[Rumour] UPD: Daly says no need to protect expiring contracts with NMC

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad

So what would happen if a team had two goalies with NMCs? It's unlikely, but possible.

Reports recently indicate any team unable to comply with expansion rules would be penalized with fines and the loss of draft picks.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad

So what would happen if a team had two goalies with NMCs? It's unlikely, but possible.

I don't think there is a team with that situation, and knowing the rules for the upcoming expansion draft no team is going to go out and sign a second goaltender to a contract to a NMC that will hurt them in the draft. As far as I know the only goaltenders with NMCs are Fleury (PIT), Bishop (TAM), Crawford (CHI), Lundqvist (NYR), Rask (BOS), Talbot (EDM), and Rinne (NAS).

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by blender

True, but it is about precedent and principle too. NHL owners aren't in the business of screwing each other over either. Seems like a good way to create enemies and division.

I don't believe it will happen.

They're all going to get a share of $500M. It's not a matter of principle, it's business. This isn't going to cause some schism or something.

[LChoy]

Sorry but I missed something, but why do the Flames have to protect Wideman?
Isn't it a good thing he might get claimed by the expansion draft, and his salary comes off the books?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Sorry but I missed something, but why do the Flames have to protect Wideman?
Isn't it a good thing he might get claimed by the expansion draft, and his salary comes off the books?

He has a NMC.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Sorry but I missed something, but why do the Flames have to protect Wideman?
Isn't it a good thing he might get claimed by the expansion draft, and his salary comes off the books?

You missed the title of the thread you're replying in. And the expansion draft will be next offseason at the earliest, when Wideman's salary would already be coming off the books.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

You missed the title of the thread you're replying in. And the expansion draft will be next offseason at the earliest, when Wideman's salary would already be coming off the books.

Thanks, realized I answered my own question as soon as I posted

[Vinny01]

Oilers could be very screwed here as they have to protect both Ference and Sekera so can they add another couple blueliners without risk of losing one to expansion? Ference is injured so can't be bought out from my understanding?

[Hockey Fan #751]

What if a player like Ference or Pronger just retired as soon as they collect their final paycheque in April? That would seem to be a way around it. Doesn't work for someone who wants to keep playing like Wideman, though.

[Demetric]

I am not going to believe reports like this, I will wait for the actual announcement if/when expansion will happen. To me expiring contracts with NMC should not need to be protected because basically all you have at that point is their rights. Even if chosen they would not even have to move if they did not want too, they would not have to sign with the new team. This whole idea seems so stupid, but we will see.

[Knut]

Here is Wideman's buyout .

http://www.generalfanager.com/buyouts/407

Basically, it would mean 1.25 M less Cap space for this coming season and 2.0M less cap space for the following year. Not horrible and likely the best option if they can not find a trade suitor.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Hes

Here is Wideman's buyout .

http://www.generalfanager.com/buyouts/407

Basically, it would mean 1.25 M less Cap space for this coming season and 2.0M less cap space for the following year. Not horrible and likely the best option if they can not find a trade suitor.

Providing the owners are okay with paying Wideman $5.25 million not to play for them which is no sure thing.

[gunnner]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Providing the owners are okay with paying Wideman $5.25 million not to play for them which is no sure thing.

Lets start a go fund me page then.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Providing the owners are okay with paying Wideman $5.25 million not to play for them which is no sure thing.

It is a valid point, but the Owners cost would be 4 M.

I honestly think that there are enough of these contracts that the league will find a way around it.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Providing the owners are okay with paying Wideman $5.25 million not to play for them which is no sure thing.

It would actually be less than that and it would help them protect another asset because unforseeable events (expansion and NMCs) have forced their hand. I'm assuming the owners aren't that stupid and would buyout Wideman if it meant protecting a player that is important to the team. Honestly if they are that stubborn where they won't buyout a guy if it got to that point, we're probably screwed as Flames fans because that would mean we have the dumbest owners in the NHL. You're paying $5.25m for him to be inconsequential to winning for one year just so he can cost us a player management would rather not lose for nothing? Might as well pay him $3m over two years to go away and save us the asset. $5m VS $3m to save an asset. Not really a tough call IMO, especially when the cheaper path helps the team. Who cares if Wideman is physically here or not? Think of of him as a sunk cost and pick the choice that makes the team better.

[StrykerSteve]

Buying Wideman out also gives away an asset you could have otherwise traded at next year's deadline. I don't see a buyout happening.

[Ashasx]

nobody is going to trade for Wideman if they have to protect him at the expansion draft. He has significant negative value.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Buying Wideman out also gives away an asset you could have otherwise traded at next year's deadline. I don't see a buyout happening.

I would have agreed until the Brooks article, that changes everything if true.

I had it in my head that Wideman to any team trading for him this summer could be flipped into the market again at the deadline for a 2nd round pick (estimate).

But if he harms the acquiring team's ability to protect a defenseman than his value has plummeted significantly.

Knowing Treliving, he'll look at protected lists of all of the other 29 teams and then offer to deal them Wideman 50% salary retained for like a 5th round pick and move him.

Then there's no cap issue next year, and less of an overall hit.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Buying Wideman out also gives away an asset you could have otherwise traded at next year's deadline. I don't see a buyout happening.

But there is a risk to keeping Wideman around, you are banking on HAVING to get SOMETHING for him at the deadline.

If you can't work a standard UFA trade at the deadline, you will be forced to do a "take Wideman from us please, and we'll give you this pick" type of deal (keeping in mind that any team that we talk into that will have to be willing/able to protect Wideman).

And IF that didn't work, then you'd be talking about a situation where keeping Wideman not only didn't get you an asset, but instead cost you a Brodie/Hamilton/Gio.

Is the risk worth it?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I would have agreed until the Brooks article, that changes everything if true.

I had it in my head that Wideman to any team trading for him this summer could be flipped into the market again at the deadline for a 2nd round pick (estimate).

But if he harms the acquiring team's ability to protect a defenseman than his value has plummeted significantly.

Knowing Treliving, he'll look at protected lists of all of the other 29 teams and then offer to deal them Wideman 50% salary retained for like a 5th round pick and move him.

Then there's no cap issue next year, and less of an overall hit.

Could this feasibly happen?
Trade him for a ~2nd at deadline.
Trade him back to us for futures/7th rounder after post-season, for us to buy-out.