protected status. It does make me wish that the Pronger contract was 2 years longer though.
List of NMC by team for the summer of 2017(players signed to NMC during this season are excluded):
Interesting list, here are a few teams in trouble if they have to protect these players:
-Colorado already has two D protected, not including Barrie
-CBJ has problems with all groups...they will have to protect Tyutin, Jones and Murray making Johnson available. Up front they have to protect Hartnell.
-If Edmonton happens to grab an actual good D man this summer they will have to expose them or one of Klefblom or Nurse. Never mind, they won't get a good D man ever.
-Minnesota has to protect Pominville
-NYI has to protect 4 d (assuming they replace Hamonic with another D)
-PIT Fleury or Murray?
-if Tampa keeps stamkos they will be tight upfront, probably having to expose some good prospects
-TOR...Horton!,
-WPG has to protect 4 D, exposing some great young prospects
this summer looks to be interesting from a fan's perspective...I suspect we will see some surprise buyouts and lots of shuffling.
The next year might become the most fun and fascinating year ever to be an armchair GM. Teams are going to have to do some serious shuffling and asset management.
I can't wait until they announce the actual rules so that the games can begin!
Its actually not that bad regarding NMCs, most of the players that have them earned them and the protected status. It does make me wish that the Pronger contract was 2 years longer though.
List of NMC by team for the summer of 2017(players signed to NMC during this season are excluded):
Spoiler!
ANA - Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler
ARI - Smith
BOS - Bergeron, Chara, Krejci, Rask
BUF - Bogosian, O'Reilly
CGY - N/A
CAR - N/A
CHI - Crawford, Hjalmarsson, Kane, Keith, Toews, Seabrook, Hossa - interesting case as they probably wouldn't need to protect him since they'll probably have attractive players, but the cap recapture situation is also intriguing,
COL - Beauchemin, Johnson General fanager shows nothing for Beauchemin and NTC for Johnson. Beaucheming would have just turned 37 and have one year left on his deal
CBJ - Bobrovsky, Dubinsky, Foligno, Hartnell (will turn 35 a couple months before possible draft), Tyutin (will turn 34, and they'll want to protect Jones, Murray and Savard), Clarkson
DAL - Spezza (not according to GF)
DET - N/A
EDM - Sekera (they probably hope to have 3 better, younger D-men by then...though I'm not holding my breath), Talbot
FLA - N/A
LAK - Kopitar, Lecavalier(if he doesn't retire)
MIN - Koivu - expansion team wouldn't take on his 9.2M real money, Parise, Pominville - age 34.5, Suter
MTL - Petry, Subban
NSH - Rinne
NJD - Clowe
NYI - Boychuk - age 33, Tavares
NYR - Lundqvist, Stall, Girardi has a NMC that becomes NTC in the 2017 off season
OTT - Ryan not according to GF, Phaneuf - rather protect Karlsson, Wiercioch, Ceci
PHI - Giroux
PIT - Crosby, Fleury, Kessel - mostly notable that it probably decreases his trade value, Letang, Malkin
SJS - N/A
STL - N/A
TBL - Callahan - age 32, Filppula - age 33 (random note: they both had birthdays in the last two days)
TOR - Horton - NMC that becomes NTC in the 2017 off season
VAN - Sedin, Sedin - will turn 37 before the start of the 2017 season
WSH - N/A
WPG - Enstrom - rather protect Trouba...also dampens any desire for Hamonic, Myers, Byfuglien
Added what I could see through general fanager, and bolded the guys who's teams would really hate to protect.
Funny that the two cases of NMC becoming NTC in that off season are in New York and Toronto. I think we can safely assume they won't require protection based on that fact.
Last edited by powderjunkie; 03-22-2016 at 08:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Just an added note. A team that acquires a player with a NTC and/or NMC can choose whether or not that player's NTC/NMC is still in effect per CBA 11.8(a)
Quote:
An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.
