Sportsnet: Expansion draft rules

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

So, unless some teams decide NOT to protect their current or future star-players for whatever reasons, the expansion team (or teams) will consist entirely of 3rd and 4th line forwards, 3rd and 4th pairing defencemen and backup goalies. Correct?

Yep, and they should be able to manhandle the Oilers.

[sureLoss]

James Mirtle of the Globe and Mail has also written these rules:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle30400443/

Las Vegas will be required to draft one player from every existing team, including at minimum at each position: three goalies, nine defencemen and 14 forwards.

Some of the other parameters for an expansion team that were recently released to teams include:

• Teams cannot reacquire players they trade after Jan. 1, 2017 prior to Jan. 1, 2018. This is to prevent teams from entering arrangements to “hide” players from the expansion draft. There will likely be a lot more guidelines as part of this rule.
• Teams have to expose at least two forwards and one defenceman who have played either 40 games in the previous season (2016-17) or 70 games in the previous two seasons (2015-17). Teams can only lose a max of one player.
• The expansion team must select players that have a total value of between 60 and100 per cent of the 2016-17 salary cap.
• The expansion team can’t buy out anyone it picks in the expansion draft until the following off-season (2018).
• he expansion team will be given the same draft lottery odds as the team that finishes third last in the league and cannot pick later than sixth in the 2017 NHL entry draft. It’s possible the expansion team could end up with the first overall pick, if it wins the lottery.
• Teams must protect players that have no-movement clauses active in the 2017-18 season. No-movement clauses active in 2016-17 will have no impact. There will likely be exceptions made for players with no-movement clauses who are out with career-ending injuries (i.e. Ryane Clowe and Nathan Horton). Teams are not expected to be forced to protect those contracts.

These guidelines are in addition to previously determined rules, the biggest of which was that all players with two years or less of pro hockey experience are exempted from the draft.

Teams will have a choice between protecting seven forwards, three defencemen and one goaltender (11 players) or eight skaters and one goaltender (nine players). The second option allows for teams to protect four defencemen but forces them to expose three more forwards in order to do so.

Overall, the fact the rule-creation process is this far along – and in the hands of the 30 existing teams – is another strong indicator that the NHL is serious about expansion.

[Finger Cookin]

Interesting to see the 8-1 option back in the mix. And also to see about reacquiring players - that timeline starts pretty early in the season, well before the normal trade deadline.

[edslunch]

I'm glad to see the Horton exemption. Forcing a team to protect someone who will never play again due to injury would be harsh. After all the concern about NMCs it seems the league is taking a pretty rational approach

[Poster]

What if a team has 2 goalies with NMC?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Poster

What if a team has 2 goalies with NMC?

Bill Daly was referencing when he said before the Stanley Cup final that teams unable to comply with the draft rules would face a “significant” penalty.

"It's a loss of draft picks and/or players," he said.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I'm glad to see the Horton exemption. Forcing a team to protect someone who will never play again due to injury would be harsh. After all the concern about NMCs it seems the league is taking a pretty rational approach

Would prefer to see the exception not apply if those players were traded for, basically circumventing the spirit of the rules

[Vinny01]

Anyone have an idea of what team is going to be the most screwed by the expansion draft? Flames seem to be in a great spot. We do not have to protect our top goalie prospect, are a team that is 3D deep so not a huge loss of a blueliner (unless Jokkipakka, Wotherspoon, or Kulak turn into a beast next year). Lastly we have potentially open forward spots so could be in a good spot to add a couple forwards or have space of a guy like Shinkaruk or Porier significantly improve.

Honestly the only way it would be better for Calgary is if the Raymond, Stajan, Smid, Wideman, Bollig deals expired this summer and we were holding the Dallas first rounder instead of the 2nd

[Robbob]

So is the 20 year old and playing a game based on your age when you play the game or your age on some CBA date. If it's your age when you play I bet there are some prospects from 2013 draft that it might impact. Pulock and Nurse may lose the exclusion if it is based on your age when you play the game.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Poster

What if a team has 2 goalies with NMC?

Moot point as there are no teams in that situation, and nobody's going to waste either a protection spot or risk a compliance penalty over a backup goalie.

