LeBrun: NHL Expansion Draft Parameters Discussion ‘Contentious’

[getbak]

In the 2000 expansion, all first and second year pros and unsigned draft picks were exempt from the draft. Under those rules, McDavid, Eichel, Kylington, Matthews, and other players like them would be exempt (assuming the expansion draft takes place next summer), so their teams wouldn't need to protect them.

I could see them changing to rules so that there are no exemptions, which would require teams to protect those young players. That wouldn't mean that McDavid would end up in Vegas because the Oilers would obviously protect him, but if they're forced to protect him, that means they'd have to leave someone else unprotected.


Because there are 30 teams now, the expansion teams would end up with a roster and a half worth of players if they get to pick one player from each team. If there were no automatic exemptions for picks and prospects, we could see the Flames leaving guys like McDonald or Andersson unprotected. That would help the expansion teams build a prospect base rather than just loading up on NHL veteran third-liners who they force into first-line roles like we've seen in past expansions.

[theTrumanShow]

Originally Posted by skudr248

Send to Mcdavid to Vegas, watch Edmontonians burn the city down. I wouldn't be opposed.

You mean it isn't already burned down? Looks like it has been....

[theTrumanShow]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

In which case every team would have to expose either a top-6 forward, or their best forward prospect.

Likewise, every team would have to expose either a top-4 blueliner, or their top defence prospect.

So the expansion teams would consist of nothing but top-6 forwards, top-4 defencemen, and blue-chip prospects.

Plus a 1st or 2nd overall pick.

You wouldn't be handing them the Stanley Cup on a platter exactly, but if a GM can't parley that into a championship you'd have to seriously question his ability to tie his shoes.

Either your NHL roster or your prospect base is completely open to being raided.

At the very VERY least, the NHL has to continue allowing ELCs to be automatically protected.

Well we wouldn't protect any goalie here! Well I guess maybe Gillies.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TheOnlyBilko

If losing your 2nd or 3rd best "prospect" kills ur odds of winning the Stanley Cup, your team has a lot more problems then that.

It's the increased number of teams that reduce the odds of winning a Cup.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I don't think it's penalizing teams. Those expansion teams would be putting up half a billion dollars, that's not chump change......they don't want to be competitive in 3 years or so, they want to be a least respectable right off the hop. I don't think it's a bad idea.

How much money have the owners of existing teams poured into their franchises over the life of owning them?

I'd rather give them the top 4 picks (two each) in the next two drafts than take top young players from existing teams. Then give teams the ability to protect any players under 25, along with 1 or 2 "franchise" tagged players. Everyone else is fair game.

The expansion teams would have a good group of bonafide NHL players in their primes, and a few bluechip prospects each.

[sureLoss]

The main financial argument that Bettman will make to the current owners is that the faster an expansion team is competitive the less revenue sharing they need to do keep those expansion teams afloat.

That is probably how he will get the teams to sign off on a more open expansion draft.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

In which case every team would have to expose either a top-6 forward, or their best forward prospect.

Likewise, every team would have to expose either a top-4 blueliner, or their top defence prospect.

So the expansion teams would consist of nothing but top-6 forwards, top-4 defencemen, and blue-chip prospects.

Plus a 1st or 2nd overall pick.

You wouldn't be handing them the Stanley Cup on a platter exactly, but if a GM can't parley that into a championship you'd have to seriously question his ability to tie his shoes.

Which players exactly are you expecting the team to pick up with those constraints?

Chicago would be able to protect Kane, Toews, Panarin, Teravainen, Anisimov and someone like Hossa/Shaw/top prospect. I mean they might 'have' to expose Hossa to the draft but is the team really jumping with joy at the prospect of drafting a 38/39 year old Hossa by that time? Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson and van Riemsdyk/whatever top prospect get protected.

Look at Calgary, currently they would be able to protect Giordano, Brodie, Hamilton, and whoever you think is the best defensive prospect. Wideman, Engelland, Smid? Not exactly lip-licking assets and Calgary is one of the better defensive depth teams.

Look at Edmonton, they would protect McDavid, Hall, RNH, Draisaitl, Eberle, and even Yakupov if they wanted. Purcell or Pouliot are fine complimentary players but not going to win you championships if relied on as top line players.

