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

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Alberta_Beef, do you actually believe players like Wideman will need to be protected, or are you just trying to feel smart by playing pretend lawyer?

I'm pretty certain that the league is talking about protecting NMC that would be in effect for the 2017-18 season. Contracts coming off the books at the end of the 2016-17 season will be treated as free agents. These rules would have been discussed with the GMs already and if a guy coming off of a contract had to be protected there would have been some major push back through the media.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The 7-3-1 or 8-1 allotment is being figured with this in mind

Yes, and so is the NMC protection.

Not sure why you're gasping for air in reaction to my quote. Of course this expansion draft will be different than previous ones. This is not news or insightful.

The tweet's from a journalist with sources who reports on the NHL for a living. It should be taken with more credibility than speculation on a message board. Having said that, people can argue about how logical or illogical other provisions or gaps in the rules may or not be. But none of the arguing or speculating matters at the end of the day. The rules will be what the rules will be. Extrapolating what little is known into potential moves, trades, buyouts and so on is silly. Sillier than usual even for message board discussion.

[Sylvanfan]

The league will need to clarify this prior to July 1st. If you have to protect a NMC that expires in 2017....you have to buy Wideman out. Any Wideman type player becomes toxic to the teams who have those types of players on the roster.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The league will need to clarify this prior to July 1st. If you have to protect a NMC that expires in 2017....you have to buy Wideman out. Any Wideman type player becomes toxic to the teams who have those types of players on the roster.

If there's going to be an expansion draft next offseason, this will be clarified in about two weeks. If nothing is said or announced by then, chances are any potential expansion is more than a year away.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Yes, and so is the NMC protection.

Not sure why you're gasping for air in reaction to my quote. Of course this expansion draft will be different than previous ones. This is not news or insightful.

The tweet's from a journalist with sources who reports on the NHL for a living. It should be taken with more credibility than speculation on a message board. Having said that, people can argue about how logical or illogical other provisions or gaps in the rules may or not be. But none of the arguing or speculating matters at the end of the day. The rules will be what the rules will be. Extrapolating what little is known into potential moves, trades, buyouts and so on is silly. Sillier than usual even for message board discussion.

Sorry, gasp was more intended at people citing previous expansion drafts as nearly iron-clad precedents.

I agree with the rest of your post completely though. And I don't intend to discredit a journalist's tweet, as it's much more valid than any other, but I also think that Twitter is one of the worst things to happen to journalism

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The league will need to clarify this prior to July 1st. If you have to protect a NMC that expires in 2017....you have to buy Wideman out. Any Wideman type player becomes toxic to the teams who have those types of players on the roster.

I'd suggest it is clarified before the draft.

As for Wideman, I'm of the belief that Treliving has a deal in place to move him either way. The return won't be much but that is secondary to the cap flexibility it provides and where that space will be allocated (thinking big ticket G myself).

Lots of intrigue heading into late June though, that's for sure.

[Finger Cookin]

Fair enough, sorry for the misunderstanding. Seems like we're in agreement with each other.

[Da_Chief]

I can see few free agents like Colborne (mid-range players) getting expensive 2 year contracts from their teams this off-season. To scare off the expansion team and also meet the 25% salary exposed rule.

With that in mind I see Colborne getting a 2 year deal worth 8 mill.

[activeStick]

Common sense would seem to indicate that a guy like Wideman wouldn't need to be protected given he's a free agent a couple weeks after the draft. Yah the NHL makes questionable decisions but this one must be straight forward enough, right?!

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Alberta_Beef, do you actually believe players like Wideman will need to be protected, or are you just trying to feel smart by playing pretend lawyer?

The NHL has rarely done things because they are "logical", I don't know which way it will go either, but after looking deeper into things I can't see why the NHL would even ask the NHLPA to have those NMC's exempt because it affects just over 1/3 of the franchises and they would have to concede something somewhere to have it allowed.

At this point there are only 70 players with a NMC in the 2016-17 season (link) but of those 70 only 14 players are affected (Datsyuk, J. Thornton, Marleau, Vanek, Bishop, Sharp, Wisniewski, Iginla, Wideman, Pronger, Umberger, Vermette, Ference and C. Neil) and when Datsyuk files his retirement papers the cap hit will remain but he won't have a valid SPC so his NMC won't matter. The remaining 13 players are spread among 11 teams.

Maybe I am wrong, but this is a negotiating game between the union and the league and I can't see the league giving up leverage for the sake of "logic" when it affects so few players and teams.

