[Rumour] UPD: Daly says no need to protect expiring contracts with NMC

[Clarkey]

Get creative, pay him $200k today to remove the NMC. He get's picked up in expansion you win, if you end up buying him out what's 200k?

[dissentowner]

So it will be interesting when teams like Toronto have to protect a guy like Horton. Good.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Get creative, pay him $200k today to remove the NMC. He get's picked up in expansion you win, if you end up buying him out what's 200k?

Someone who knows the CBA can chime in, but I couldn't imagine paying players money to remove clauses is a thing you can do. Otherwise I'm sure we would have heard of it happening by now.

[Wolfman]

I just don't see how you can punish a team when a guys contract is up a few weeks after the expansion draft is expected to happen.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

Why would Vegas give up picks for a player they can have for free 10 days later or select in the draft?

Shhhh, you know logic ain't allowed in here.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

Why would Vegas give up picks for a player they can have for free 10 days later or select in the draft?

They would if they get Wideman and a second for a 3rd or 4th.

[blender]

I think the problem is simply timing. Have the entry draft as usual. The expansion team drafts like all teams. Have the expansion draft on July 1. Make all teams protect any NMCs under contract. Follow with free agency that afternoon.

Am I missing something?

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by blender

I think the problem is simply timing. Have the entry draft as usual. The expansion team drafts like all teams. Have the expansion draft on July 1. Make all teams protect any NMCs under contract. Follow with free agency that afternoon.

Am I missing something?

Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is potentially losing one of Gio, Brodie or Hamilton because Treliving will be forced to protect Wideman. That's the issue and that's why fans are (rightfully) so upset.

EDIT - Nevermind. Missed the point by a mile haha.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Nope, that's not the problem. The problem is potentially losing one of Gio, Brodie or Hamilton because Treliving will be forced to protect Wideman. That's the issue and that's why fans are (rightfully) so upset.

I think that he's implying by having the expansion draft on July 1st, Wideman's contract would expire that day, thus not needing to protect him. And the have free agent signing immediately following the expansion draft. But do NHL contracts end specifically on July 1st?

[Erratik]

I don't get why anyone is mentioning the possibility of losing Gio, Brodie, or Hamilton. There is zero chance of that happening. If the rules force us to protect Wideman, he gets bought out, period.

[codynw]

I think Wideman should be bought out whether he needs to be protected in expansion or not. I'd rather see Nakladal in his spot next year.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Erratik

There is zero chance of that happening. If the rules force us to protect Wideman, he gets bought out, period.

Injured players can not be bought out.

[blender]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I think that he's implying by having the expansion draft on July 1st, Wideman's contract would expire that day, thus not needing to protect him. And the have free agent signing immediately following the expansion draft. But do NHL contracts end specifically on July 1st?

Obviously. Thank you.
I made the assumption that the contracts did, but if it isn't that day, then just place the draft after they expire. As far as I can see there is no way this should even be an issue. Why would an expansion team draft a player that they know will be a free agent in a matter of days?

[blender]

It seems as if forcing teams to protect immenent free agents who have NMCs is a purely punitive act by the league. What other purpose does it serve?

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Injured players can not be bought out.

Yes they can and it's happened before. Wideman would just have to agree to not use a medical exemption to the buy out.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Injured players can not be bought out.

You are assuming he is still injured. I don't recall any reports of him requiring surgery and even a grade 1 bicep tear heals in 3-5 months (as a world class athlete probably closer to the 3 months), so absolute worsts case is the Flames allow a player to go to arbitration and buy out Wideman in August.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blender

I think the problem is simply timing. Have the entry draft as usual. The expansion team drafts like all teams. Have the expansion draft on July 1. Make all teams protect any NMCs under contract. Follow with free agency that afternoon.

Am I missing something?

Exactly.

Have the expansion draft on July 1st after contracts expire, then hold the entry draft a week later so the new team can have a roster going in.

The NHL could get around this if they wanted to bad enough. I realize that the entry draft is booked for Chicago on June 23rd and 24th, 2017, but I would be willing to bet they could reschedule it if they wanted to.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by blender

I think the problem is simply timing. Have the entry draft as usual. The expansion team drafts like all teams. Have the expansion draft on July 1. Make all teams protect any NMCs under contract. Follow with free agency that afternoon.

Am I missing something?

If they don't have the expansion draft before the entry draft, the Las Vegas team won't have any assets going into the draft to potentially make deals at the draft or before the expansion draft.

Also, the existing teams would be in limbo at the draft because they wouldn't know which players they're going to lose in the expansion draft. Teams would be reluctant to make any trades before the expansion draft that would affect their exposed list for the expansion draft. The only trades you'd see at the draft would be where teams were trying to position themselves better for the expansion draft rather than trying to make themselves better for the upcoming season.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by blender

It seems as if forcing teams to protect immenent free agents who have NMCs is a purely punitive act by the league. What other purpose does it serve?

I doubt the league is interested in punishing teams who have signed players to contracts that include NMC clauses. It's likely more a matter of the terms of expansion draft needing to be agreed to by both the league and the NHLPA.

The NHLPA would expect a no movement clause to exempt a player from being drafted by an expansion team. Since the team agreed to this clause when they signed the player, it seems reasonable to expect them to stand by the clause when an expansion draft happens.

Since that expectation might not come to pass (undoubtedly some teams, with the benefit of hindsight) would happily expose a player with an NMC clause. But since there are so few players and teams affected by an official league position on the subject (something like 14 players, on 12 out of 30 teams), it seems straightforward and reasonable for the league to specify that players with NMC clauses must count as a protected player in any expansion draft. The 12 teams might not like it, but it has no impact on the majority of teams.

So in that way, a potentially contentious issue with regards to expansion between the league and NHLPA instead becomes an agreed upon item along the way to expansion.

[nik-]

What's the buyout for Wideman look like?

It's going to have to be a buyout, if this ridiculousness actually happens, we can't be protecting him.