Not to mention that the teams would be strategically trading so they aren't unnecessarily exposing good players to the draft and protecting crappy ones. So maybe Edmonton does finally move that forward for a defender.

You can call them "top 6" and "top 4" players, but really you're looking at making a team of fourth defenseman and sixth forwards. It's not the recipe for a championship.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by MattyC

How much money have the owners of existing teams poured into their franchises over the life of owning them?

I'd rather give them the top 4 picks (two each) in the next two drafts than take top young players from existing teams.

Obviously we don't know yet what the protection process will be like, but I don't think teams will lose their best young players, they will be protected. I just think the lists will be smaller, so the new teams will have less junk to choose from. I seriously doubt the Flames would lose anyone like Gaudreau, Monahan, Brodie or Bennett. We'll see what happens, but I'm not worried at all at this point.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

I suspect it will be along the lines of:
-Only Roster Players are eligible (must have played 25 games in the previous season)
-Only players under contract for the next season or RFAs are eligible
-Players on ELCs are automatically protected
-Teams can protect 1 goalie, 4 defensemen, 7 forwards
-Teams must automatically protect players with NMC (not players with NTC)
-No more than one player can be taken from each team.

These rules should allow most teams to protect their untouchables. There will be good goalies available along with a healthy mix of overpaid veterans (Stajan, Wideman, etc.), young players with potential (Ferland, Granlund, Colborne), and potentially the occasional anchor 'star player' (Phaneuf, Thornton, etc.). Their ability to overpay free agents and offer young players ice time should be beneficial.

This will make the teams automatically more competitive than expansion teams of the past (assuming competent management)

I think this is about right. Improving the position of the expansion teams does not mean we would lose a star player or a well thought of prospect. Look at the garbage drafted in 2000. About the only thing of value seemed to be goalies. If the new rules meant we lost a Colbourne or a Klimchuk, so be it. I doubt the new teams would be automatically good, but perhaps a little more competitive. For the existing franchises, they could only lose one F and one G/D as in past years would not cripple anyone.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by getbak

In the 2000 expansion, all first and second year pros and unsigned draft picks were exempt from the draft. Under those rules, McDavid, Eichel, Kylington, Matthews, and other players like them would be exempt (assuming the expansion draft takes place next summer), so their teams wouldn't need to protect them.

I could see them changing to rules so that there are no exemptions, which would require teams to protect those young players. That wouldn't mean that McDavid would end up in Vegas because the Oilers would obviously protect him, but if they're forced to protect him, that means they'd have to leave someone else unprotected.


Because there are 30 teams now, the expansion teams would end up with a roster and a half worth of players if they get to pick one player from each team. If there were no automatic exemptions for picks and prospects, we could see the Flames leaving guys like McDonald or Andersson unprotected. That would help the expansion teams build a prospect base rather than just loading up on NHL veteran third-liners who they force into first-line roles like we've seen in past expansions.

really? so the team would have to protect 2016 draft picks like Matthews too?

So the Flames can only protect 7 players plus the 2016 1st Rounder.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Edmonton could really benefit from aggressive expansion rules as they only have a handful of players in their entire organization worth protecting.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

really? so the team would have to protect 2016 draft picks like Matthews too?

So the Flames can only protect 7 players plus the 2016 1st Rounder.

In 2000, teams could protect either 15 players total if they protected one goalie, or 12 if they protected 2.

I suspect that if they eliminate the rookie/draft pick exemption, the number of protected players would be increased, but not by much. You might be able to protect 20-25 players from your full 80-man reserve list, rather than 12-15 players from your 25-man NHL roster.


So, for example, under the previous rules, Kylington, Andersson, Hickey, and McDonald would have been exempt from the Expansion draft due to lack of pro experience. If that exemption was eliminated, the Flames would likely have to expose at least one of those three players in the Draft.

[Jason14h]

The old expansion draft was a joke. The teams were a disgrace.

I think it would be perfectly acceptable if the Flames had to leave a Backlund or Bouma unprotected.

Same with younger players who are burried in the minors or playing a bottom 6 roles on great teams.

There is ZERO chance the NHL is making a draft where teams are protecting there last 3 first round picks and say another 4 players.

Anyone who thinks the expansion team will be picking a top player from each team is out to lunch.

