liquid13

Expansion Draft

463 posts in this topic

It looks like we could be seeing an expansion draft next summer. Teams will not be able to protect players like in the last one.

How it would work:

1) teams can protect up to 7 forwards, 3 defenseman and a goalie.

Or

2) 1 goalie goalie and 8 skaters...

Also, only 1st and second year pros(includes AHL too) would be protected automatically .

Notes: No word yet on what happens to guys with NMC's. Also, there seems to be some confusion as whether they mean two years pro completed, or entering their 2nd year pro.

Thos two things are a big deal to Anaheim as we could potentially be forced to protect Bieksa and have to use protections of guys like Montour and Theodore..

Discuss..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like we could be seeing an expansion draft next summer. Teams will not be able to protect players like in the last one.

How it would work:

1) teams can protect up to 7 forwards, 3 defenseman and a goalie.

Or

2) 1 goalie goalie and 8 skaters...

Also, only 1st and second year pros(includes AHL too) would be protected automatically .

Notes: No word yet on what happens to guys with NMC's. Also, there seems to be some confusion as whether they mean two years pro completed, or entering their 2nd year pro.

Thos  Those two things are a big deal to Anaheim, as we could potentially be forced to protect Bieksa and have to use protections of on guys like Montour and Theodore..

Discuss..

 

Also worth mentioning, the Ducks could at most, lose one player per expansion team.

Edited by liquid13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need to protect Montour and Theodore if all minors, 1st year and 2nd year Pros would be automatically protected. So Ritchie would be safe as well. Ditto for Gibson since he's technically a rookie still.......I think.....not sure about that one. I don't know, haha

 

I also read a piece done by Elliot Friedman, and he further noted that the NHL was also working on making all players with full NMC's automatically safe as well, though that was not a done deal.

 

Regardless, the method I would go would be the 7 forwards, 3 Dmen, and goalie. Then the guys I would protect would be:

 

Getzlaf

Perry

Kesler

Rakell

Cogliano

Silfverberg

(Not sure) Ritchie doesn't need protection, Santo, Stewart, McGinn, Pirri, and Perron are all FA's. Thompson has been crap this year. I guess Pirri because he's RFA and we can trade his rights.

 

Fowler

Lindholm

Vatanen

 

Gibson

 

 

Side note: Why is the NHL so determined on expansion being a thing? Just move Arizona to Seattle and then just appreciate a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need to protect Montour and Theodore if all minors, 1st year and 2nd year Pros would be automatically protected. So Ritchie would be safe as well. Ditto for Gibson since he's technically a rookie still.......I think.....not sure about that one. I don't know, haha

 

I also read a piece done by Elliot Friedman, and he further noted that the NHL was also working on making all players with full NMC's automatically safe as well, though that was not a done deal.

 

Regardless, the method I would go would be the 7 forwards, 3 Dmen, and goalie. Then the guys I would protect would be:

 

Getzlaf

Perry

Kesler

Rakell

Cogliano

Silfverberg

(Not sure) Ritchie doesn't need protection, Santo, Stewart, McGinn, Pirri, and Perron are all FA's. Thompson has been crap this year. I guess Pirri because he's RFA and we can trade his rights.

 

Fowler

Lindholm

Vatanen

 

Gibson

 

 

Side note: Why is the NHL so determined on expansion being a thing? Just move Arizona to Seattle and then just appreciate a good thing.

Yes, but they would be 3rd year pros going into the 17-18 season, which is the season the expansion draft is for. So is the cutoff for two years in the 17-18 season or the 16-17 season? I have not seen this clarified yet.

 

Gibson would not be protected.

Edited by liquid13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but they would be 3rd year pros going into the 17-18 season, which is the season the expansion draft is for. So is the cutoff for two years in the 17-18 season or the 16-17 season? I have not seen this clarified yet.

 

Gibson would not be protected.

 

Ugh, are you kidding me? I hope it means pros as in playing in the NHL and not include AHL. That's going to be a major headache if not.

 

I just looked up Montour and I think he would qualify as a 2nd year Pro I believe, because he spent time in juniors in the past 2 years, including the majority of last year, where he only played 14 games in the AHL.

Edited by BlazingEtem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, are you kidding me? I hope it means pros as in playing in the NHL and not include AHL. That's going to be a major headache if not.

