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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sekera has to be protected, Klefbom would be protected, Nurse won't qualify for the draft apparently.

Should be space for another 1 or 2 D men to be protected.

How do you figure?

He has already had 2 years of pro and next year makes 3. Nurse will need to be protected.

[activeStick]

I'm looking forward to how Benning is going to mess this up and in turn, screw the Canucks... you know it'll happen but how exactly??

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How do you figure?

He has already had 2 years of pro and next year makes 3. Nurse will need to be protected.

I don't think they count 2 games as a year of pro. An article I read mentioned he wouldn't count with the rules the way they are. Could be wrong though.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because this is a new, unique situation. Things won't shake out the same as the last expansion draft because the contract landscape of the NHL is wildly different. That's basic stuff.

Just ask yourself the easy questions: Who benefits from UFAs with NMC being protected? Literally nobody.

Not the NHL, not NHL teams, not a single player.

Everyone benefits from UFAs not having their NMC honoured. The NHL benefits, the teams benefit, the players benefit. More veterans up for movement, teams protect players they like, the players get lengthy negotiations with two teams before the open negotiation period begins.

The expansion teams benefit because it forces teams to protect players they might not otherwise protect, thus forcing them to expose a player they might not want to to. Basically, it will help filter slightly better players to the expansion team, something Bettman has already said is a priority.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't think they count 2 games as a year of pro. An article I read mentioned he wouldn't count with the rules the way they are. Could be wrong though.

He should be safe.

2013-14 (18 years old): AHL = 4 regular season / 3 playoff
2014-15 (19 years old): NHL = 2 regular season / AHL = 4 playoff

Because he was under 20, neither of those should count as a pro season, so this season should be considered his first pro year.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just ask yourself the easy questions: Who benefits from UFAs with NMC being protected?

The expansion team(s) that pay $500M in expansion fees benefit from players with NMCs being protected. It uses up protection slots on existing rosters and should allow other players to be exposed that otherwise would not have been.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by getbak

He should be safe.

2013-14 (18 years old): AHL = 4 regular season / 3 playoff
2014-15 (19 years old): NHL = 2 regular season / AHL = 4 playoff

Because he was under 20, neither of those should count as a pro season, so this season should be considered his first pro year.

Weren't recent discussions on this suggesting that 1 game constituted a pro season? Several people suggested this with respect to Gillies. Or does that not apply for 18 and 19 year old juniors?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Weren't recent discussions on this suggesting that 1 game constituted a pro season? Several people suggested this with respect to Gillies. Or does that not apply for 18 and 19 year old juniors?

The CBA actually has two definitions that could potentially be used. One is for a "professional season", which is used to determine a player's eligibility for Group 5 or 6 UFA status. The other is for a "year of professional experience", which is used to determine eligibility for Group 2 RFA status.


This is the definition used for Group 5 & 6 Free Agency:

For the purposes of the foregoing, the term "professional season" shall: (A) for a Player aged 18 or 19, mean any season in which such Player plays in eleven (11) or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC), and (B) for a Player aged 20 or older, mean any season in which such Player plays in one or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC).

This is a slightly different definition for Group 2 Free Agency:

For the purposes of this Section 10.2(a), a Player aged 18 or 19 earns a year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or more NHL Games in a given NHL Season, and a Player aged 20 or older (or who turns 20 between September 16 and December 31 of the year in which he signs his first SPC) earns a year of professional experience by playing ten (10) or more Professional Games under an SPC in a given League Year.

Either way, Nurse's 18 & 19 year-old seasons won't qualify. Of course, the league could use a completely different definition for the expansion draft, but I think that's unlikely since the CBA has the terms already defined.

For the Flames' sake, it would be better if they use the Group 2 definition of a "year of professional service" because Poirier and Shinkaruk's AHL seasons last year wouldn't count, so they'd be exempt. Also, under that definition, Gillies would still not have a year of experience because he only played in 7 games this season. If they use the Group 5 definition, Poirier and Shinkaruk won't be exempt (but Gillies still will).

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

The expansion teams benefit because it forces teams to protect players they might not otherwise protect, thus forcing them to expose a player they might not want to to. Basically, it will help filter slightly better players to the expansion team, something Bettman has already said is a priority.

The fact the NHLPA and NHL agreed on the rules this fast points to UFA with NMC expiring does not need protection. Both sides would obviously agree on it and the expansion club does not get a say anyhow.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The fact the NHLPA and NHL agreed on the rules this fast points to UFA with NMC expiring does not need protection. Both sides would obviously agree on it and the expansion club does not get a say anyhow.

Not necessarily. Agreeing with the letter of the rule (NMC = NMC no matter if it's about to expire) is the baseline. Anything other than that would require negotiation.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The fact the NHLPA and NHL agreed on the rules this fast points to UFA with NMC expiring does not need protection. Both sides would obviously agree on it and the expansion club does not get a say anyhow.

I don't see a reason to think definitively one way or the other. It could go either way as expiring contracts have always been a part of previous expansion processes.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I don't see a reason to think definitively one way or the other. It could go either way as expiring contracts have always been a part of previous expansion processes.

However, the salary cap has never been a part of a previous expansion process. As pointed out before, teams that lost UFAs used to receive compensation picks, which meant there was some value in expiring contracts for an expansion team. That doesn't exist anymore. The rules for past expansions are no indication of how things will be done this time around. They can't be; too much has changed.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

However, the salary cap has never been a part of a previous expansion process. As pointed out before, teams that lost UFAs used to receive compensation picks, which meant there was some value in expiring contracts for an expansion team. That doesn't exist anymore. The rules for past expansions are no indication of how things will be done this time around. They can't be; too much has changed.

There is no reason to assume anything to do with a players SPC will change unless it comes out otherwise. That is the main point some of us are trying to make. So until some breaks some news saying that NMCs on expiring contracts do not need to be protected it only makes sense to assume that part of their contract will still be valid and they will need to be protected.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Not necessarily. Agreeing with the letter of the rule (NMC = NMC no matter if it's about to expire) is the baseline. Anything other than that would require negotiation.

It's not a hard negotiation because Bettman and the NHLPA want exactly the same thing (for different reasons).

[Hockey Fan #751]

The Flames could potentially trade Wideman, which would result in him needing to waive his NMC. Then the other team can choose to not honour the NMC going forward after that.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It's not a hard negotiation because Bettman and the NHLPA want exactly the same thing (for different reasons).

I agree that the fact that Bettman/NHL hate NMCs they'd have no problem forcing teams to honour them right up until July 1. This would force quite a few buyouts this summer I think.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

The Flames could potentially trade Wideman, which would result in him needing to waive his NMC. Then the other team can choose to not honour the NMC going forward after that.

That's not how NMC work.

[Moneyhands23]

I'll be sad if we loose kevin

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

I agree that the fact that Bettman/NHL hate NMCs they'd have no problem forcing teams to honour them right up until July 1. This would force quite a few buyouts this summer I think.

Except Bettman's job is to also look out for the owners. It makes zero sense at all to count players who will be a UFA in a few months time.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

There is no reason not to assume anything to do with a players SPC will change unless it comes out otherwise. That is the main point some of us are trying to make. So until some breaks some news saying that NMCs on expiring contracts do not need to be protected it only makes sense not to assume that part of their contract will still be valid and they will need to be protected.

FYP
We are all speculating (even you), this is a discussion board.
Lets not try to shut down others based on your own assumptions.