BestOfTheWest

Official Protected Player List

171 posts in this topic

ANAHEIM DUCKS

Per TSN: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-reveals-protection-lists-ahead-of-expansion-draft-1.782246

Cogs and Vermette were the other two forwards protected. Full list below

 

Available
Spencer Abbott (F)
Jared Boll (F)
Sam Carrick (F)
Patrick Eaves (F)
Emerson Etem (F)
Ryan Garbutt (F)
Max Gortz (F)
Nicolas Kerdiles (F)
Andre Petersson (F)
Logan Shaw (F)
Nick Sorensen (F)
Nate Thompson (F)
Corey Tropp (F)
Chris Wagner (F)
Nate Guenin (D)
Korbinian Holzer (D)
Josh Manson (D)
Jaycob Megna (D)
Jeff Schultz (D)
Clayton Stoner (D)
Sami Vatanen (D)
Jonathan Bernier (G)
Jhonas Enroth (G)
Ryan Faragher (G)
Matt Hackett (G)
Dustin Tokarski (G)

Protected
Andrew Cogliano (F)
Ryan Getzlaf (F)
Ryan Kesler (F)
Corey Perry (F)
Rickard Rakell (F)
Jakob Silfverberg (F)
Antoine Vermette (F)
Kevin Bieksa (D)
Cam Fowler (D)
Hampus Lindholm (D)
John Gibson (G)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of our speculation was right, now to wait until Wednesday to find out what this rumored deal is...because waiting to get the protected players list wasn't long enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, some of those available players are UFAs...I guess that does make them available for Vegas but not for the draft, right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jasoaks said:

Wait, some of those available players are UFAs...I guess that does make them available for Vegas but not for the draft, right?

If Vegas signs a free agent, it counts as a pick from that team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much what we expected after Bieksa didn't waive his NMC.

A big LOL to all the idiot writers that predicted Anaheim would lose Silfverberg.

Edited by nieder
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jiggy2win said:

If Vegas signs a free agent, it counts as a pick from that team. 

Ohhh I didn't know! I like that rule.

 

11 minutes ago, nieder said:

Pretty much what we expected after Bieksa didn't waive his NMC.

A big LOL to all the idiot writers that predicted Anaheim would lose Silfverberg.

Right!?!?! "Ohhh Anaheim will have to the 8 skaters format..." ...although the big LOL could end up on us if we don't find a way to make a trade with Vegas to keep Manson/Vats...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another LOL @ LA dangling both Gaborik and Brown. God I hope Vegas passes on both.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nieder said:

Another LOL @ LA dangling both Gaborik and Brown. God I hope Vegas passes on both.

Don't worry they will. LA called Vegas about gaborik and the call "didn't last long."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, nieder said:

Pretty much what we expected after Bieksa didn't waive his NMC.

A big LOL to all the idiot writers that predicted Anaheim would lose Silfverberg.

Right!? 

It's asinine to think S33 would have been available. He's arguably the best forward not named Getzlaf/Kesler. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nieder said:

Pretty much what we expected after Bieksa didn't waive his NMC.

A big LOL to all the idiot writers that predicted Anaheim would lose Silfverberg.

Even a bigger LOL will be if Vegas picks up Manson or Vatanen and Anaheim lose them for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Pagnotta‏ @TheFourthPeriod

My understanding, as part of Ducks/Knights expected trade, is Vatanen will end up in Vegas. Other parameters to deal, but that's main part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, FanSince1993 said:

Even a bigger LOL will be if Vegas picks up Manson or Vatanen and Anaheim lose them for nothing.

I'm thinking we have different understandings of LOL...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much could it have hurt to just ask Bieksa to waive the clause? It's bad enough he's on our team, why the hell would Vegas or any other team want him? Really don't like leaving Manson exposed. McPhee is a weasel and it wouldn't shock me if whatever deal they made fell apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nieder said:

Pretty much what we expected after Bieksa didn't waive his NMC.