I am not sure if General Fanager updates this information after a trade, but Capgeek didn't/couldn't when it was running.
For example, when Ottawa acquired Phaneuf they could have chosen to remove his NMC and most likely did.
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
On the one hand it would be attractive to sign a good UFA e.g. A goalie but be prepared to expose them in the draft, on the other hand I would expect UFAs to be wary of this and demand NMC
Just an added note. A team that acquires a player with a NTC and/or NMC can choose whether or not that player's NTC/NMC is still in effect per CBA 11.8(a)
I thought that was only if the clause hadn't yet come into effect.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Added what I could see through general fanager, and bolded the guys who's teams would really hate to protect.
Funny that the two cases of NMC becoming NTC in that off season are in New York and Toronto. I think we can safely assume they won't require protection based on that fact.
Both Ryan and Spezza don't show up because they have a NMC combined with a partial NTC for 10 teams. As for players signed this season I was just too lazy to dig who got a NMC and who didn't, so thank you for the additions to that list.
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.
Yes, but they are picking 30 players so will pick at least some prospects. The Flames' NHL roster is weak, unless they leave Backlund or Frolik unprotected, so they are almost certain to lose a top prospect
Just an added note. A team that acquires a player with a NTC and/or NMC can choose whether or not that player's NTC/NMC is still in effect per CBA 11.8(a)
I am not sure if General Fanager updates this information after a trade, but Capgeek didn't/couldn't when it was running.
For example, when Ottawa acquired Phaneuf they could have chosen to remove his NMC and most likely did.
Ottawa was on Phaneuf's trade list so in all likelihood his limited NMC still stands is how I understand it.
19. In the aftermath of the GM meetings, I admitted to being confused about players who will be completing their sophomore professional seasons — Connor McDavid, Jack Eichel, William Nylander, etc. — and their eligibility for a potential June 2017 expansion draft. In asking for clarification, I was told, “Players who have only earned two years of pro service are second-year pros and are exempt.” So there you go. Unless the framework is changed, teams (and their fans) need not worry.
That would mean they are using the CBA's definition of pro service. Then Gillies and Kylington would be exempt for a 2017 expansion draft. Gillies would be on his 2nd year of service (assuming he plays more than 10 games). Kylington would be on his 2nd.
Last edited by sureLoss; 03-25-2016 at 09:10 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Gillies being exempt would really open the door for the Flames with respect to options and flexibility.
They could acquire a UFA and then expose them (helping hit the 25% floor)
They could acquire another young asset in trade because they would have room to protect them (a Murray-type, where the other team can't protect 2 guys and would look to trade one)
That would mean they are using the CBA's definition of pro service. Then Gillies and Kylington would be exempt for a 2017 expansion draft. Gillies would be on his 1st year of service (assuming he plays more than 10 games). Kylington would be on his 2nd.
Can the NHL say that your UFAs are off the books, AND RFAs don't count, but expose 25%? That 25% thing is a total mess.
My understanding of what I read was it would be 25% of the teams payroll from the previous season, must be exposed in contracts that extend to the next season.
ex.
Teams 2016/17 total NHL cap spend = $75M last season, they must of $18M in waiver eligible contracts that run into at least the 2017/18 season. If your payroll was $60M you would need to expose $15M.
Doesn't seem like a huge issue for teams like Calgary, worse for a team like Chi I didn't look at their exact numbers, but they will protect well over $30M with their first 4 players alone, they will probably have under $25M in space to protect the next 7 players (assuming their contracts from one season to the next are similar)
Yeah, I was hoping they would buy Stajan out as we could do much better and cheaper as far as 4th line center go IMO, but that'd be a bad idea with the 25% exposure rule.
With Wideman, Raymond, Engelland, Smid and Bollig all expiring after the 2017 season, it's going to be hard for the Flames to expose 25% of salary that's tied up in players we wouldn't mind losing so much.
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.