 

I just looked up Montour and I think he would qualify as a 2nd year Pro I believe, because he spent time in juniors in the past 2 years, including the majority of last year, where he only played 14 games in the AHL.

Includes AHL too. All three of Ritchie Theo and Montour will be second year pros next year.

 

So the question is. Do they mean second year pro next year, or second year pro in the 17-18 season? That's the million dollar question right now.

Edited by liquid13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think even with that, Ritchie is still safe because he spent all of 2014 in the OHL, so at most, he would be a 2nd year pro.

No, this would be his first year, next would be his second year and then he'd be going into his third year. Same with theo and Montour.

If the reporter is accurate there then the ducks would have to protect all three, which is unrealistic. Meaning the ducks will be exposing some very good talent on this draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the Ducks to make a big trade this summer, which should address that issue of having too many good players unprotected. Of course, the newly aquired player will need to be protected so the net gain wouldn't be as big.

Lots of rumors that Edmonton is going to blow the team up this year and everyone but their top 2 centers are available. Murray could look to Hall if he cools on Drouin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im trying to get the 2 year pro thing clarified. I just read that since contracts don't technically expire till July 1st, and since the draft would be held In June, players making their professional debuts this season would be exempt exempt because they have yet to complete their 2nd pro year.

That would be huge for Anaheim. It would auto protect Montour and Ritchie and probably also Theodore.

Still trying to get a concrete answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im trying to get the 2 year pro thing clarified. I just read that since contracts don't technically expire till July 1st, and since the draft would be held In June, players making their professional debuts this season would be exempt exempt because they have yet to complete their 2nd pro year.

That would be huge for Anaheim. It would auto protect Montour and Ritchie and probably also Theodore.

Still trying to get a concrete answer.

 

One thing that may favor the Ducks in this situation, is the NMC clause situation. If Friedman's claim comes true about NMC's being safe, then we don't need to protect Getzlaf, Perry, and Kesler. That's 3 slots opened up if that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that may favor the Ducks in this situation, is the NMC clause situation. If Friedman's claim comes true about NMC's being safe, then we don't need to protect Getzlaf, Perry, and Kesler. That's 3 slots opened up if that is the case.

I guess that depends on what he means by safe.

Are they safe because teams are forced to use a protection on them like in the last draft, or are they ineligible to be drafted regardless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only being able to keep 3 defenders is one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard of in my life. The expansion teams may as well pick 16 defenders and trade them to people for good forwards. The 4th best defender on a team is 10/10 infinitely better and more valuable than the 8th best forward. Not to mention deep teams losing great defenders.

 

In addition, if they are adding 1 east and 1 west team, and they probably knew it before, why on earth are there 2 less teams in the western conference with the new conference alignment. Now ANOTHER east team has to re-switch to the western conference despite being geographically located in the east and being just switched there. 

 

 

The NHL never gets anything right, just a terrible league compared to any other professional sport in almost every single way. There's a reason its been around for 100 years and more than half the teams aren't even profitable. Just terrible.

 

I love hockey though.... what a shame. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think the Ducks are a pretty good bet to go the 1 goalie and 8 skaters route.

The biggest potential kick in the nuts here is having to potentially protect players who havnt event played out their ELC contracts yet.

Imagine if the ducks are forced to protect Gezlaf perry, Kesler and Bieksa. Then they'll have 4 protections left for Theodore, Ritchie, Fowler, Montour, Lindholm, Rakell, Despres, vatanen, Manson Silfverberg, Perron ect..... Not all of those guys will be on the team, but that's still nuts.

Edited by liquid13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough without knowing all the variables and who would be around. Assuming the NMC doesn't mean anything and first and second year-players means guys like Ritchie and Theodore wouldn't be exempt, I'd go with the eight skaters and one goalie route for the Ducks. I think they have more valuable defensemen.

 

Getzlaf, Perry, Rakell, Ritchie, Lindholm, Fowler, Theodore, Despres and Gibson would be my pick of guys to protect. I'm assuming here that Rakell and Lindholm are resigned this summer and Vatanen is let go. The Ducks would be leaving Kesler unprotected in this situation, but I don't think there's too high a risk that an expansion team would want to pick up that contract at his age. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the Ducks to make a big trade this summer, which should address that issue of having too many good players unprotected. Of course, the newly aquired player will need to be protected so the net gain wouldn't be as big.

