[News] Expansion decision expected by June 22 - Page 9 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

edslunch · 06-02-2016, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driveway

That would be such bull if it was the case. Teams like Chicago, Columbus, NYR and Pittsburgh would be helped out enormously.

Chicago would have Toews, Kane, Hossa, Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson and Crawford taken off the table immediately. Panarin won't be eligible, and then they could protect basically the whole rest of their roster leaving like Brandon Mashinter and Michael Rozsival exposed.

If NMC's have to be counted as protected, the Hawks already have 3 F 3 D and their G accounted for, leaving either two more skaters (Van Riemsdyk and Teravainen?) they can protect or four more forwards.

Given that the rest of the translation was botched this was probably a mis-quote too. Then again...Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh....we know the NHL loves its marquee teams.

Red Potato Standing By · 06-02-2016, 09:18 PM

So hypothetically if a team has more good defenceman then they can protect could they convert one of them to a foward for the year? And then protect them as a forward

Resolute 14 · 06-03-2016, 08:37 AM

The league would see right through that.

Also, you would be harming your own team for the year.

Textcritic · 06-03-2016, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So hypothetically if a team has more good defenceman then they can protect could they convert one of them to a foward for the year? And then protect them as a forward

A team can protect as many defensemen as it likes up to eight total skaters.

MisterJoji · 06-03-2016, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driveway

Every expansion draft since 1991 has happened in the last week of June. Wideman's contract will expire at midnight June 30th, 2017. If the expansion draft is, say the 27th of June, he will still be under contract with the Flames with an NMC and need to be one of our protected players.

One thing that will be interesting is if the expansion draft is before or after the regular draft. It's scheduled for June 23-24th, 2017. The 2016-17 regular season is scheduled to end April 15th, which is 5 days later than this year's season ended.

The last possible day of the Finals this year is June 16th, five days later than that would be the 21st of June, leaving only two days between the potential end of the playoffs and the scheduled draft date and almost certainly not enough time to hold an expansion draft.

They must be planning on holding it after the draft. That seems odd to me, wouldn't the Vegas team want to have their veterans in place before they go to the draft?

God I hope they address this. Why on earth should you be forced to protect a player that becomes a UFA 3 days later?!?!

Incogneto · 06-03-2016, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

God I hope they address this. Why on earth should you be forced to protect a player that becomes a UFA 3 days later?!?!

I believe I read when this news initially broke that expiring contracts would not be honoured for the expansion draft. Therefore, Wideman would NOT need to be protected.

I have no link, I just remember reading it when the news first broke.

Incogneto · 06-03-2016, 10:02 AM

I revisited the Reddit link, and this note had been added:

Quote:

Edit 3: I spoke directly with Jean-Charles Lajoie on twitter, he confirms... Players with no-movement clause are not eligible to be drafted in the expansion draft. Therefore, teams do not have to protect players with no-movement clause, they can't move at all under any circumstances. I also listened again to the interview carefully and Burrows also said the same thing.

....So it sounds like NMC do NOT count as protected contracts?

...If so, is this a loophole? Sign Monahan and Gaudreau to NMC's for the first 2 years, and they don't have to be protected? Give the flames the ability to protect OTHER players?

Does that even make sense?

Street Pharmacist · 06-03-2016, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

I revisited the Reddit link, and this note had been added:

....So it sounds like NMC do NOT count as protected contracts?

...If so, is this a loophole? Sign Monahan and Gaudreau to NMC's for the first 2 years, and they don't have to be protected? Give the flames the ability to protect OTHER players?

Does that even make sense?

They're too young to get NMCs I think

Incogneto · 06-03-2016, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

They're too young to get NMCs I think

Damn, I think you're right....

MissTeeks · 06-03-2016, 10:10 AM

NMC can't come into effect until the player is at his UFA age I believe.

Alberta_Beef · 06-03-2016, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

I believe I read when this news initially broke that expiring contracts would not be honoured for the expansion draft. Therefore, Wideman would NOT need to be protected.

I have no link, I just remember reading it when the news first broke.

No, people simply speculated. There has never been any indication one way or the other, with the exception of stating players with NMC's will have to be protected.

Roof-Daddy · 06-03-2016, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

I revisited the Reddit link, and this note had been added:

....So it sounds like NMC do NOT count as protected contracts?

...If so, is this a loophole? Sign Monahan and Gaudreau to NMC's for the first 2 years, and they don't have to be protected? Give the flames the ability to protect OTHER players?

Does that even make sense?

This would be ridiculous IMO. A team like Chicago would have 7 untouchables before they even used a protection slot. So they can pretty much protect every valuable asset they have.

I'll be glad when this is over. It seems like every bit of news or speculation that comes out just makes a guy cringe.

Alberta_Beef · 06-03-2016, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

I revisited the Reddit link, and this note had been added:

....So it sounds like NMC do NOT count as protected contracts?

...If so, is this a loophole? Sign Monahan and Gaudreau to NMC's for the first 2 years, and they don't have to be protected? Give the flames the ability to protect OTHER players?

Does that even make sense?

that sounds more like someone is taking a leap. Players with NMCs are not eligible to be drafted, so they must be protected. The NHL is reportedly putting in sanctions to penalize teams if they are unable to comply, the only way sanctions make sense is if NMCs are protected.

Resolute 14 · 06-03-2016, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

NMC can't come into effect until the player is at his UFA age I believe.

Yup. You can give them one, but they won't take effect until after each player's seventh season.

Red Potato Standing By · 06-03-2016, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A team can protect as many defensemen as it likes up to eight total skaters.

Yes, but then it is only 8 players protected.But if you only protect 3 defenceman then you can protect 7 forwards which equals 10 players protected. So even if the league sees through it, is there an actual rule against it? And as for hurting your team if you lose them it would the team also. (Again all hypothetical)

Lanny_McDonald · 06-03-2016, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

This would be ridiculous IMO. A team like Chicago would have 7 untouchables before they even used a protection slot. So they can pretty much protect every valuable asset they have.

I'll be glad when this is over. It seems like every bit of news or speculation that comes out just makes a guy cringe.

If that is indeed the case, the NHL can GFTO. When the league stacks the deck in favor of teams that have handed out these clauses like candy, and see no negative consequences, it is an uneven playing field. How can anyone take them seriously after that. I'd prefer to watch a sport where there's some integrity in how the things aer run. Does WWE or UFC have cable services?

Resolute 14 · 06-03-2016, 01:31 PM

The most logical position is that NMCs for players with contracts valid for 2017-18 would have to be protected, but contracts expiring after 2016-17 would not.

sureLoss · 06-03-2016, 01:32 PM

Brian Mulroney chairman of Quebecor says chances are slim that Quebec City will get an expansion team right now. Optimistic that they will get a team eventually.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...-sh&soc_trk=tw

Fighting Banana Slug · 06-03-2016, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The most logical position is that NMCs for players with contracts valid for 2017-18 would have to be protected, but contracts expiring after 2016-17 would not.

Absolutely. If some are worried about the contracts running to July 1, move the expansion draft to July 2, Entry Draft to July 9 and Free agency to some point after that. There needs to be an asset to protect for more that a few days, for this to make sense.

Alberta_Beef · 06-03-2016, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The most logical position is that NMCs for players with contracts valid for 2017-18 would have to be protected, but contracts expiring after 2016-17 would not.

I disagree, the most logical (and legal) would be any player with a valid NMC on the date of the draft has to be protected. Ignoring a clause in a contract just because it is expiring is not really logical at all.