A big LOL to all the idiot writers that predicted Anaheim would lose Silfverberg.

I think that some writers believed the Ducks would use the 8 + 1 option which would have put #33 in danger but with Bieksa not opting to waive, that would have made no sense and the 7 + 3 + 1 was the proper choice.
My feeling is that GMBM will give up a 1st rounder to LV in order to keep both Vats and Josh Manson.

Edited by wataduk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing surprising on our end, but I'm nervous about this "deal" of Murray's not being costly. Liquor on standby...

 

Interesting reading through other team's lists, Vegas will have some nice options. Saw Boston left Malcolm Subban exposed, that has to hurt. Also Beleskey, Hayes, Khokhlachev, etc., losing some good depth there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PetrSykora said:

How much could it have hurt to just ask Bieksa to waive the clause? It's bad enough he's on our team, why the hell would Vegas or any other team want him? Really don't like leaving Manson exposed. McPhee is a weasel and it wouldn't shock me if whatever deal they made fell apart. 

Seconded, I'm trying not to go off the deep end until I see what finally transpires.

Also, JSB leaked that there were talks between Murray and Bieksa during the season, and another rumor that B2 wanted an extension in exchange for waiving. So it's possible that he had informally approached him well before the official "ask" period, and determined that it wasn't going to happen. And maybe buying him out was one-too-many buyouts with Despres already going down. Also, if he bought him out that still doesn't leave an eligible d-man to expose (thanks to nieder for setting me straight), so he would have had to expose one of Manson/Fowler even if he proactively traded Vats. He would have had to know that B2 was a no-go before the last trade deadline in order to pickup an eligible extra dman to account for Bieksa not waiving or being BO, and Stoner falling 6 games short of qualifying (UGH!). Not even sure he could have picked up another guy given our roster size and cap and all. Maybe extend Holzer? I dunno. 

[edit] Not sure if he could have made a trade for a cheap dman in the last week or so just for ED fodder. I suppose he could have, but it sounds like his deal was already in place by then.

So perhaps despite doing his due diligence and having a plan in place, he still found himself in an awkward corner thanks to B2 being stubborn and bad luck with Stoner being injured. I'm not happy that he went this route unless this deal is something pain free, just looking for some reasoning behind this being our best option. 

Edited by AustinDuck27
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait ....what?
Enjoy Las Vegas, Bobby Ryan.


Elliot available. Guess that didn't work out too well for the Flames.

Will Calgary EVER have a goalie?

 

 

 

 

Edited by wataduk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wataduk said:

Wait ....what?
Enjoy Las Vegas, Bobby Ryan.


Elliot available. Guess that didn't work out too well for the Flames.

Will Calgary EVER have a goalie?

 

 

 

 

Bobby laughed it off when asked about Vegas taking him, citing his high dollar contract. Can't wait to see a followup interview if he does get taken.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wataduk said:

Wait ....what?
Enjoy Las Vegas, Bobby Ryan.


Elliot available. Guess that didn't work out too well for the Flames.

Will Calgary EVER have a goalie?

 

 

 

 

They just traded for Smith. 

I'm sure Vegas is going to take some bad contacts to get to the floor, they probably don't want to take on long bad contracts though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jasoaks said:

Ohhh I didn't know! I like that rule.

 

Right!?!?! "Ohhh Anaheim will have to the 8 skaters format..." ...although the big LOL could end up on us if we don't find a way to make a trade with Vegas to keep Manson/Vats...

The nice thing is, that only one of the two can be picked, if a trade isn't already in place... and everyone is saying a trade is in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wataduk said:

I think that some writers believed the Ducks would use the 8 + 1 option which would have put #33 in danger but with Bieksa not opting to waive, that would have made no sense and the 7 + 3 + 1 was the proper choice.
My feeling is that GMBM will give up a 1st rounder to LV in order to keep both Vats and Josh Manson.

