Speculation: About the expansion draft, NMCs and buyouts
- Thread starter Kanneda
- Start date
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
I am expecting Ducks to get Bieksa to waive for expansion or get bought out. I wouldn't be surprised to see other teams do the same kinda thing with players.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
KrisLetAngry
MrJukeBoy
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Yeah i could definitely Bob Murray asking Kevin Bieksa to waive his NMC, If he does or doesn't is strictly up to him.
SLAPSHOT723
QU! Bobcats!
I hope it does happen.
To hop onto this thread, out of curiosity, is it possible the lists don't go public? Not sure if that was ever announced or not.
To hop onto this thread, out of curiosity, is it possible the lists don't go public? Not sure if that was ever announced or not.
KrisLetAngry
MrJukeBoy
Makes more sense to get bought out and sign somewhere of their choice.
Why do the team that doesn't want you any favors?
Why do the team that doesn't want you any favors?
Curufinwe
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2013
- 56,994
- 45,414
Can someone explain to me something about the Clarkson/LTIR exemption, the wording doesn't seem definitive to me as it is for some people. From what I understand of the selection process:
1. You can protect a certain number of players
2. You have to protect players with NMCs
3. Some players are exempt from selection based on games played, and other criteria (This doesn't mean teams can't use protection slots on them, just that it would be pointless because they can't be selected)
4. The players you do eventually make available have to meet certain criteria as a whole (games played, etc..)
Secondly, as far as the LTIR exemption wording I see two parts:
1 . "Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a club's player exposure requirements, unless approval is received from the NHL"
To me, that stops teams from using guys with career ending injuries to meet the "available players" criteria.
2. "Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection by the League." To me, that means some players may not be selected if they're LTIR with career threatening injures.
I guess my confusion is this: The second provision obviously makes Clarkson un-selectable, but I don't see how it means they don't have to protect him based on other criteria. It doesn't say "Players do not have to be protected coming off LTIR". It just suggests that Clarkson may not be selected because of his injury history, it doesn't say they don't have to meet their other contractual obligations. It seems like it is just providing a second way for him to be protected from sleection (something Columbus isn't worried about).
Obviously, I don't think anyone will grieve it, but I'm not sure it is as definitive as some are suggesting. Maybe I'm mistaken.
1. You can protect a certain number of players
2. You have to protect players with NMCs
3. Some players are exempt from selection based on games played, and other criteria (This doesn't mean teams can't use protection slots on them, just that it would be pointless because they can't be selected)
4. The players you do eventually make available have to meet certain criteria as a whole (games played, etc..)
Secondly, as far as the LTIR exemption wording I see two parts:
1 . "Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a club's player exposure requirements, unless approval is received from the NHL"
To me, that stops teams from using guys with career ending injuries to meet the "available players" criteria.
2. "Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection by the League." To me, that means some players may not be selected if they're LTIR with career threatening injures.
I guess my confusion is this: The second provision obviously makes Clarkson un-selectable, but I don't see how it means they don't have to protect him based on other criteria. It doesn't say "Players do not have to be protected coming off LTIR". It just suggests that Clarkson may not be selected because of his injury history, it doesn't say they don't have to meet their other contractual obligations. It seems like it is just providing a second way for him to be protected from sleection (something Columbus isn't worried about).
Obviously, I don't think anyone will grieve it, but I'm not sure it is as definitive as some are suggesting. Maybe I'm mistaken.
uncleben
Global Moderator
"You can get 2/3s salary and hope to get another contract elsewhere, or stay with us a full price, with the chance you get picked up to be a vet on a new team."
I can see this conversation happening.
I can see this conversation happening.
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,721
- 7,597
If you're under any kind of risk to get picked, you don't waive if you want to stay. But if you know that you aren't going to be taken, it would make sense, if you also are unlikely to get a new contract from any team (you'd lose money if you get bought out). But honestly, I don't think there are many players who are willing to waive the NMC for expansion purposes.
deckercky
Registered User
- Oct 27, 2010
- 9,382
- 2,461
Not only do they get 2/3 salary, but there's 50 new contract spots and 23 new roster spots watering down the league, meaning it will be the easiest summer in years for UFAs to land a decent contract in years.
RandallRitchey
Formerly the Bergy Gif guy on Twitter
"Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection by the League."
If the cannot be selected, I doubt they will I don't see why the team needs to protect them. Could be wrong, but thats my interpretation.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
one problem is that the bought out player would have a cap hit against the original team
SupremeTeam16
5-14-6-1
I'd say it depends on the player. If they waive their NTC/NMC then that pretty much leaves them vulnerable to be traded/sent down and there's a chance you could find yourself in a very undesirable situation. Whereas taking a buyout you get less money but can have a say where you want to play, out of teams interested in your services.
s7ark
RIP
- Jul 3, 2003
- 27,579
- 175
As much as some fans are hoping beyond hope that non desirable players requiring expansion draft protection will waive their NMC, I just don't see it happening. Take Bieksa. So he doesn't waive and the Ducks actually do buy him out and take the 1.33M cap hit for the following 2 seasons. He gets 2.6M out of the remaining 4M he is owed. So long as he can sign a contract as a UFA totally 1.3M or more he at least breaks even. and he gets to choose where he plays.
I don't see vets waiving their NMC and risk getting taken by an expansion team. I guess we'll see how it plays out. JMO.
I don't see vets waiving their NMC and risk getting taken by an expansion team. I guess we'll see how it plays out. JMO.
Spazkat
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2015
- 4,362
- 2,277
Players like Girardi are going to be problematic.. he essentially can't be bought out due to the way his contract is structured with mostly bonuses and very little actual salary.
go4hockey
Registered User
He is with his buddy Kesler and loves Cali I really don't think he will wave but time will tell.
go4hockey
Registered User
Well really he won't get to "choose where he plays" cause how many teams would even consider signing him. But yea if they have any game left your right.