[powderjunkie]

This is actually a 3-way negotiation between the league (30 teams), league (on behalf of 1 potential team) and PA.

IMO the PA would probably be in favour of those 13 players' NMCs being exempt, as it means protection for 13 other players.

San Jose should throw a fit of JT and PM need protection. The other thing it would do is demolish the value of any of those players at the deadline (or sooner).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coach]

Can someone explain to me the logic behind needing to protect NMCs? Why can't they just honor their status, and leave it up to teams whether they want to risk exposing them, or whether the expansion team wants to risk taking them and them refusing to waive (just take another player)?

I don't see why this has to be made more complicated than it needs to be.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Can someone explain to me the logic behind needing to protect NMCs? Why can't they just honor their status, and leave it up to teams whether they want to risk exposing them, or whether the expansion team wants to risk taking them and them refusing to waive (just take another player)?

I don't see why this has to be made more complicated than it needs to be.

Because the PA won't allow it

[Resolute 14]

The problem comes on the assumption that a player on an NMC would refuse to waive. So by not forcing teams to protect players with NMCs, it basically creates different rules for different teams. Your team with two players on NMCs could then effectively protect 13 players, while my team, with no NMCs, can protect only 11.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Because the PA won't allow it

But how is it any different than attempting to trade a player with an NMC? It's not that you can't, they just have to waive it.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The problem comes on the assumption that a player on an NMC would refuse to waive. So by not forcing teams to protect players with NMCs, it basically creates different rules for different teams. Your team with two players on NMCs could then effectively protect 13 players, while my team, with no NMCs, can protect only 11.

Yeah, but that's the nature of the NMCs. Both sides agreed to it, both sides need to honor its parameters. This is one instance where it could work out in favor of the team (which is rare for NMCs).

[getbak]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Can someone explain to me the logic behind needing to protect NMCs? Why can't they just honor their status, and leave it up to teams whether they want to risk exposing them, or whether the expansion team wants to risk taking them and them refusing to waive (just take another player)?

I don't see why this has to be made more complicated than it needs to be.

That would allow Chicago to leave Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa, Hjalmarsson and Crawford unprotected in the expansion draft with the knowledge that they wouldn't be at risk of losing those players. This would also allow the Hawks to protect an additional 8 players in the expansion draft. Where most teams would only be able to protect 10 players, Chicago would be able to protect 18.

Also, every new contract signed this summer would include a NMC that was in effect from June 15 - July 1, 2017.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by getbak

That would allow Chicago to leave Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa, Hjalmarsson and Crawford unprotected in the expansion draft with the knowledge that they wouldn't be at risk of losing those players. This would also allow the Hawks to protect an additional 8 players in the expansion draft. Where most teams would only be able to protect 10 players, Chicago would be able to protect 18.

Also, every new contract signed this summer would include a NMC that was in effect from June 15 - July 1, 2017.

As for the point about the players, to me that's meh. That's what the NMCs are. If they want to leave them exposed and LV drafts Hossa and he decides to waive, whoops, should have protected him.

It's unlikely anyone would waive to leave a championship team to go to an expansion squad, but maybe. If the current team wants to take that risk, fine.

The second point about new contracts is a good one. Not sure how you'd stop that.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MattyC

But how is it any different than attempting to trade a player with an NMC? It's not that you can't, they just have to waive it.

Because there's now pressure on the players to waive. The PA can just stop the whole process. Almost all of the players with NMCs have them do they don't have to uproot their families. They also don't want reports that they said no and had one of their teammates go up because they said no. The expansion team is going to want the best options that will actually be controllable contacts available so I don't see them showing it either.


For example, do you think Wideman would want this happening to him? He knows he doesn't likely fit in here. But he also doesn't want the pressure of the media and fans wanting him to waive. This avoids that situation

[Coach]

Good points for sure, but I still don't see that scenario as much different than the Flames attempting to trade Wideman. Maybe they could keep the draft confidential until the final team is made? I know that's tough with the way the media is but, hey, it's part of the business.

I understand that signing a NMC is an attempt to shield yourself from that part of the business, but it gets explored regardless.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

As for the point about the players, to me that's meh. That's what the NMCs are. If they want to leave them exposed and LV drafts Hossa and he decides to waive, whoops, should have protected him.

It's unlikely anyone would waive to leave a championship team to go to an expansion squad, but maybe. If the current team wants to take that risk, fine.

The second point about new contracts is a good one. Not sure how you'd stop that.

Pretty easy...