[1991 Canadian]

What I am curious about is whether teams will leave good high contract players unprotected because they think expansion teams will pass over them. Giordano might be a guy the Flames don’t protect because they think he won’t be picked. I don’t think the Flames would want to lose him, but he’ll be 34 for the 2017/2018 season with 6.75 million / 5 years left on his contract.

Don’t get me wrong. I think most teams would like to have a guy like Giordano patrolling their blueline for the first few years of their franchise, but they need to consider the cap implications in the last few years of some of these contracts.

There are some really interesting dynamics at play now that expansion teams have to worry about a salary cap. Because of this, I think teams might leave guys unprotected that they might have protected in previous expansion draft environments.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by getbak

That would help the expansion teams build a prospect base rather than just loading up on NHL veteran third-liners who they force into first-line roles like we've seen in past expansions.

Frankly, I think a team composed entirely of the pick of the litter NHL veteran third-liners + whatever UFA's they can sign + plus the 1st/2nd overall pick they'll no doubt be gifted wouldn't be entirely unrespectable. Probably better then what the Sabres put out there last year anyways.

Maybe do a double draft. Establish some criteria that establishes who is an NHL player and who is a developmental player. Have one draft for each with the same number of protection slots (unsigned draft picks and signed draft picks 20 year of age or younger are exempt). Allow teams to "trade" slots between the two levels (so rebuilding teams can protect more developmental players at the risk of their NHL roster, teams that are trying to "win now" can protect their NHL roster at the expense of their system).

[wretched34]

What if protection was based more on contract status than position, IE: a team can protect 6 entry level contracts, 4 RFA contracts and 4 UFA contracts.
6 entry level contracts would protect a teams young NHLers and top prospects, 4 RFA contracts protect your valuable second contract players (unless that second contract was a big one for a young star player) and 4 UFA contracts protect your big stars, but still gives an expansion team a chance at building a pretty competitive team of solid prospects, and good NHLers.

[dobbles]

I had a couple thoughts I wanted to see what others thought about...

We have not seen an expansion draft in the salary cap era. Do you think that could influence who is exposed? Potentially older and better players with unfriendly cap hits? Could that in itself help to make teams more competitive than times past?

In my browsing I didn't see any examples of what the parameters would be, but what about having different rules for the more successful teams? Non playoff teams could protect an extra player or two. I know its penalizing teams for being successful, but they are the ones best equipped to handle it. And its the same reason winning teams draft last. While it is indeed a handicap, good management can overcome it regardless.

Look forward to any thoughts.

[Itse]

If every team protects just three of their top forwards and two best defensemen, the expansion teams will probably have to do without a single player from the top 100 in NHL scoring. Include a goalie for each team and an expansion team will probably have a guy like Hiller as their starter.

Top players win the games. The expansion team GM's will have plenty of work to do.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

I suspect it will be along the lines of:
-Only Roster Players are eligible (must have played 25 games in the previous season)
-Only players under contract for the next season or RFAs are eligible
-Players on ELCs are automatically protected
-Teams can protect 1 goalie, 4 defensemen, 7 forwards
-Teams must automatically protect players with NMC (not players with NTC)
-No more than one player can be taken from each team.

I find this discussion fascinating. Ok, so with these rules, who would you protect on the Flames? Let's assume it's not 2016/17 but 17/18. So Bennett needs protecting and any new draft pick would be safe.

If someone is bored, they could go through all 30 teams with these limitations and then we could try build two teams with the leftovers...

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

I suspect it will be along the lines of:
-Only Roster Players are eligible (must have played 25 games in the previous season)
-Only players under contract for the next season or RFAs are eligible
-Players on ELCs are automatically protected
-Teams can protect 1 goalie, 4 defensemen, 7 forwards
-Teams must automatically protect players with NMC (not players with NTC)
-No more than one player can be taken from each team.

These rules should allow most teams to protect their untouchables. There will be good goalies available along with a healthy mix of overpaid veterans (Stajan, Wideman, etc.), young players with potential (Ferland, Granlund, Colborne), and potentially the occasional anchor 'star player' (Phaneuf, Thornton, etc.). Their ability to overpay free agents and offer young players ice time should be beneficial.

This will make the teams automatically more competitive than expansion teams of the past (assuming competent management)

That makes the most sense and is close to what it was in the past, but I don't think we would see the quotes in the OP if that is the case