Speculation: About the expansion draft, NMCs and buyouts

[Blue Goose]

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.

Yeah, I think too often fans just think that these bought-out players can go sign with any other team, and that's not necessarily the case. And at the end of the day, they're still "unemployed" and maybe they'd rather stay where they are instead of dealing with the stress of "finding a new job". I would imagine that's the case with Bieksa, who by all accounts would rather stay with the Ducks - I'm sure his family would rather not have to move again either. He's the most likely candidate to waive for the Expansion draft to me (maybe Filppula too).

PS. Does anyone think Stephen Weiss was excited about the prospect of "signing with any team he chooses", after he was bought out?

 

[Street Hawk]

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.

Pretty certain I've heard nmc having the option to waive.

As for bieksa or anyone else doing that, it comes down to who else on their team will be made available.

For the ducks, barring a trade involving one if their younger dmen, they should have Lindholm, vatanen, Fowler to protect.

Leaving Manson and despres, along with bieksa available to be selected. As these 3, would make the most sense for LV to take Manson. Young, rhd, low cap hit, and more importantly over despres, no concussion concerns.

So, bieksa can feel quite confident that he won't get selected.

Enstrom in Winnipeg is another if say Trouba matter isn't resolved. Buff, Myers and Trouba are the ones the jets want to protect. If enstrom does waive, what players will be eligible for the jets that lv would really want? Has to be someone that makes it a no brainier to pass in a 37 year old.

 

[Curufinwe]

I think that the Pens will work out a deal with Vegas for them to take MAF in the expansion draft, and if MAF refuses to waive his NMC they will buy him out.

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

I think that the Pens will work out a deal with Vegas for them to take MAF in the expansion draft, and if MAF refuses to waive his NMC they will buy him out.

A player not waiving and forcing the team to buy him out comes down to whether he is still a good player with some game left.

Grabovski was bought out by the Leafs then signed a 4 year deal with Islanders.
Combined he is making $6.8 million each year ($1.8 from the Leafs buy out and $5 from the Islanders). I think if you asked him he would tell you it worked out great!

Fleury is in the same situation.
He'll have to be bought out of his remaining 2 years of his current $5.75 AAV contract. He'll get 2/3 of the total paid out over 4 years which will be $1.91 million each year for the next four years.
He is still an elite goalie (only 3 goalies won more games than he did last year) so he can turn around in the Summer and sign for at least $6 million with a team of his choosing and end up making $7.9 million (a nice raise from $5.75 million).
This is why there is no way he is waiving his NMC.

For players like Bieksa the math may not work out as favourably so he may waive his.

 

[Blue Goose]

I think that the Pens will work out a deal with Vegas for them to take MAF in the expansion draft, and if MAF refuses to waive his NMC they will buy him out.

I think that the Pens will work out a deal with Dallas for them to take MAF in trade, and if MAF refuses to waive his NMC they will buy him out.

 

[mouser]

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.

Players don't have to all-or-nothing waive a NTC/NMC. A player could for example state they will waive their NMC solely for the purpose of being made available in the Expansion Draft.

A better way to look at an NMC/NTC is every single time a team wants to do something that is blocked by that NMC/NTC the team has to come to the player and ask for their permission.

 

[Oleg Petrov]

Teams also have to weigh the cap repercussions of a buy-out.

PIT I don't think could swallow Fleury's cap for 4 more years while he plays elsewhere.

 

[Ducks in a row]

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.

But Bieksa moved to Anaheim if he waives he for expansion he wouldn't have to move as soon. A reason he wanted a NMC so he wouldn't have to possibly move so soon. His odds of being taken by Las Vegas is so very very very low so by waiving he would get to play in Anaheim with Kesler longer.

 

[deckercky]

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.

Every team will be stripped of some depth by the draft, and teams love their veteran leadership. There will be a new team without any established leadership core. Bieksa probably won't get a huge contract, but he would probably have a lot of suitors to pick him up as a #5 or 6 defenceman.

With 23 more players playing in the NHL next season, the line for what an NHL quality player is will have moved.

 

[SupremeTeam16]

Players don't have to all-or-nothing waive a NTC/NMC. A player could for example state they will waive their NMC solely for the purpose of being made available in the Expansion Draft.

A better way to look at an NMC/NTC is every single time a team wants to do something that is blocked by that NMC/NTC the team has to come to the player and ask for their permission.

I was under the impression that if a player waived their NTC/NMC then the acquiring team can decide if they honour it or not. Maybe that is just in the case of if the NTC/NMC hasn't kicked in yet.

 

[mouser]

I was under the impression that if a player waived their NTC/NMC then the acquiring team can decide if they honour it or not. Maybe that is just in the case of if the NTC/NMC hasn't kicked in yet.

The only time a player can lose an NMC/NTC is if they are traded before the clause kicks in. e.g. Mike Richards

 

[Street Hawk]

But Bieksa moved to Anaheim if he waives he for expansion he wouldn't have to move as soon. A reason he wanted a NMC so he wouldn't have to possibly move so soon. His odds of being taken by Las Vegas is so very very very low so by waiving he would get to play in Anaheim with Kesler longer.

