Well you would think the NHL would want teams to have to protect NMC players if their goal is to improve the expansion team. Otherwise you will get a team like the Sharks exposing Thornton and Marleau knowing they will be UFA's a month later and allows them to protect two more good players that would have been available to the expansion team. Personally I think GM's hand out NMC much too freely and I think they should lie in the bed they made. They should have to be protected and they should count towards your list.
I kind of agree but I don't see the NHL doing this as it would impact larger markets the most. I haven't looked it up, but I would wager that large markets have more NMCs due to them being more desirable for UFAs. No way the NHL does anything that hurts the sweetheart teams IMO. It will come down to what teams like NYR, LA, PHI, CHI, etc want. They'll get their way, they always do.
We have to remember these teams actually have to field a team that season. They can't just pick all prospects unless they want to lose every game by 5 goals in their first season. Its not sexy but much more likely they pick actual NHL players than a boatload of prospects.
If they have to hit the cap floor in their first year - they'll need to get some guys with salary as well.
Depending on the calibre of players available in the expansion draft, if I were the GM of an expansion team, I would probably take about 20 NHL veterans and 10 prospects in the draft. I would even consider 15 vets/15 prospects if the available veterans were unattractive. I would then be looking to fill out my roster with some high-level free agent signings.
If you're running an expansion team in Vegas, you shouldn't have a difficult time finding players who want to play there (Quebec might be more difficult).
Also, I have a feeling that because of the expansion draft, we might see more UFAs going without contract extensions next season, so the available list of UFAs might be better than normal next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazypucker
How about players with NMC don't need to be included in the protected list, but they can't be drafted away as well? Meaning a team can protect a NMC player without using a protection slot - thus they can protect more players from being picked away.
That's exactly why they won't allow that to happen. They don't want to give teams a loophole to protect more players. If they did allow that, you'd expect every new contract signed this year to have at least a one-year NMC attached to it.
For example, if the league determines that Jon Gillies will be exposed in the expansion draft next season, the Flames could go and sign Reimer (or any other potential starter) to a multi-year contract and include a full NMC for the first year of the contract and essentially have both goalies protected in the draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
The real ambiguity is that it doesn't explicitly say what happens in an expansion or relocation.
The CBA does mention expansion and relocation elsewhere with regards to players receiving compensation and moving expenses in the event that they are forced to move. I wonder if that strengthens the league's position that a NMC is only valid in the specific situations mentioned? The PA could have had expansion/relocation added to the clause, and didn't.
It has been 16 years since the last expansion. The PA should have had a reasonable expectation that expansion could occur during the time frame of this CBA.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
(Un)Fortunately, the Flames don't have enough top end players for this to hurt. If anything, the Flames will benefit from an expansion draft.
Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund, Frolik, Colborne, Bouma(if he has a bounce back year)
Giordano, Hamilton, Brodie
Whoever the Flames #1 Goalie is next year
Bring it on Vegas and Quebec!! Come take our spare parts!!
I don't know that this should necessarily be the case. It totally depends on who ends up coming in, but if it's a veteran stop-gap, I'm not sure I'd rather protect them than Gillies or even Ortio (depending on how his season goes).
Also, I'd probably rather protect Jokipakka, or an exposed AHL prospect than Colborne or Bouma. And I really like both of those guys.
Doesn't seem worth it to me to protect Jokipakka and expose three more forwards. I think Jokipakka is closer in ability and value to a guy like Wotherspoon then he is close to our top 3 dmen. What if Jokipakka, Wotherspoon AND Nakladal all impress next year? Chances are we'd only lose one. I dunno, the 8 skaters 1 goalie protection scheme seems significantly worse to me.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
The only plausible way I could see them go 8-1 instead of 7-3-1 is if the Flames traded for Hamonic this off-season. Giordano, Brodie, Hamonic and Hamilton would all have to protected or you'd lose one for sure.
The Following User Says Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
I will say its amazing that sports leagues have these scenarios come up that they are completely unprepared for and screw teams in the process by having no set rules.
This NMC rule and the expansion draft could completely change the equation in terms of giving these out or acquiring a guy. But unless the NHL gets its way and NMC are treated like every other player, teams are going to get shafted. If the NMC guys have to be protected - then some teams will be screwed, if NMC guys can't get picked but don't have to be protected - then team's who didn't give them out are screwed.
