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

[Roof-Daddy]

Well I guess we will see, but that would be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

In the end though, if it comes to that the Flames would buy Wideman out before exposing Brodie/Hamilton/Gio because they have to protect him.

I'm not worried about it.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Staple him to the bench after the trade deadline. If these really are the rules we may see some stupid stuff happening next year

Better cross your fingers and hope he doesn't get a really bad injury pre-deadline then.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

In the end though, if it comes to that the Flames would buy Wideman out before exposing Brodie/Hamilton/Gio because they have to protect him.

Again unless he's hurt. The buy-out rules don't allow you to buy out injured players.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Why not? You still hold their rights to negotiate right up until the start of the next season. That has value as you can trade those rights. Only makes sense you have to protect those rights if you want to keep them.

No team will want to protect a pending UFA...but they might not have a choice if they have a NMC.

Then why would the teams agree to make it part of the rules?

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Well I guess we will see, but that would be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

In the end though, if it comes to that the Flames would buy Wideman out before exposing Brodie/Hamilton/Gio because they have to protect him.

I'm not worried about it.

This is from a Greg Wyshynski article on the expansion draft rules on NMC:

"It's an interesting rule for veteran players who see their no-move protection turn into no-trade protection as their deals go on. Like, for example, New York Rangers defenseman and salary albatross Dan Girardi, who goes from NMC to NTC in 2017. The thought is that he would NOT be exposed, as the expansion draft would take place before July 1, 2017."

He's implying players are considered on their current contract year, all the way up until it changes to the next hockey season. Like the Girardi example or pending free agents, their contract status on July 1 doesn't matter as they're under terms of their current year's contract until the season's calendar year flips over.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Then why would the teams agree to make it part of the rules?

Because...

A: Bettman pushed hard for it,
B: a majority of teams won't potentially be screwed by it,
C: A nice fat expansion fee cheque sounds nice.

... at least that's what I figure.

[Yanda]

Players on expiring contracts with NMC will not need to be protected.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Players on expiring contracts with NMC will not need to be protected.

Source?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

If Wideman has to be protected even though his contract will be weeks away from expiring, we are likely screwed. There will be zero possibility of a trade because no other team will want an expiring contract taking up a protected spot. In this scenario, he will have to be bought out. If he's not recovered from his triceps injury, it might not even be possible in the off-season. If all this happens, do the Flames tell Wideman to go home at the beginning of 16/17 to protect their expansion position? What if he's not healthy by the June window but is in late July? Do they let Colborne go to arbitration to open up another buy out window if Wideman is healthy by then? Hopefully Wideman just won't need to be protected at all but if he does, it could put the Flames in an awkward spot if he is injured during the June buyout window.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Players on expiring contracts with NMC will not need to be protected.

Why not? They will have a valid NHL contract unless the expansion draft takes place after July 1st. It will come down to what the NHL/NHLPA agree on.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Because...

A: Bettman pushed hard for it,
B: a majority of teams won't potentially be screwed by it,
C: A nice fat expansion fee cheque sounds nice.

... at least that's what I figure.

I can see B as I have no idea how many teams it affects however I don't think Bettman would care one way or another and i'm sure expansion would still go ahead if teams didn't/don't have to protect UFAs.

[SuperMatt18]

Because it wouldn't make any sense - not like the rules for these things are just what has been leaked so far to the media.

It will likely be stated as any of the rules that a UFA does not have to be protected as part of this situation - no way the GMs would have agreed that the players that are pending UFAs will need to be protected.

Also wouldn't be surprised if the expansion draft was held after the entry draft but before July 1st - likely in that new 7 day negotiating window that they have created - which would then make the UFA issue even less important. Especially since the entry draft is usually in that last week of June - no way do they say you have to protect a guy who is a UFA in 5 days, and is already freely able to negotiate with teams.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Zevo

I can see B as I have no idea how many teams it affects however I don't think Bettman would care one way or another and i'm sure expansion would still go ahead if teams didn't/don't have to protect UFAs.

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-t...n-contentious/

“The other thing is that one of the real contentious discussions so far as the executive committee level is the actual parameters of an expansion draft, and how that would look like, because Gary Bettman wants an expansion draft to be better than ever before.

The PA had to sign off on expansion rules (i.e. the NMC), But it's Bettman pushing for the shorter protected list (with a longer list it's not as much an issue). Bettman doesn't care about the NMC issue much I wager but he cares about the other part that makes it sting.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-t...n-contentious/

Does that rule make it better?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Because it wouldn't make any sense - not like the rules for these things are just what has been leaked so far to the media.

It will likely be stated as any of the rules that a UFA does not have to be protected as part of this situation - no way the GMs would have agreed that the players that are pending UFAs will need to be protected.

Also wouldn't be surprised if the expansion draft was held after the entry draft but before July 1st - likely in that new 7 day negotiating window that they have created - which would then make the UFA issue even less important. Especially since the entry draft is usually in that last week of June - no way do they say you have to protect a guy who is a UFA in 5 days.

That would make sense BUT if that 25% rule in terms of salary being available applies, you need to have UFAs included (although the NMC protection requirement could be eliminated).

How do you determine if a team is leaving 25% unprotected if you don't include UFAs? You'd end up in a situation where teams would have to leave good players exposed because they've structured a bunch of contracts to end at the end of 2017.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Does that rule make it better?

For the expansion team it does. For every guy that a team has to protect (that it otherwise wouldn't) they have to expose a guy that they otherwise wouldn't.

[OutOfTheCube]

Any discussion on the 'second year pros are protected' thing?

What's counting as pro? Just NHL, or AHL as well? What about guys like McDavid or Eichel who will have completed their second years, but not be in their third yet? Will they need to be protected?

Hoping expiring NMC's don't need to be protected, that would be silly. Like Wideman on the Flames, we have Gionta on a NMC contract that expires the end of next season. Would be absurd to have to protect that.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That would make sense BUT if that 25% rule in terms of salary being available applies, you need to have UFAs included (although the NMC protection requirement could be eliminated).

How do you determine if a team is leaving 25% unprotected if you don't include UFAs? You'd end up in a situation where teams would have to leave good players exposed because they've structured a bunch of contracts to end at the end of 2017.

Pretty easy to just say "Pending UFA's are automatically exposed and their cap hit will count towards the 25% for that team"

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Prongers contract expires after next season.

The expansion draft would be before his contract expires so they would have to protect him

[lazypucker]

Easy solution:

Delay the free agency to start on July 2
Make the expansion draft on July 1

So pending UFAs with NMC will not need to be protected as their contracts have already expired at 11:59 pm June 30. They will just like any other unattached free agents.

[lazypucker]

And...

Was it outlined about min / max salary cap that teams have to protect and exposed for the expansion draft?