Sportsnet: Expansion draft rules

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Imported_Aussie

Protect
F - Gaudreau
F - Monahan
F - Bennett (RFA)
F - Backlund
F - Frolik
F -
F -
D - Giordano
D - Brodie
D - Hamilton
G -

Stajan, Bouma, Colborne (assuming multi-year deal) - lots of games there to expose at forward. With the D - depends on their rule regarding how an upcoming free agent is considered


The other 2 F and G depend on UFA signings - if you sign a free agent, unless they stink, you would want to protect them. If you go with just keeping youth:

F - Shinkaruk
F - Ferland (RFA)
G - Gillies (RFA)


I am assuming Gillies needs to be protected due to being signed for the 2014/15 season, and that making it 3 pro years this upcoming season. Even if he is exposed, there are a lot of other guys who will be in the mix to be taken, so there is a good chance he slips through

Backlund and Frolik are interesting ones. I like both players and I'm fine with their contracts, but they are guys that "can" be replaced if you have too. If there are younger players you are more worried about protecting (in Frolik's case) or if you have depth at a position (Backlund's case) do you take the risk exposing?

Assuming LV can only take one of our players overall, I don't think it will be as simple as protect your best players up front or on the back end.

[FakenHaken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Flames burned a year but he didn't play a game. So according to the definition in the CBA, he didn't gain a pro season.

15/16 was his first pro season.

Assuming he plays a game in 16/17 that will be his 2nd pro season.

Forgive my question sureLoss but Stockton Heat lists Gillies as having only played 7 games. Therefore, isn't 16/17 his first pro season. Not that it matters we won't have to protect him either way.

[Red Menace]

As of today the most likely Flames to be chosen are Jokipakka, Bouma, and 1 of Ferland/Shinkaruk/Colborne.
I imagine some UFA signings and trades will change that list in the coming months.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by FakenHaken

Forgive my question sureLoss but Stockton Heat lists Gillies as having only played 7 games. Therefore, isn't 16/17 his first pro season. Not that it matters we won't have to protect him either way.

Gillies was 21 last season. By the CBA definition and according to the article he needs to only play 1 game for it count as a pro season.

If he was 18 or 19, then he needs to play 10 or more games for it to count as a season.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I think Gillies gets exposed but goes unpicked. There will be plenty of better options in net for the expansion team.

You'd think they would want a cheap young backup with some upside though. I can't see them spending 10 million plus on goalies unless they want to trade one.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I think Gillies gets exposed but goes unpicked. There will be plenty of better options in net for the expansion team.

He is exempt according to the above rules. EDIT: maybe not. so confusing

[DJones]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Gillies was 21 last season. By the CBA definition and according to the article he needs to only play 1 game for it count as a pro season.

If he was 18 or 19, then he needs to play 10 or more games for it to count as a season.

So is he exempt?

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Backlund and Frolik are interesting ones. I like both players and I'm fine with their contracts, but they are guys that "can" be replaced if you have too. If there are younger players you are more worried about protecting (in Frolik's case) or if you have depth at a position (Backlund's case) do you take the risk exposing?

Assuming LV can only take one of our players overall, I don't think it will be as simple as protect your best players up front or on the back end.

I'm thinking that Frolik will definitely be the best player exposed by the Flames. By the end of next season, the Flames should definitely have a replacement ready for 2RW, and that replacement won't cost 4+ million.

[Vinny01]

So Gillies will only have 2 pro seasons so he will be exempt allowing the Flames to acquire a number 1 and still protect him

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I think Gillies gets exposed but goes unpicked. There will be plenty of better options in net for the expansion team.

You are aware that Las Vegas will also be picking for the future? They will have a farm system to stock and there should be some pretty good young talent available for the expansion team to build their system. Gillies would be a huge target. Thank god he won't be available.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

This is likely the CBA definition the article refers to:

They could also use the "Years of Professional Experience" definition:

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.

This would be a better definition for the Flames because it would make Shinkaruk and Poirier exempt from the draft. It would also mean that Gillies hasn't yet earned a year of pro experience because he only played 7 games this season.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Backlund and Frolik are interesting ones. I like both players and I'm fine with their contracts, but they are guys that "can" be replaced if you have too. If there are younger players you are more worried about protecting (in Frolik's case) or if you have depth at a position (Backlund's case) do you take the risk exposing?

Assuming LV can only take one of our players overall, I don't think it will be as simple as protect your best players up front or on the back end.

I think if Bennett makes Backlund expendable next season then Backlund gets traded next summer rather than exposing him in the draft. Frolik, however has been OK, but nothing special in my opinion. If you expose him and he gets picked up, it won't be a huge loss. I would much rather protect guys like Ferland, Shinkaruk and Colborne to be quite honest.

[FakenHaken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/n...pansion-draft/

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Gillies was 21 last season. By the CBA definition and according to the article he needs to only play 1 game for it count as a pro season.

If he was 18 or 19, then he needs to play 10 or more games for it to count as a season.

Thanks I guess I became confused by the bolded part of the article.

Players with two years of professional experience or less will be exempt from the process. Determining who that covers is based on the definition included in the collective bargaining agreement – meaning that 10 games played in the NHL at age 18 or 19 counts as a season, as does any American Hockey League or NHL season for players older than that.

[Vulcan]

Shinkaruk and Poirier may not have their first pro seasons in the AHL count as they have late birthdays and so the first year may be counted as a 19 year old. In that case they wouldn't need to be protected as this coming season would count as their second season.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by getbak

They could also use the "Years of Professional Experience" definition:


This would be a better definition for the Flames because it would make Shinkaruk and Poirier exempt from the draft. It would also mean that Gillies hasn't yet earned a year of pro experience because he only played 7 games this season.

but that doesn't match what is written in the article

Players with two years of professional experience or less will be exempt from the process. Determining who that covers is based on the definition included in the collective bargaining agreement – meaning that 10 games played in the NHL at age 18 or 19 counts as a season, as does any American Hockey League or NHL season for players older than that.

[DJones]

I like Frolik but we got him for free, we know his peak and he is a little overpaid.

If any young guys seem to have a higher ceiling you protect them first for sure.

[PepsiFree]

nm

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Next year will be very telling. I think Colborne will be protected. If Ferland and Shinkaruk progress, then I would agree that perhaps exposing Frolik is the best alternative. Otherwise, I think you are choosing your poison between losing a guy like Ferland or Kevin. Both of whom I really like.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

but that doesn't match what is written in the article

The "Professional Season" definition doesn't match that either because a Professional Season includes AHL and European games for 18/19 year-olds.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Otherwise, I think you are choosing your poison between losing a guy like Ferland or Kevin. Both of whom I really like.

I mean this with the utmost respect, but I am guessing Ferland would not want to live and play in a party town like Vegas either.