Does everyone here understand that waiving a nmc does NOT automatically mean that las Vegas will claim that player in the expansion draft? 37 year old bieksa vs a 24 year of Manson is a no brainer. You take Manson. Despres with his concussion history likely not going to be taken.

If you waive your nmc, it's not because you want to get taken by las Vegas, it's because there is someone else in your team that is highly likely to be selected over you.

For bieksa that would be Manson.

For Pittsburgh and MAF, it's a bit tougher. First, who is the best available skater that the pens would make available? Two, what other veteran goalies will be available? Howard. Varlamnov, lehtonen, etc. Then, what are the best skaters available for those teams. Las Vegas will likely target a guy like Malcolm subban as their goalie of the future so that any veteran they claim is only going to be kept until subban can establish himself as a number one imo. So, then LV has to decide which skaters vs which goalies they prefer from these teams.

 

[Spazkat]

Does everyone here understand that waiving a nmc does NOT automatically mean that las Vegas will claim that player in the expansion draft? 37 year old bieksa vs a 24 year of Manson is a no brainer. You take Manson. Despres with his concussion history likely not going to be taken.

The assumption is that Fowler will have been traded by the expanion draft with an exempt prospect in his place (Theodore or Larsson) so the 3 protected will be Lindholm, Vatanen and Manson, leaving Despres and Bieksa exposed.

 

[Street Hawk]

The assumption is that Fowler will have been traded by the expanion draft with an exempt prospect in his place (Theodore or Larsson) so the 3 protected will be Lindholm, Vatanen and Manson, leaving Despres and Bieksa exposed.

If that is the assumption then I don't see KB waiving his nmc. He would only waive if he was sure he wouldn't get claimed.

Given despres concussion issues, I think LV could pass on him despite Simon being the better player.

Don't think the ducks have forwards who are coveted.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

If that is the assumption then I don't see KB waiving his nmc. He would only waive if he was sure he wouldn't get claimed.

Given despres concussion issues, I think LV could pass on him despite Simon being the better player.

Don't think the ducks have forwards who are coveted.

That may be true, but in his case the Ducks would easily buy him out so as not to protect him. Now, he is moving the family for sure.

 

[TurgePurge*]

As of today the Rangers have a pretty simple protection list. It leaves Klein, Lindberg and Fast available as their best assets. Sure it would be nice if Girardi didn't have to be protected so you could protect Klein but after this year he only has 1 year left on his deal. Lindberg and Fast will be RFAs after this year. In a vacuum the top 4 dman is the better asset but he's more expensive and older so its not a slam dunk.

Point is, Girardi doing us a favor wouldn't benefit us that much, if at all, the way I see things.

 

[thadd]

Would you rather be bought out so that you had the freedom to choose where to play next season or waive your right to choose not to be traded so that you could go to what will likely be the worst team in the league for the next decade?

If I'm Vegas I'm hoping that there are a lot of players that choose the later. Vegas is the first expansion team to come in during the salary cap era and they've got to take advantage of everything possible to get as much assets for as cheap as possible.

TBH I wouldn't want to pick up bad contracts in the expansion draft. I'd flat out avoid bad contracts in the expansion draft.

If I'm Vegas and I've got tons of cap space after the expansion draft I'm then calling the cap strapped teams around the NHL and essentially trying to sell cap space to them at a premium so that I can pick up as many solid young assets as soon as possible.

 

[Kanneda]

As of today the Rangers have a pretty simple protection list. It leaves Klein, Lindberg and Fast available as their best assets. Sure it would be nice if Girardi didn't have to be protected so you could protect Klein but after this year he only has 1 year left on his deal. Lindberg and Fast will be RFAs after this year. In a vacuum the top 4 dman is the better asset but he's more expensive and older so its not a slam dunk.

Point is, Girardi doing us a favor wouldn't benefit us that much, if at all, the way I see things.

Well, if we trade for Vatanen or some top 4 RHD (like Ryan Ellis) then it help us a lot. Although we could protect 8 skaters in that case (McDonagh, Staal, Girardi, Vatanen, Mika, Zucc, Kreider, Stepan), assuming we trade Miller for Vatanen.

But the best option for us is to hope to sign Shattenkirk in free agency after the expansion draft.

 

[jw2]

As of today the Rangers have a pretty simple protection list. It leaves Klein, Lindberg and Fast available as their best assets. Sure it would be nice if Girardi didn't have to be protected so you could protect Klein but after this year he only has 1 year left on his deal. Lindberg and Fast will be RFAs after this year. In a vacuum the top 4 dman is the better asset but he's more expensive and older so its not a slam dunk.

Point is, Girardi doing us a favor wouldn't benefit us that much, if at all, the way I see things.

No Buyout cap hit.
And not having Girardi in any capacity seems to be a likely benefit for the Rangers, based on fan discussion. So those are two HUGE benefits if Girardi waives.

Plus you'd be able to protect 1 more player during expansion draft - Hayes (1st rd pick), Nash, Klein or dman you trade for, etc

 

[TOGuy14]

I doubt it.

It may cause other issues as well. I thought teams were required to expose players totaling a certain percentage of their total cap hit. This could force CBJ to expose more players in order to meet the requirement.

 

[Curufinwe]

It may cause other issues as well. I thought teams were required to expose players totaling a certain percentage of their total cap hit.

That proposed rule didn't end up making the cut.