Its not like expansion is so rare that it could never be anticipated. Set rules so teams know how to value the risk of giving out a NMC.
Location: Down by the sea, where the watermelons grow, back to my home, I dare not go...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
I will say its amazing that sports leagues have these scenarios come up that they are completely unprepared for and screw teams in the process by having no set rules.
This NMC rule and the expansion draft could completely change the equation in terms of giving these out or acquiring a guy. But unless the NHL gets its way and NMC are treated like every other player, teams are going to get shafted. If the NMC guys have to be protected - then some teams will be screwed, if NMC guys can't get picked but don't have to be protected - then team's who didn't give them out are screwed.
Its not like expansion is so rare that it could never be anticipated. Set rules so teams know how to value the risk of giving out a NMC.
Yes, this. Is it just the message boards that are confused over what exactly is happening with the expansion draft? Or is it actually the league being unclear about it? If I were a GM, I would want to know EXACTLY what the expansion draft was going to be like ASAP.
It seems ridiculous that the NHL would not put out some clear guidelines that a GM can plan around.
Is anyone else worried about exposing 25% of the roster cap rule? The Flames have a lot of bad contacts coming off the books in the 2017 off-season. Assuming the Flames spend close to the cap in 2016-17 (lets say $74M) they will need to expose a total cap space of at least $18.5M. The problem is that contracts like Wideman($5.25M), Smid($3.75M), Engelland($3M), Raymond($3.15M), and Bollig($1.25M) for a total of $16.4M all expire and can't be exposed.
So who do we have left? Estimated cap
Forwards
------------------
Frolik($4.3M)
Backlund($3.575M)
Once we add everyone except Backlund and Frolik we get $13.43M which means we are $5.1M short on players we would expose. Potentially the goalie we sign in the off season will take a big chunk of it, but that means the Flames will be signing UFAs(or trading for players) with the intention to expose them in 2017. Otherwise, one of Backlund or Frolik will need to be exposed. How much it will either hurt or benefit the Flames is yet to be seen.
Last edited by gvitaly; 03-22-2016 at 12:59 PM.
Reason: Tidy up the list
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gvitaly For This Useful Post:
I will say its amazing that sports leagues have these scenarios come up that they are completely unprepared for and screw teams in the process by having no set rules.
This NMC rule and the expansion draft could completely change the equation in terms of giving these out or acquiring a guy. But unless the NHL gets its way and NMC are treated like every other player, teams are going to get shafted. If the NMC guys have to be protected - then some teams will be screwed, if NMC guys can't get picked but don't have to be protected - then team's who didn't give them out are screwed.
Its not like expansion is so rare that it could never be anticipated. Set rules so teams know how to value the risk of giving out a NMC.
Its actually not that bad regarding NMCs, most of the players that have them earned them and the protected status. It does make me wish that the Pronger contract was 2 years longer though.
List of NMC by team for the summer of 2017(players signed to NMC during this season are excluded):
Wait, there are 2 guys who signed an NMC to STAY in Edmonton???
Three, but Ference expires after this season. I think it is because they all know that the line between Edmonton and the AHL is so thin. Just a little bit of an extra protection from becoming AHLers.
Is anyone else worried about exposing 25% of the roster cap rule? The Flames have a lot of bad contacts coming off the books in the 2017 off-season. Assuming the Flames spend close to the cap in 2016-17 (lets say $74M) they will need to expose a total cap space of at least $18.5M. The problem is that contracts like Wideman($5.25M), Smid($3.75M), Engelland($3M), Raymond($3.15M), and Bollig($1.25M) for a total of $16.4M all expire and can't be exposed.
So who do we have left? Estimated cap
Forwards
------------------
Frolik($4.3M)
Backlund($3.575M)
Once we add everyone except Backlund and Frolik we get $13.43M which means we are $5.1M short on players we would expose. Potentially the goalie we sign in the off season will take a big chunk of it, but that means the Flames will be signing UFAs(or trading for players) with the intention to expose them in 2017. Otherwise, one of Backlund or Frolik will need to be exposed. How much it will either hurt or benefit the Flames is yet to be seen.
For me, here's where things get muddy.