[Vinny01]

Jimmy Howard has a NMC IIRC. I wonder if Mrazek would be a target for the Flames?

[Ashasx]

Howard's NMC ended at the end of the 14/15 season. Only has limited NTC now. Does not need to be protected.

[Roof-Daddy]

Yeah, Howards NTC gives him the right to list just 10 teams he CAN be traded to according to CapFriendly.

He won't be traded unless he wants to be traded and plays ball with Holland. However, even if he is very helpful with his list he's still going to be tough to move you would think.

...also, even if the expansion would pick him in the draft, that's still a year away and the Wings need to sign Mrzaek this summer to pretty much starter money, because I have no idea why he would help the Wings out by signing a bridge deal when he'd liely get $4 million or more in arbitration.

Would love Treliving to use an offer sheet to go after Mrazek, that's for sure.

[Yrebmi]

Unless he signs north of 3 mil/season, Joe Colborne will be protected.
As others have said I'm less sure of Frolik but probably also.

Can teams claim to be trying a D prospect out at Forward as a way to sneak a protection in?

[Ashasx]

There is zero chance Frolik is left unprotected.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

There is zero chance Frolik is left unprotected.

I wouldn't say zero chance but it's highly unlikely.

It would take three forwards passing him next season on the depth chart by any combination of UFA signing, trade or internal growth.

1. Gaudreau
2. Monahan
3. Bennett
4. Backlund
5. Colborne (if he puts up 20/40+ again)
6. One of Ferland, Shinkaruk or Poirier breaking out
7. UFA signing or trade acquisition

[dying4acup]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I wouldn't say zero chance but it's highly unlikely.

It would take three forwards passing him next season on the depth chart by any combination of UFA signing, trade or internal growth.

1. Gaudreau
2. Monahan
3. Bennett
4. Backlund
5. Colborne (if he puts up 20/40+ again)
6. One of Ferland, Shinkaruk or Poirier breaking out
7. UFA signing or trade acquisition

I'm not entirely disappointed by Frolik's season, but another injury year tells me he should be left out there. He wouldn't be selected in that case anyway.

My guess is that an over age prospect selected from the Flames. Maybe Shinkaruk.

Best case scenario, LV needs a vet centre and take Stajan! Dream come true!

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Anyone have an idea of what team is going to be the most screwed by the expansion draft? Flames seem to be in a great spot. We do not have to protect our top goalie prospect, are a team that is 3D deep so not a huge loss of a blueliner (unless Jokkipakka, Wotherspoon, or Kulak turn into a beast next year). Lastly we have potentially open forward spots so could be in a good spot to add a couple forwards or have space of a guy like Shinkaruk or Porier significantly improve.

Honestly the only way it would be better for Calgary is if the Raymond, Stajan, Smid, Wideman, Bollig deals expired this summer and we were holding the Dallas first rounder instead of the 2nd

TB is going to lose a good player no matter how you cut it. I think they would be the most screwed. Unless CBJ makes some moves they are in the same boat.

[sureLoss]

Yeah Blue Jackets are in a bad position right now.

Right now their protection list will probably look like, if they went the 7+3+1 route

1. Dubinsky - NMC
2. Foligno - NMC
3. Clarkson - NMC
4. Hartnell - NMC
5. Saad
6. Jenner
7. Karlsson/Wennberg

1. Tyutin - NMC
2. Jones
3. Murray

1. Most likely Korpisalo


Which leaves players like Atkinson, Wennberg/Karlsson, Jack Johnson, David Savard, Bobrovsky, Rychel, Josh Anderson unprotected.

Obviously one move is to buyout Tyutin, which will allow them to protect Savard or Johnson and they are trying to move Hartnell.

I would like the Flames to steal Josh Anderson away from them, though

[Insufficient Funds]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Howard's NMC ended at the end of the 14/15 season. Only has limited NTC now. Does not need to be protected.

I thought the NHL had said that NTC and limited NTC would have to be protected also. From Sureloss's OP.

"Players holding no-movement clauses – including those modified by limited no-trades, such as Pittsburgh Penguins goalie Marc-Andre Fleury – count against the protection limit, provided that those contracts and clauses extend through the 2017-18 season."