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

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

How is following a contract a farce? It would suck, yes; but calling it a farce shows you have zero understanding of contract law.

It would be a complete farce, no matter what my understanding of contract law is.

This is because the Flames would be forced to protect a player that they wouldn't be able to use the following season. That's absurd.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not when you're talking about UFAs.

Different conversation.

Except it does because an expansion team can (and they have) claim a pending UFA, so it absolutely matters. Any player with a valid NMC will have to be protected.

Unless you hear an announcement otherwise it would be downright stupid to make the assumption that they will not have to be protected.

[getbak]

They won't have the expansion draft after the entry draft because all the teams need to know what they're working with at the Draft.

In the past, there was a roster freeze a couple of days before the expansion draft where every team had to submit their list of available players. Then, the expansion team(s) had a chance to negotiate any side deals with the teams (if those are allowed this time around). Then, the expansion draft itself took place a day or two before the entry draft, at which time, the roster freeze was lifted and teams were able to make whatever trades they wanted.

If the expansion draft isn't held until after the entry draft, the expansion team(s) won't have any assets to work with at the draft.



Since the expansion draft is for filling the rosters for the 2017-18 season, it doesn't make any sense to have the rules based on the players' contracts for 2016-17. The player's contract status on July 1, 2017 should be the final determinant. If he has a NMC that will be in effect on July 1, 2017, he should be automatically protected. Otherwise, not.

Obviously, the league could impose whatever wacky rules it decides to use, but it is something that the teams will have to agree to, and I can't see the teams agreeing to be beholden to a contract that expires in less than a week.

In previous expansions, we did see pending UFAs taken in the expansion draft, but that's because you received compensatory draft picks if you lost a player from a UFA signing (and the UFA age was a lot higher then). That doesn't happen anymore, so we won't see teams picking pending UFAs in the expansion draft this time around.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

You're missing the point though - it's not about the expiry of the NMC in this situation, it's about the guy being a UFA in 5 days.

There is no restrictions on the amount of rules the Union and League can put into the expansion draft.

They can easily have a rule for players that fall into the circumstances that you mentioned (NMC expires - contract continues) and the group that Wideman falls into (NMC & Contract expire).

They can easily negotiate the rules for each group separately and decide accordingly.

I agree that it's likely that for a player on a valid contract that has a NMC that expires on a certain date that they would then make sure to follow the NMC expiry date that is on the contract but they would never enforce that same rule on a player who becomes a UFA afterwards.

Once again it's not nearly that black and white and the League and Union can agree on any combination of rules and scenarios in this case.

Pending UFAs are eligible to be drafted, they have been taken before. Thus the NMC will indeed matter. Assuming they are going to make that change is nothing short of foolish. Never assume someone will do something they don't have to do.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

No he can't. You cannot buy a play out after the season starts.

You misunderstood me, abridged timeline...

Buyout Period 1: 48 Hours after 15/16 Playoffs End
Buyout Period 2: After Arbitration hearings (if you had someone go)
Buyout Period 3: 48 Hours after 16/17 Playoffs End
Expansion Draft

... there should be a window next offseason where teams can buy guys out after the playoffs but before the expansion draft.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You misunderstood me, abridged timeline...

Buyout Period 1: 48 Hours after 15/16 Playoffs End
Buyout Period 2: After Arbitration hearings (if you had someone go)
Buyout Period 3: 48 Hours after 16/17 Playoffs End
Expansion Draft

... there should be a window next offseason where teams can buy guys out after the playoffs but before the expansion draft.

No I understood just fine. Periods 1 & 2 you could buy him out, period 3 you cannot as the contract has already started

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You misunderstood me, abridged timeline...

Buyout Period 1: 48 Hours after 15/16 Playoffs End
Buyout Period 2: After Arbitration hearings (if you had someone go)
Buyout Period 3: 48 Hours after 16/17 Playoffs End
Expansion Draft

... there should be a window next offseason where teams can buy guys out after the playoffs but before the expansion draft.

so the Flames would be able to buy out Wideman at $0 for 0 years?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You misunderstood me, abridged timeline...

Buyout Period 1: 48 Hours after 15/16 Playoffs End
Buyout Period 2: After Arbitration hearings (if you had someone go)
Buyout Period 3: 48 Hours after 16/17 Playoffs End
Expansion Draft

... there should be a window next offseason where teams can buy guys out after the playoffs but before the expansion draft.

See, that's what is silly about this argument. If the Flames were to buy out Wideman's contract on June 15, 2017, there's nothing for them to "buy". A buyout is 2/3 of the player's remaining salary spread over double the remaining length of the contract. For Wideman next summer, that would be: 2/3 of $0 paid out over 0 years x 2.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

No I understood just fine. Periods 1 & 2 you could buy him out, period 3 you cannot as the contract has already started

I don't understand what you're saying. Why couldn't they buy out his contract in period three? The buyout window is open, he still has a contract (for a couple of weeks anyways) with the Flames, it'd be the same contract that they should buy out this year (if the can).

I don't see anything that would prevent them.

