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

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Source?

Logic?

I guess the Flames would have the choice then to buy him out before, for 0 dollars spread over the duration of the non-existing contract?



.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Logic?

I guess the Flames would have the right to buy him out before, for 0 dollars spread over the duration of the non-existing contract?



.

Nope, doesn't work that way. He would have to be bought out this summer.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Nope, doesn't work that way. He would have to be bought out this summer.

What you guys are suggesting doesn't make sense. The Flames can't be forced to protect a player with a contract that expires in a week or two after the expansion draft.

[codynw]

I hope Wideman gets bought out even if there is no expansion.

[lazypucker]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

What you guys are suggesting doesn't make sense. The Flames can't be forced to protect a player with a contract that expires in a week or two after the expansion draft.

I think this is the exact point we are trying to figure out here.

From the sounds of the announcement today, a team will be forced to protect a player with a NMC for the expansion draft regardless whether he has 5 years left on the contract or 2 days left...

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

What you guys are suggesting doesn't make sense. The Flames can't be forced to protect a player with a contract that expires in a week or two after the expansion draft.

Yes, they can. Dennis Wideman will have a valid NHL players contract with a NMC. If his rights are to transfer clubs before July 1st, 2017, he would need to waive his NMC. Contracts trump logic.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

I think this is the exact point we are trying to figure out here.

From the sounds of the announcement today, a team will be forced to protect a player with a NMC for the expansion draft regardless whether he has 5 years left on the contract or 2 days left...

Just imagine.

Flames have to protect Wideman.
Wideman injured, can't be bought out this summer.
Can't be traded because no team wants to have to protect him from expansion.
Next summer, expansion draft, Flames lose Giordano in expansion draft because they protect Wideman, Brodie and Hamilton.
A week later Wideman walks as a free agent.


What a crock of #### that would be. A total farce.

I wouldn't put it past this league though.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Just imagine.

Flames have to protect Wideman.
Wideman injured, can't be bought out this summer.
Can't be traded because no team wants to have to protect him from expansion.
Next summer, expansion draft, Flames lose Giordano in expansion draft because they protect Wideman, Brodie and Hamilton.
A week later Wideman walks as a free agent.


What a crock of #### that would be. A total farce.

I wouldn't put it past this league though.

How is following a contract a farce? It would suck, yes; but calling it a farce shows you have zero understanding of contract law.

[SuperMatt18]

League expansion rules can create exceptions that will trump the contract law though - since all the contracts are governed by the CBA and league rules - the league can easily alter the rules to make the contracts work in their favor.

Much like they just created a rule two years ago that allowed for a negotiation period prior to the end of the contract they could also make the same decision here.

Not nearly as black and white as you are making it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

League expansion rules can create exceptions that will trump the contract law though.

Much like they just created a rule two years ago that allowed for a negotiation period prior to the end of the contract they could also make the same decision here.

Not nearly as black and white as you are making it.

I've stated it would need to be agreed upon by the union. If they don't agree it is that black and white.

[lazypucker]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Just imagine.

Flames have to protect Wideman.
Wideman injured, can't be bought out this summer.
Can't be traded because no team wants to have to protect him from expansion.
Next summer, expansion draft, Flames lose Giordano in expansion draft because they protect Wideman, Brodie and Hamilton.
A week later Wideman walks as a free agent.


What a crock of #### that would be. A total farce.

I wouldn't put it past this league though.

You can thank Jay Feaster then.

[PepsiFree]

Further to SuperMatt's point:

There are multiple scenarios where Wideman won't have to be protected, bought out, or traded. I think some of the hand wringing going on thinking we have to act now or that we're somehow going to get screwed is completely unwarranted.

[Poe969]

This tweet makes it look like the Flames wouldn't have to protect Wideman. I think it's players under contract the following year or they'd consider the expansion draft the begining of the year or something.

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 2h2 hours ago
51 players currently have NMCs that would have to be protected for a possible 2017-18 expansion draft. Full list:
http://www.generalfanager.com/clause...team=all&NMC=1 …

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Nope, doesn't work that way. He would have to be bought out this summer.

No, he could be bought out next summer during the first buyout window (starting 48 hours after the playoffs end)... but that's taking an awful risk on he not being injured.

They should buy him out this year during the first window if his tricep is healed and if not then they should ask someone to file for arbitration so they get the second window.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I've stated it would need to be agreed upon by the union. If they don't agree it is that black and white.

And there has been no indication that the union would take that stand, why would the union care about the NMC rights of guy who is a UFA in 5 days. It provides no value for the expansion team, player, or team that holds those "rights".

They just agreed that players that have a valid NTC are able to have that right of their contract lifted in this situation, not sure why they would make a stand on upcoming UFAs.

Just a bunch of unwarranted paranoia IMO.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No, he could be bought out next summer during the first buyout window (starting 48 hours after the playoffs end)... but that's taking an awful risk on he not being injured.

They should buy him out this year during the first window if his tricep is healed and if not then they should ask someone to file for arbitration so they get the second window.

No he can't. You cannot buy a play out after the season starts.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

And there has been no indication that the union would take that stand, why would the union care about the NMC rights of guy who is a UFA in 5 days. It provides no value for the expansion team, player, or team that holds those "rights".

They just agreed that players that have a valid NTC are able to have that right of their contract lifted in this situation, not sure why they would make a stand on upcoming UFAs.

Just a bunch of unwarranted paranoia IMO.

Except there is a reason for the PA to take that stand because it also affects guys who's NMC's are expiring but still have a contract for the following season.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Except there is a reason for the PA to take that stand because it also affects guys who's NMC's are expiring but still have a contract for the following season.

Not when you're talking about UFAs.

Different conversation.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Poe969

This tweet makes it look like the Flames wouldn't have to protect Wideman. I think it's players under contract the following year or they'd consider the expansion draft the begining of the year or something.

General Fanager ‏@generalfanager 2h2 hours ago
51 players currently have NMCs that would have to be protected for a possible 2017-18 expansion draft. Full list:
http://www.generalfanager.com/clause...team=all&NMC=1 …

That's interesting. They removed all pending UFAs with NMC (Wideman, Ference, Gionta, Pronger, etc.). I wonder if they're guessing that'll be how it works or if that's what was actually agreed to. This does go against what Greg Wyshynski wrote on Puck Daddy though.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Except there is a reason for the PA to take that stand because it also affects guys who's NMC's are expiring but still have a contract for the following season.

You're missing the point though - it's not about the expiry of the NMC in this situation, it's about the guy being a UFA in 5 days.

There is no restrictions on the amount of rules the Union and League can put into the expansion draft.

They can easily have a rule for players that fall into the circumstances that you mentioned (NMC expires - contract continues) and the group that Wideman falls into (NMC & Contract expire).

They can easily negotiate the rules for each group separately and decide accordingly.

I agree that it's likely that for a player on a valid contract that has a NMC that expires on a certain date that they would then make sure to follow the NMC expiry date that is on the contract but they would never enforce that same rule on a player who becomes a UFA afterwards.

Once again it's not nearly that black and white and the League and Union can agree on any combination of rules and scenarios in this case.