Sportsnet: Expansion draft rules - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Alberta_Beef · 06-10-2016, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

At least something good came out of Gillies getting hurt last season.

Edit: Or I guess it wouldn't have better if he played the whole season or not since he was older than 19. Last season counted as his first pro season.

Gillies injury didn't make a difference, his burned season in which he never played is making the difference

Dan403 · 06-10-2016, 02:55 PM

Last season was Gillies first. This will be his Second. So he will have TWO seasons OR LESS.

Doesn't need to be protected.

kyuss275 · 06-10-2016, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Shinkaruk and Poirier may not have their first pro seasons in the AHL count as they have late birthdays and so the first year may be counted as a 19 year old. In that case they wouldn't need to be protected as this coming season would count as their second season.

Does it really matter? I can't see Vegas being interessted in either of them. Have to think there will be better prospects available than them to choose from.

GranteedEV · 06-10-2016, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan403

Last season was Gillies first.

Technically, it was his second.

Quote:

This will be his Second.

Technically, it will be his third.

Alberta_Beef · 06-10-2016, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan403

Last season was Gillies first. This will be his Second. So he will have TWO seasons OR LESS.

Doesn't need to be protected.

Correct and as the 2013-14 season was the 19 year old season for Shinkaruk & Poirier (this is why their ELC slid) they too will be exempt.

Alberta_Beef · 06-10-2016, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Technically, it was his second.

Technically, it will be his third.

Technically it is not. Technically last season was his first because he never played a game in 2013-14. He did not accrue a season per the CBA.

SuperMatt18 · 06-10-2016, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

then Shinkaruk and Poirer would be exempt because this season is their 20 year old season is it not?

No because they both played more than 10 games in their two pro seasons - so they accumulated two pro seasons.

Gillies didn't play a game when he signed that first season so that doesn't count as his first season. Last season was his first pro-season (over 20 and played a game), and this year will be his second pro-season, hence he shouldn't need to be protected.

Alberta_Beef · 06-10-2016, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

No because they both played more than 10 games in their two pro seasons - so they accumulated two pro seasons.

Gillies didn't play a game when he signed that first season so that doesn't count as his first season. Last season was his first pro-season (over 20 and played a game), and this year will be his second pro-season, hence he shouldn't need to be protected.

that is 10 NHL games at 19, not 10 pro games.

SuperMatt18 · 06-10-2016, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

that is 10 NHL games at 19, not 10 pro games.

Oh yeah - good catch.

That is pretty sweet actually for the Flames.

edslunch · 06-10-2016, 03:05 PM

I don't get the 40/70 rule. How would it be practically possible for team not to expose 2F and 1D with that experience? It would mean that half your roster are rookies or chronically injured

DJones · 06-10-2016, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edslunch

I don't get the 40/70 rule. How would it be practically possible for team not to expose 2F and 1D with that experience? It would mean that half your roster are rookies or chronically injured

Ya kind of meaningless. What team has 6 forwards and 4 defense that they don't want to protect with so few games.

EldrickOnIce · 06-10-2016, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Correct and as the 2013-14 season was the 19 year old season for Shinkaruk & Poirier (this is why their ELC slid) they too will be exempt.

Yeah but this

Quote:

A) for a Player aged 18 or 19, mean any season in which such Player
plays in eleven (11) or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular
Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff
games, and games played in any European professional league, while
under an SPC)

Alberta_Beef · 06-10-2016, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yeah but this

even if they are not exempt, unlikely they will be taken if they don't earn being protected. Jokipakka is most likely the guy we lose.

Finger Cookin · 06-10-2016, 03:35 PM

Nothing on the 4-4-1 protection option that had previously been rumored.

Who are the Flames most likely to lose under this scenario? The expansion club will have to meet a salary floor, so they can't just pick cheap ELC players from every club unless they plan on giving away even stupider than usual money in free agency. So maybe people like Stajan, Bouma, Colborne, Jooris, or Jokipakka might be candidates?

Matty81 · 06-10-2016, 03:35 PM

Is the argument that Gillies is eligible based on his time shadowing the team at the end of 2014/15? Because he clearly didn't play and from my perspective should be exempt. Although I don't know if he was every placed on a roster AHL or NHL that year, which would be an amazing way to lose a player. That and the ramifications of Sam Bennett's extra 3 games... ouch.

Frolik should be exposed, either him or Bouma to satisfy the 40 games. The value with a UFA is in the early years, if the expansion team takes him you've basically got a good UFA on a reasonable 2 year deal and avoided the big salary as he ages. I guess that's provided they actually find anybody who can play RW this year which is a big if.

Stajan, Frolik or Bouma and Jokipakka

Demetric · 06-10-2016, 03:36 PM

Jokipakka is not currently contracted for the 17/18 season, wonder if this is a loop hole in a sense and if not signed before the draft, might prevent them from selecting him as he will have arbitration rights

Demetric · 06-10-2016, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty81

Is the argument that Gillies is eligible based on his time shadowing the team at the end of 2014/15? Because he clearly didn't play and from my perspective should be exempt. Although I don't know if he was every placed on a roster AHL or NHL that year, which would be an amazing way to lose a player. That and the ramifications of Sam Bennett's extra 3 games... ouch.

Frolik should be exposed. The value with a UFA is in the early years, if the expansion team takes him you've basically got a good UFA on a reasonable 2 year deal and avoided the big salary as he ages. I guess that's provided they actually find anybody who can play RW this year which is a big if.

Stajan, Frolik or Bouma and Jokipakka.

Hate to lose Frolik or Jokipakka.

Frolik will NOT be exposed, he is one of our only positive possession players and is the direction the team wants to go.

Matty81 · 06-10-2016, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demetric

Frolik will NOT be exposed, he is one of our only positive possession players and is the direction the team wants to go.

Depends on if there are 7 other forwards worth protecting, what the RW depth chart looks like and what kind of year he has. He'll be 30 that season with three years of term left at 4.3 million per year - I don't see protecting him as a slam dunk. Positive possession player is great, but if he ends up as a 2nd/3rd line tweener this year and gets 40 points, slam dunk imo to expose, just based on contract value and probably wouldn't be taken anyway.

Parallex · 06-10-2016, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

even if they are not exempt, unlikely they will be taken if they don't earn being protected. Jokipakka is most likely the guy we lose.

Only if he has a heck of a season next year... I mean is Jokipakka really the best player we'll be exposing? The five we protect up front are fairly obviously Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund, Frolik so that means that at least two of Bouma/Ferland/Colborne/Stajan will be options... I'm not sure Jokipakka is better then those guys.

If I had to bet I think we end up losing Stajan. I think they load up on younger players from other teams and use the pick from the Flames as part of the effort to get some short term cap to meet the floor.

Matty81 · 06-10-2016, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demetric

Jokipakka is not currently contracted for the 17/18 season, wonder if this is a loop hole in a sense and if not signed before the draft, might prevent them from selecting him as he will have arbitration rights

If he is the guy getting exposed to satisfy the 40 game requirement, and I'm sure they're game planning this as we speak, he'd probably be easy and relatively cheap to extend as part of advance planning based on resume. Plus he only needs 12 games this year to hit 70 so even if he regresses and/or Nakladal/Wotherspoon become the 3rd pairing, he would be easy to get to the threshhold.