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

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Except Bettman's job is to also look out for the owners. It makes zero sense at all to count players who will be a UFA in a few months time.

Sure it does. More players available for the new team, more teams interested in paying expansion fees. More money for owners.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

FYP
We are all speculating (even you), this is a discussion board.
Lets not try to shut down others based on your own assumptions.

Actually I am just stating what contracts are and when they expire. I'm not the one choosing to ignore those fact just because something would be inconvenient for some NHL teams

[Robo]

so will we have to buy out some players this offseason?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sure it does. More players available for the new team, more teams interested in paying expansion fees. More money for owners.

And you think owners are going to be happy having to expose players so that they can watch those UFA's walk away in a few months time? Not a chance.

[edslunch]

The crappy thing is even if the Flames avoid serious damage this time around there will likely be another draft in a year or two when the Flames have better players to lose

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The crappy thing is even if the Flames avoid serious damage this time around there will likely be another draft in a year or two when the Flames have better players to lose

Meh. In two years you can expose Giordano, Frolik and not be too concerned.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

And you think owners are going to be happy having to expose players so that they can watch those UFA's walk away in a few months time? Not a chance.

Not months, days. The expansion draft will likely take place on June 21 (give or take a day), and players will become UFAs on July 1.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Meh. In two years you can expose Giordano, Frolik and not be too concerned.

I'm a Flames fan on CP. It is my duty to worry about things that may or may not happen two years from now.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Actually I am just stating what contracts are and when they expire. I'm not the one choosing to ignore those fact just because something would be inconvenient for some NHL teams

Nobody's ignoring it. You're assuming, without any evidence, that no provision is going to be made for UFAs on expiring contracts. The only thing you have on your side is a painfully literal reading of the CBA. ‘It says here in Genesis that the earth was created in six days, so Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur! Hurr, durr, hurr, durr!’

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sure it does. More players available for the new team, more teams interested in paying expansion fees. More money for owners.

The difference between paying $500 million for an expansion team and not paying it is not going to be decided by a contract loophole that forces a couple of teams to expose their #3 D in the draft.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Nobody's ignoring it. You're assuming, without any evidence, that no provision is going to be made for UFAs on expiring contracts. The only thing you have on your side is a painfully literal reading of the CBA. ‘It says here in Genesis that the earth was created in six days, so Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur! Hurr, durr, hurr, durr!’

That's a little harsh. Fact of the matter is if they hold the expansion draft on June 20, 2017, a guy like Wideman will sill have a valid contract. Who really knows how they handle that but if they don't add a provision, I think it's pretty obvious what will happen (expiring NMCs will need protecting). Will they add a provision? Maybe. But they haven't said anything yet, so for now, there is no language to go off of other than what is plain as day right now. It's also worth noting that in previous expansions, guys with expiring contracts were part of the process. It is fair to speculate until the NHL releases something that indicates otherwise.

I understand the 'logical' argument here, but this is the NHL we're talking about here. This is the same organization that came up with the draft lottery to fix tanking when a simple provision would've sufficed.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

The expansion team(s) that pay $500M in expansion fees benefit from players with NMCs being protected. It uses up protection slots on existing rosters and should allow other players to be exposed that otherwise would not have been.

This is everything. If the NHL truly is able to get someone to pony up $500 million you have to believe expansion draft rules are going to be more favorable for the new teams than anything we have ever seen. If the biggest risk is the Flames have to expose a guy like Frolik, we should be so lucky. A team full of $4.2 million Frolik's is going to be over the cap and not winning anything. It is prospects that I am much more nervous about losing.

[pgsieve]

I wonder if no move clauses were Johnny and Sean's contracts will be viewed more positively? Opens up two more spots to save if they give them one...

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I'm a Flames fan on CP. It is my duty to worry about things that may or may not happen two years from now.

This made me LOL.

[IgiTang]

Was there new expansion draft info today?

Not trying to be facetious, asking honestly.

Just got home and noticed we're picking 6th and thought I do for expansion draft was going to be announced today. Without digging through pages, can some recap the Coles notes?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

And you think owners are going to be happy having to expose players so that they can watch those UFA's walk away in a few months time? Not a chance.

If this expansion really happens the owners are going to be very very happy. No matter what the expansion draft rules are.

[Murph]

Has it been stated that teams will be forced to protect expiring contracts with NMC's? Seems kind of stupid to force a team to protect a contract that will expire a couple weeks after the expansion draft.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Actually I am just stating what contracts are and when they expire. I'm not the one choosing to ignore those fact just because something would be inconvenient for some NHL teams

Well thanks Tips, next time just post the Wikipedia link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

It's almost as if the NHL has no history of altering the cba to meet its (and the players needs). Cough...http://forum.calgarypuck.com/archive...?t-123584.html

You must be a lawyer to be so literal.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Murph

Has it been stated that teams will be forced to protect expiring contracts with NMC's? Seems kind of stupid to force a team to protect a contract that will expire a couple weeks after the expansion draft.

No nothing has been stated, but apparently we aren't allowed to discuss it

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

The expansion team(s) that pay $500M in expansion fees benefit from players with NMCs being protected. It uses up protection slots on existing rosters and should allow other players to be exposed that otherwise would not have been.

The 7-3-1 or 8-1 allotment is being figured with this in mind (and *GASP* this allotment is different than past expansion drafts...but obviously we should assume that absolutely every single other detail of past expansion drafts will be exactly the same as it was before).

IMO very unlikely that the teams would agree to a reduced protection list without considering implications of expiring UFA NMCs. They are already making the draft much more appealing for the expansion team...they could have gone even further with a 6-3-1 or 7-1 or any numbers for that matter instead of randomly penalizing a few teams in a specific scenario.

Originally Posted by pgsieve

I wonder if no move clauses were Johnny and Sean's contracts will be viewed more positively? Opens up two more spots to save if they give them one...

AFAIK, beyond a single tweet, everyone is assuming NMC players use up a protection slot, so NMC for Johnny and Sean would be irrelevant. Of course, these same people assume that a single little news source (perhaps their is more) that may be nothing more than a tweeter's assumption is fact...yet anyone speculating on the existence of an equally logical provision is insane.

Alberta_Beef, do you actually believe players like Wideman will need to be protected, or are you just trying to feel smart by playing pretend lawyer?