Vats could probably get a late first round pick back next trade deadline if he isn't moved this offseason. That said, the Ducks need to keep their 2018 first round pick, or replace it if they lose it. It doesn't seem like a good idea organizationally to go two years in a row without a first round pick.

I also think that if a trade is in fact in place, it means the Ducks will lose a non-draft eligible prospect rather than a draft pick. Yes McPhee wants to horde picks, but with the Ducks being short on picks to give away, a prospect that's worth picks from another team is just as good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wataduk said:

I think that some writers believed the Ducks would use the 8 + 1 option which would have put #33 in danger but with Bieksa not opting to waive, that would have made no sense and the 7 + 3 + 1 was the proper choice.
My feeling is that GMBM will give up a 1st rounder to LV in order to keep both Vats and Josh Manson.

Lame. Since we could have traded Vats for something and at least asked Bieska to waive with the drop dead low chance of Vegas selecting him in order to protect Manson. Netting us a return instead of giving up anything of real value. With this method we are giving up something very valuable to Vegas. 

Even on the case where Bob did ask and Bieska declined or wanted an addditonal year why not just buy out his one year left? Yeah I know we bought out Depressed but is/ was the possibility of buying out Bieska as well an option? If so, why wasn't that done instead of losing a valuable assets to Vegas? I think one more year of Bieska buy out is well worth it for not losing something of value

Edited by RobD360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/mcphee-ready-for-bidding-war-on-exposed-players-1.782401

It is believed that Vegas already has consideration deals arranged with Anaheim (to lay off Sami Vatanen and Josh Manson), with Columbus (to lay off Joonas Korpisalo, Josh Anderson and Jack Johnson), with the New York Islanders (to lay off Josh Bailey and Casey Cizikas) and Chicago (to take on Marcus Kruger).

Columbus is believed to be parting with the No. 24 overall pick in this week’s draft, the Islanders with a first-round pick, the Blackhawks with Trevor van Riemsdyk and a sizeable package from Anaheim - since the Ducks don’t have a first-round pick this season, but a bevy of young depth on defence from which to deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AustinDuck27 said:

Seconded, I'm trying not to go off the deep end until I see what finally transpires.

Also, JSB leaked that there were talks between Murray and Bieksa during the season, and another rumor that B2 wanted an extension in exchange for waiving. So it's possible that he had informally approached him well before the official "ask" period, and determined that it wasn't going to happen. And maybe buying him out was one-too-many buyouts with Despres already going down. Also, if he bought him out that still doesn't leave an eligible d-man to expose (thanks to nieder for setting me straight), so he would have had to expose one of Manson/Fowler even if he proactively traded Vats. He would have had to know that B2 was a no-go before the last trade deadline in order to pickup an eligible extra dman to account for Bieksa not waiving or being BO, and Stoner falling 6 games short of qualifying (UGH!). Not even sure he could have picked up another guy given our roster size and cap and all. Maybe extend Holzer? I dunno. 

[edit] Not sure if he could have made a trade for a cheap dman in the last week or so just for ED fodder. I suppose he could have, but it sounds like his deal was already in place by then.

So perhaps despite doing his due diligence and having a plan in place, he still found himself in an awkward corner thanks to B2 being stubborn and bad luck with Stoner being injured. I'm not happy that he went this route unless this deal is something pain free, just looking for some reasoning behind this being our best option. 

Seems like Bob could have totally done something like this .... UGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RobD360 said:

Seems like Bob could have totally done something like this .... UGH

Holzer didn't have enough games to meet the exposure requirement. Re-signing him before the ED doesn't accomplish anything.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AustinDuck27 said:

Seconded, I'm trying not to go off the deep end until I see what finally transpires.