[Demetric]

Pending UFA with NMC will likely not have to be protected as that NMC is a moot at that point, if he does not want to go to the expansion team he does not have to sign a contract, end of story.

but all of this speculation on who has to be protected or not is all speculation as the NHL does not even know what it is doing

[SuperMatt18]

And that's where you can have if both ways. Either the contract is still enforceable or it's not - and if it's still enforceable then it would technically still be eligible for a buyout making him UFA immediately and he wouldn't have to wait until July 1 to be a UFA.

The final year of the contract had already technically started in Period 2 as well since it would be well after July 1.

So if he's eligible for a buyout in period 2 then why would he not be eligible for a buyout in Period 3 - the final year of the contract is identical in both scenarios.

Either the contract is still active or it's not - can't be inactive and not eligible for a buyout in this scenario but also still be active and have a enforceable NMC in the same vein - according to the view that Alberta Beef is taking on this it's either one or the other.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Poe969

so the Flames would be able to buy out Wideman at $0 for 0 years?

I think so. I don't see why not anyways. Granted I haven't read every line in the CBA but I didn't see anything that would prevent it in the sections I have read.

Again though, if you wait until period three you're risking him getting injured and thus becoming ineligible for regular buyout.

[burnitdown]

[QUOTE=Parallex;5737668]

Buyout Period 1: 48 Hours after 15/16 Playoffs End for 2016/17 contract year
Buyout Period 2: After Arbitration hearings (if you had someone go) for 2016/17 contract year
Buyout Period 3: 48 Hours after 16/17 Playoffs End for 2017/18 contract year
Expansion Draft

You can't buy out the final month of a player's contract. That window is only to get you out of next's year's contract. If we were to buyout Wideman's contract in this summer's window, it will be next year's contract affected...he'll still get full money on this year's deal until July 1.

[lazypucker]

From what I understand from the announcement, all players have a valid NMC contract on the day of the expansion draft (say June 15, 2017) will have to be protected. Dennis Wideman has a valid NMC contract that expires on June 30, 2017, so he has to be protected even the contract only has 2 weeks remaining.

The NHL doesn't say specifically what the deal is with Wideman's type of expiring NMC contracts yet...

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

From what I understand from the announcement, all players have a valid NMC contract on the day of the expansion draft (say June 15, 2017) will have to be protected. Dennis Wideman has a valid NMC contract that expires on June 30, 2017, so he has to be protected even the contract only has 2 weeks remaining.

The NHL doesn't say specifically what the deal is with Wideman's type of expiring NMC contracts yet...

Exactly and until something contrary is announced it would be foolish to assume a change will be made.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by getbak

They won't have the expansion draft after the entry draft because all the teams need to know what they're working with at the Draft.

In the past, there was a roster freeze a couple of days before the expansion draft where every team had to submit their list of available players. Then, the expansion team(s) had a chance to negotiate any side deals with the teams (if those are allowed this time around). Then, the expansion draft itself took place a day or two before the entry draft, at which time, the roster freeze was lifted and teams were able to make whatever trades they wanted.

If the expansion draft isn't held until after the entry draft, the expansion team(s) won't have any assets to work with at the draft.



Since the expansion draft is for filling the rosters for the 2017-18 season, it doesn't make any sense to have the rules based on the players' contracts for 2016-17. The player's contract status on July 1, 2017 should be the final determinant. If he has a NMC that will be in effect on July 1, 2017, he should be automatically protected. Otherwise, not.

Obviously, the league could impose whatever wacky rules it decides to use, but it is something that the teams will have to agree to, and I can't see the teams agreeing to be beholden to a contract that expires in less than a week.

In previous expansions, we did see pending UFAs taken in the expansion draft, but that's because you received compensatory draft picks if you lost a player from a UFA signing (and the UFA age was a lot higher then). That doesn't happen anymore, so we won't see teams picking pending UFAs in the expansion draft this time around.

The league has already said that current member clubs would have a draft, a free agent period, and a trade deadline prior to the expansion draft. To comply with that schedule, and get the Las Vegas team playing ASAP, an announcement of expansion should take place prior to this draft. That will mean the expansion draft will take place just after the completion of the 2016-17 playoffs and prior to the prospects draft. This will allow the expansion team to participate in the draft, have assets to trade, and then take advantage of free agency to improve the team. This will likely be the best expansion team ever iced because of the league's approach to the process.

[cznTiburon]

IF Wideman needs to be protected (or any other pending UFA with a NMC) could a team approach a player still and ask him to waive the NMC so he wouldn't be protected? Or is it just a blanket NMC requires protection. There are a lot of questions and not enough answers yet.

[Poe969]

It's not foolish to assume they'll change a rule for something that hasn't happened in 16 years. It's safe to think they'll do the same thing but when you think about it logically, it's foolish and teams won't stand for it.

Say for some reason the Flames couldn't protect Brodie or Hamilton because they had to protect Wideman, and a few other teams faced that same situation. No team or owner would sign off on that.

If anything, it's foolish to think you'd have to protect a guy who won't be on your team. I'm willing to bet the league lets teams that have players in that situation let them walk first.

[Yanda]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Source?

some quoted tweet on HFboards, im not your google hound dog.

[Textcritic]

I think the concerns about Wideman are still premature. I think he will not possibly have as bad a season this year as he did last year, and could be a tradable commodity come the TD.

There is still lots of time for the Flames to work with, which really makes this situation relatively unproblematic.