Lots of rumors that Edmonton is going to blow the team up this year and everyone but their top 2 centers are available. Murray could look to Hall if he cools on Drouin.

I still don't get the the whole Drouin thing,he can barely hold his own currently in the AHL

and lots of teams suppose to drool over him...

 

He might have all the tools.but he doesn't have the tool box to hold his tools in the right places.

 

---

 

I think getting new teams to the NHL is awesome,Las Vegas baby!

also good to see Quebec back on NHL map.

Edited by NiemiWillRise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just 2 players, we might as well loose them to offseason injury, like Ritchie falling over and hurting a body part because of his gross overweightness. I wouldn't be too worried, one or 2 players don't make or break a team unless they're Getzlaf or Gibson in our case and they will both be protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough without knowing all the variables and who would be around. Assuming the NMC doesn't mean anything and first and second year-players means guys like Ritchie and Theodore wouldn't be exempt, I'd go with the eight skaters and one goalie route for the Ducks. I think they have more valuable defensemen.

Getzlaf, Perry, Rakell, Ritchie, Lindholm, Fowler, Theodore, Despres and Gibson would be my pick of guys to protect. I'm assuming here that Rakell and Lindholm are resigned this summer and Vatanen is let go. The Ducks would be leaving Kesler unprotected in this situation, but I don't think there's too high a risk that an expansion team would want to pick up that contract at his age.

Kesler and Bieksa have NMCs, might require automatic protections...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kesler and Bieksa have NMCs, might require automatic protections...

 

I wonder what the actual terms are of Bieksa's NMC. Like with Kesler, he apparently has a full NMC through 2020-21, but just a limited NTC in 2021-22. As far as I can tell, only one source (Friedman) reported on Bieksa's NMC, but he didn't give any specifics other than that he had one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that's true then Murray better trade Andersen this offseason.

 

Not to mention the smaller forthcoming goalie equipment.  Gibson is the more athletic goalie.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kesler and Bieksa have NMCs, might require automatic protections...

I would keep Perron over Ritchie.

Cogs also has a limited NTC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NTC vs NMC.

Taken from

http://www.generalfanager.com/cba

What's the difference between a No-Movement Clause (NMC) and a No-Trade Clause (NTC)?

A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player's consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless permitted by the player to move the player by one of these means. A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player's contract.

A No-Trade Clause is less restrictive, as it only places restrictions on movement by trade. A player with a No-Trade Clause cannot be traded by a team unless the player provides consent. A Partial or Modified No-Trade Clause is often less restrictive than a Full No-Trade Clause, and depends on the conditions outlined in the player's contracts. Often these are No-Trade Clauses with conditions that give the player the right to provide a list of teams to which the team can or cannot trade the player.

Many players will have No-Movement Clauses tied to their contracts with Partial or Modified No-Trade Clauses. These prevent the team from moving the player via loan or waivers, but give the team some options for trading the player.

Note: a player is not eligible for a NMC or NTC in their contract until they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 accrued seasons or 27 years of age). A player can sign a contract that has a NMC or NTC take effect partway through the contract at the time they would have otherwise become eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency.

In a nut shell....what the differences are.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would keep Perron over Ritchie.

Cogs also has a limited NTC.

Ritchie has less then 2 years won't have to be protected. And isn't Perron UFA after this season? Might not want to waste a protection on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/expansion-draft-rules-agreed-upon-by-nhl--nhlpa-153933538.html

Article regarding expansion draft. The offseason just got more interesting, especially if 2017-18 brings a new team or two into the NHL.

So if NMC must be protected that's only Getz and Perry. Kessler, Bieksa, Cogliano may be left up protected with their NTC or modified NTC. Would be a money help if maybe someone with a not so good contract from a team standpoint ( Bieksa ) gets selected.

Also means Anderson prolly traded before the draft. Does Gibson fall into the automatically protected category? Vatanen, Lindholm signed? Traded Rakell?

Edited by DucksFanInIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Rosen

On potential expansion draft, Bill Daly said no longer would a team have to expose an agreed-upon minimum amount of salary. That's a change.

 

On potential expansion draft, Daly said 1st and 2nd yr pros are exempt, but he wouldn't specify definition of what constitutes 1 pro season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now