Also, JSB leaked that there were talks between Murray and Bieksa during the season, and another rumor that B2 wanted an extension in exchange for waiving. So it's possible that he had informally approached him well before the official "ask" period, and determined that it wasn't going to happen. And maybe buying him out was one-too-many buyouts with Despres already going down. Also, if he bought him out that still doesn't leave an eligible d-man to expose (thanks to nieder for setting me straight), so he would have had to expose one of Manson/Fowler even if he proactively traded Vats. He would have had to know that B2 was a no-go before the last trade deadline in order to pickup an eligible extra dman to account for Bieksa not waiving or being BO, and Stoner falling 6 games short of qualifying (UGH!). Not even sure he could have picked up another guy given our roster size and cap and all. Maybe extend Holzer? I dunno. 

[edit] Not sure if he could have made a trade for a cheap dman in the last week or so just for ED fodder. I suppose he could have, but it sounds like his deal was already in place by then.

So perhaps despite doing his due diligence and having a plan in place, he still found himself in an awkward corner thanks to B2 being stubborn and bad luck with Stoner being injured. I'm not happy that he went this route unless this deal is something pain free, just looking for some reasoning behind this being our best option. 

If it ends up being a trade for a blue chip D prospect, the way I will choose to view it is that Vegas is simply buying one of our redundant prospects for $17M, and that we will be using that money to improve multiple areas of our starting lineup (i.e. Fowler's extension, possibly re-signing Eaves or adding another top-6 forward, etc.) and to keep assets (Vats, Manson) that will be more valuable to us for the duration of the 15/10/17 Cup window.

So I'm good with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

If it ends up being a trade for a blue chip D prospect, the way I will choose to view it is that Vegas is simply buying one of our redundant prospects for $17M, and that we will be using that money to improve multiple areas of our starting lineup (i.e. Fowler's extension, possibly re-signing Eaves or adding another top-6 forward, etc.) and to keep assets (Vats, Manson) that will be more valuable to us for the duration of the 15/10/17 Cup window.

So I'm good with it.

Heck no, I'll view it as one of Murray's worst signings ever (Bieksa) ends up costing us a valuable young player and then some. Inexcusable. Let's wait and see though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AustinDuck27 said:

Heck no, I'll view it as one of Murray's worst signings ever (Bieksa) ends up costing us a valuable young player and then some. Inexcusable. Let's wait and see though.

If we assume Bieksa wasn't on the roster, we would still have to expose a defensemen and then bribe Vegas to not take them. Bieksa really has nothing to do with this.

 

I could see us losing a Larsson or Theodore out of this. I'll be annoyed at Bob for not trying to maneuver around the situation, but really the culprit is the NHL and these ridiculous expansion draft requirements. I hope Vegas becomes another failed step child  for the league.

Edited by liquid13
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liquid13 said:

If we assume Bieksa wasn't on the roster, we would still have to expose a defensemen and then bribe Vegas to not take them. Bieksa really has nothing to do with this.

 

I could see us losing a Larsson or Theodore out of this. I'll be annoyed at Bob for not trying to maneuver around the situation, but really the culprit is the NHL and these ridiculous expansion draft requirements. I hope Vegas becomes another failed step child  for the league.

Bingo.........is a GM supposed to be negotiating deals today for the expansion draft of 2020 (hypothetical). But we all know the league is not stopping at 31 teams so should one consider NMC's etc in anticipation of what may happen in a year, two or three? And who knows that the rules will be. This was simply "everyone sacrifice a player and stick your hand in the pot and take out some $$". It also add dramas to June which the league likes. This to me is a not a traditional trade or deal that a GM should be judged or graded on. Sure you can still get an A or an F but a good portion of that may due to prior deals that simply were not avoidable years ago. If the terms had allowed a team to protect 10 players (or pick a format noting that I do not believe any prior expansion draft had terms similar to the previous expansion draft) we would not have had this issue. In consideration of the hurdles we face BM did not create them (all) with full disclosure of what the expansion draft 2017 rules would be.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Stoner + a 1st or second round pick to Vegas. Stoner might help fill out their bottom cap number. If Vats is expendable we can trade him - when heathy - for a 1st rounder

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