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

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I'd suggest it is clarified before the draft.

As for Wideman, I'm of the belief that Treliving has a deal in place to move him either way. The return won't be much but that is secondary to the cap flexibility it provides and where that space will be allocated (thinking big ticket G myself).

Lots of intrigue heading into late June though, that's for sure.

This one thing can swing the value of a Wideman type player big time one way or the other. If a 2017 UFA with a NMC doesn't need to be protected for a 2017 expansion draft. Than yes he might have some trade value either in the summer or at the deadline. If you have to protect a player like this...there isn't a team in the NHL who's going to touch him, as he's forcing you to expose a better asset in the expansion draft as opposed to just costing you money, and something to acquire him.

Based on the list provided earlier, teams who maybe weren't planning any buyouts this summer, will be in a position where they have to buy guys out to get around this future risk.

Potential expansion is interesting enough, this just adds to it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Pretty easy...

Is it? Please explain.

And if your answer is 'no NMCs', then you can pound sand, which is exactly what the PA would tell the NHL if they were dumb enough to even propose it

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Is it? Please explain.

And if your answer is 'no NMCs', then you can pound sand, which is exactly what the PA would tell the NHL if they were dumb enough to even propose it

Just follow the conversation...

Matty suggested that NMCs shouldn't have to be protected, just leave them hanging and let the expansion team take them if they like (with it being up to the player as to whether they agree to go).

Getbak pointed out why that would be unfair (Chicago would have 18 players protected or essentially protected). Sure, an argument might be made that a player on a team like Edmonton or Carolina might waive his NMC and agree to go to the expansion team, but no way would a player from Chicago or LA or NY or... take your pick). Therefore, leaving them open creates an uneven playing field.

Then Getbak also pointed out that from here until the expansion draft, every team would add an NMC to every signing, thereby essentially increasing their own protection.

Then Matty said how do you stop that?

My response: it's easy - don't make NMCs open. Do exactly what the current reports/speculation suggest, make teams protect their NMCs. That way, it maintains a level playing fiend, and there is no increased motivation for teams to start throwing NMCs around like candy.

Pretty simple.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Just follow the conversation...

Matty suggested that NMCs shouldn't have to be protected, just leave them hanging and let the expansion team take them if they like (with it being up to the player as to whether they agree to go).

Getbak pointed out why that would be unfair (Chicago would have 18 players protected or essentially protected). Sure, an argument might be made that a player on a team like Edmonton or Carolina might waive his NMC and agree to go to the expansion team, but no way would a player from Chicago or LA or NY or... take your pick). Therefore, leaving them open creates an uneven playing field.

Then Getbak also pointed out that from here until the expansion draft, every team would add an NMC to every signing, thereby essentially increasing their own protection.

Then Matty said how do you stop that?

My response: it's easy - don't make NMCs open. Do exactly what the current reports/speculation suggest, make teams protect their NMCs. That way, it maintains a level playing fiend, and there is no increased motivation for teams to start throwing NMCs around like candy.

Pretty simple.

Yeah, but I was also coming from a position of NMCs not needing to be protected, and in that environment, how would you stop it?

Short answer is you couldn't.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, but I was also coming from a position of NMCs not needing to be protected, and in that environment, how would you stop it?

Short answer is you couldn't.

I know you were, but not protecting them doesn't make sense. The simple answer is have them have to be protected.

I know what you were going for, but this is a case of simpler is better.

[Robo]

Should be pretty clear that las vegas wouldnt put a claim on a soon to be ufa anyways cant see why we would have to protect them