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

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It doesn't make sense to assume UFAs would be protected or picked.

I believe the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior... and in the past that's how the NHL has done it. So unless/until we get any information that refutes that I'm going to assume that's how it's going to go.

[troutman]

NHL Players’ Association won't stand in the way of expansion

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-players-associ...nsion-1.480529

[A source said Friday if expansion is going to move forward, mid-May is the timetable for an announcement].

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I believe the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior... and in the past that's how the NHL has done it. So unless/until we get any information that refutes that I'm going to assume that's how it's going to go.

I guess you're right. Though, I suppose the Flames could easily ask Wideman to waive his NMC and being that he's a UFA in a month anyway, I can't possibly see why he would ever say no.

In fact, I think an upcoming UFA refusing to waive their NMC/NTC clause for the expansion draft would make them look incredibly bad and selfish to every other GM in the league.

I'm still not worried about Wideman, at all.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Wideman is gone as of July 1, 2017. In past years the expansion draft was done the day before the entry draft... which if the NHL expands for 17/18 is before July 1, 2017. So Calgary does have a problem. Fortunately, they'll have at least two windows to remedy it via buyout. This summer (if he's deemed healthy) and next summer. If he's healthy they should do it this summer and not risk it.

That would be bull #### if you had to protect an impending UFA in a month. Couldn't imagine the teams let that detail slip through.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I believe the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior... and in the past that's how the NHL has done it. So unless/until we get any information that refutes that I'm going to assume that's how it's going to go.

I agree that is all the info we have to go on but things have changed since the last expansion draft 16 years ago.

[sureLoss]

Again, the issue is NMC. NTCs will have no effect on protection lists

[Chingas]

The best part about expansion is that the Oilers can now finish 31st over all.

[CroFlames]

Not sure how the Vegas expansion will work out now that the Raiders are going there.

[sureLoss]

gary lawless @garylawless
More #nhl expansion draft info. sources indicate no-moves must be protected by teams. no-trade clauses not exempt and can be left exposed.

[Coach]

Ugh. I think that's so stupid. Honor the NMCs all you want, I don't see why they should need to be protected.

[SuperMatt18]

Good list of all players with NMCs for reference

https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/ntc-nmc

The interesting one is Dion Phaneuf - kind of have a feeling that the Sens wanted to leave him unprotected. Same thing with Girardi & Marc Staal in New York - becomes really interesting there because it means they could only protect one other d-man.

Also Marc-Andre Fleury has one meaning the Pens would be forced to leave Murray unprotected - have to think they try to move Fleury this offseason because of that now.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

gary lawless @garylawless
More #nhl expansion draft info. sources indicate no-moves must be protected by teams. no-trade clauses not exempt and can be left exposed.

What about no-moves on pending UFAs? I need to know this so I can sleep well that Wideman won't be an issue.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Good list of all players with NMCs for reference

https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/ntc-nmc

LOL the ducks will have to protect Bieksa?

And the Blue Jackets will have to protect Clarkson? Wow..

[Finger Cookin]

I don't think any more nitty gritty details came out this morning. We don't know any more about the timing of the draft, what that might mean for protecting pending UFAs, or pending UFAs with NMCs, and so on.

We might know within two weeks whether an expansion draft is imminent for next offseason or not.

[saillias]

So if we have to protect Stajan, guess that means we're buying him out.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I can't possibly see why he would ever say no.

Maybe at the end of the year he feels mistreated, maybe the language of the agreement mandates that they have to be protected and players can't waive, maybe the PA pressures guys into not waiving so as to not set some precedent, maybe he thinks it'd be better for his future team if he puts the screws to his old team.

Or maybe none of that happens, all I know is that I really don't want the Flames to risk it.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by saillias

So if we have to protect Stajan, guess that means we're buying him out.

Since when does Stajan have a NMC?

[Karl]

Originally Posted by saillias

So if we have to protect Stajan, guess that means we're buying him out.

Why would they have to protect Stajan? He has a NTC, not a NMC.

[saillias]

well that's a relief. thanks for the correction.

[Roof-Daddy]

The only player on the Flames with an NMC is Wideman, and his contract will expire before an expansion draft.