So, the expansion draft will reportedly happen before the entry draft... so before July 1. So technically, Smid, Engelland, Wideman, Bollig and Raymond would be under contract with the Flames still... no?
If they aren't, what about our RFAs? Jokipakka, Ferland, Hathaway and Bennett are all players on the roster right now who would need new contracts. Who knows how that'll change next year, but those numbers are all over the place right there.
Let's carelessly throw money around:
Jokipakka: $2M
Ferland: $1.75M - $3M (definitely a player who's role is TBD)
Hathaway: $1M (who knows what he'll do next year)
Bennett: $4M (I just hit a button...)
What if this is how our RFAs shake out? That's $8.75M - $10M, or 11.8% - 13.5% of a $74,000,000 salary right there. Now, I have no idea if those numbers work with a $74,000,000 salary and everything else we'd have, but they can't be so far off that the point doesn't stand.
Can the NHL say that your UFAs are off the books, AND RFAs don't count, but expose 25%? That 25% thing is a total mess.
The Following User Says Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
Three, but Ference expires after this season. I think it is because they all know that the line between Edmonton and the AHL is so thin. Just a little bit of an extra protection from becoming AHLers.
Yup. I'm sure Talbot saw what happened to "Scrivezina" this season and demanded the NMC so the same can't happen to him in a year when a new shiny toy catches Katz's eye.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
So, the expansion draft will reportedly happen before the entry draft... so before July 1. So technically, Smid, Engelland, Wideman, Bollig and Raymond would be under contract with the Flames still... no?
If they aren't, what about our RFAs? Jokipakka, Ferland, Hathaway and Bennett are all players on the roster right now who would need new contracts. Who knows how that'll change next year, but those numbers are all over the place right there.
Let's carelessly throw money around:
Jokipakka: $2M
Ferland: $1.75M - $3M (definitely a player who's role is TBD)
Hathaway: $1M (who knows what he'll do next year) Bennett: $4M (I just hit a button...)
What if this is how our RFAs shake out? That's $8.75M - $10M, or 11.8% - 13.5% of a $74,000,000 salary right there. Now, I have no idea if those numbers work with a $74,000,000 salary and everything else we'd have, but they can't be so far off that the point doesn't stand.
Can the NHL say that your UFAs are off the books, AND RFAs don't count, but expose 25%? That 25% thing is a total mess.
I am not sure how it would work out, but I am pretty sure Bennett would be protected and his cap hit wouldn't count towards the 25%. It is hard to say what the exact rules would be, because the NHL didn't quite figure them out yet.
I am not sure how it would work out, but I am pretty sure Bennett would be protected and his cap hit wouldn't count towards the 25%. It is hard to say what the exact rules would be, because the NHL didn't quite figure them out yet.
They would definitely protect him, but that's where I get confused. Wouldn't the 25% be 25% of the total teams salary? If so, of what year? If RFAs hadn't signed yet... Calgary could potentially have $8.75M - $10M not accounted for. So confusing.
What if we sign Jokipakka, Ferland and Hathaway before the draft? Can we expose them as part of the 25%? Keep off signing Bennett until after to avoid raising what that 25% would need to be.
Its actually not that bad regarding NMCs, most of the players that have them earned them and the protected status. It does make me wish that the Pronger contract was 2 years longer though.
List of NMC by team for the summer of 2017(players signed to NMC during this season are excluded):
Interesting list, here are a few teams in trouble if they have to protect these players:
-Colorado already has two D protected, not including Barrie
-CBJ has problems with all groups...they will have to protect Tyutin, Jones and Murray making Johnson available. Up front they have to protect Hartnell.
-If Edmonton happens to grab an actual good D man this summer they will have to expose them or one of Klefblom or Nurse. Never mind, they won't get a good D man ever.
-Minnesota has to protect Pominville
-NYI has to protect 4 d (assuming they replace Hamonic with another D)
-PIT Fleury or Murray?
-if Tampa keeps stamkos they will be tight upfront, probably having to expose some good prospects
-TOR...Horton!,
-WPG has to protect 4 D, exposing some great young prospects
this summer looks to be interesting from a fan's perspective...I suspect we will see some surprise buyouts and lots of shuffling.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Funkhouser For This Useful Post:
Protecting 8 + Goalie?
