Around the League '16-'17 Stanley Cup Final Edition

[deeshamrock]

GM's trying to get that final list and hitting obtacles...


Bob McKenzie‏Verified account @TSNBobMcKenzie

Dion Phaneuf is not expected to waive his NMC, as was requested by OTT. That means Phaneuf would have to be protected in expansion draft.



Bob McKenzie‏Verified account @TSNBobMcKenzie

It's believed ANA has a pre-arranged deal in place with VGK so it isn't necessary to ask Kevin Bieksa to waive his NMC.



Pierre LeBrun‏Verified account @PierreVLeBrun 2h2 hours ago

Pierre LeBrun Retweeted Bob McKenzie

However it all shakes out, even that means a separate trade with another team, too, Ducks have zero intention of losing Josh Manson


Michael Russo‏Verified account @Russostrib 22h22 hours ago

Chuck Fletcher won't comment if #mnwild's Jason Pominville asked to waive no-move for VGK exposure. Pommer/agent haven't replied to queries

 

[kovacro]

Also, the Bruins did not ask any of their guys to waive NMC's.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/b...ent-clauses/1dYSlOVXuUyjp8guTbwTWJ/story.html



...I am interested to see the side deal Anaheim has made with Vegas.

 

[deeshamrock]

Also, the Bruins did not ask any of their guys to waive NMC's.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/b...ent-clauses/1dYSlOVXuUyjp8guTbwTWJ/story.html



...I am interested to see the side deal Anaheim has made with Vegas.

According to the OC register

http://mynhltraderumors.com/nhl-rumors-anaheim-ducks-vegas-golden-knights/2017/06/13/

Ducks GM Bob Murray has been talking with Vegas GM George McPhee, so they could work out a deal where Vegas won’t/will select a certain player. The Ducks don’t want to lose Manson.

 

[deeshamrock]

Elliotte Freidman on SPortsnet 960 on the Habs moving Galchenyuk

http://mynhltraderumors.com/nhl-rum...ontreal-canadiens-alex-galchenyuk/2017/06/13/

“To me the biggest question is Galchenyuk. I’ve heard a lot of rumors that they’re going to try to move him. But I think that’s probably the biggest one. And if you are trading Galchenyuk, I’m curious to see what he’s going to get in return.

“So I think those are the ones to watch in Montreal.â€

 

[HookKing]

I'm quite surprised nothing has happened yet. Trade gridlock perhaps?

 

[Martyros]

I'm quite surprised nothing has happened yet. Trade gridlock perhaps?

Probably waiting for the list of players to be released first.

 

[HookKing]

Probably waiting for the list of players to be released first.

That doesn't make sense for teams wanting to avoid losing certain players to Vegas.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Rosters are locked and no trades can be completed once the protected lists are submitted.

 

[kovacro]

Does anyone know the potential penalty for not meeting the minimum exposure requirements for the expansion draft? I read somewhere, maybe TSN, the Rangers need to sign one of their RFA forwards as they are one contract short of the minimum requirement at forward. Apparently 3 forward RFA's (Peumpel, Fast and Lindbergh) are playing hardball and are holding out to sign. Haha

 

[KingsFan7824]

Does anyone know the potential penalty for not meeting the minimum exposure requirements for the expansion draft?

Not sure if there's a set penalty, but it would probably involve draft picks. On the higher side than the lower I imagine.

I read somewhere, maybe TSN, the Rangers need to sign one of their RFA forwards as they are one contract short of the minimum requirement at forward. Apparently 3 forward RFA's (Peumpel, Fast and Lindbergh) are playing hardball and are holding out to sign. Haha

I think the Rangers are good. They just have to expose Hayes. But if they were in trouble, and I was the agent of one of those RFA's, I'd hold off on signing right away too. Get a couple extra bucks out of it.

 

[kovacro]

Not sure if there's a set penalty, but it would probably involve draft picks. On the higher side than the lower I imagine.



I think the Rangers are good. They just have to expose Hayes. But if they were in trouble, and I was the agent of one of those RFA's, I'd hold off on signing right away too. Get a couple extra bucks out of it.

I don't think they expose Hayes, especially after the season he had. I have read/heard that Stepan will be exposed but I believe the requirement is for a minimum of 2 forwards signed through next season to meet the exposure requirements so at the moment they are short hence the need to sign on of their RFA's.

 

[kingsfan28]

How do think it would effect the team as whole if say you're asked to waive your NMC, and refuse, and the team loses an important player to expansion? Would the front office be pissed or maybe the guys in the room look at you different ?

 

[Martyros]

That doesn't make sense for teams wanting to avoid losing certain players to Vegas.

well, i meant announcing any deals; i'm sure many teams have had conversations/agreements in place.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

How do think it would effect the team as whole if say you're asked to waive your NMC, and refuse, and the team loses an important player to expansion? Would the front office be pissed or maybe the guys in the room look at you different ?

It's the player's right to say "no". If the GMs would stop giving out NMCs like candy, they wouldn't be put in these positions. Gotta give props to DL for not including many of them with the Kings' contracts.

 

[Stimpythecat]

I'm getting overly eager to see all the wheeling and dealing. The hf servers will melt down.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I don't think they expose Hayes, especially after the season he had. I have read/heard that Stepan will be exposed but I believe the requirement is for a minimum of 2 forwards signed through next season to meet the exposure requirements so at the moment they are short hence the need to sign on of their RFA's.

Going by the capfriendly thing, the Rangers are good to go, it's just a matter of which guy they leave exposed, whether it's Hayes or Stepan or whoever, in addition to, I imagine, Grabner.

 

[KingsFan7824]

How do think it would effect the team as whole if say you're asked to waive your NMC, and refuse, and the team loses an important player to expansion? Would the front office be pissed or maybe the guys in the room look at you different ?

Players want those NMC's for a reason. Every player would want that kind of control over where they have to play. If you're upset that a teammate would use a freely and fairly negotiated clause put into his contract because it might hurt the team, frankly you keep that to yourself. If not, it's then you causing the problems, not the guy with a NMC. Same way if a guy takes up too much cap space because he wanted an extra $500k or whatever. It's always easier to ask someone else to sacrifice for the good of the group.

 

[kovacro]

Going by the capfriendly thing, the Rangers are good to go, it's just a matter of which guy they leave exposed, whether it's Hayes or Stepan or whoever, in addition to, I imagine, Grabner.

They are officially compliant as Matt Puempel has just signed. They can now meet the exposure requirements at forward by exposing Stepan and Puempel. They were not prior to the Puempel signing.

http://www.tsn.ca/rangers-sign-puempel-meet-expansion-needs-1.778852

NHL tells GMs not to leak Vegas trades

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-tells-gms-not-to-leak-vegas-trades-1.778794

 

[Butch 19]

Players want those NMC's for a reason. Every player would want that kind of control over where they have to play. If you're upset that a teammate would use a freely and fairly negotiated clause put into his contract because it might hurt the team, frankly you keep that to yourself. If not, it's then you causing the problems, not the guy with a NMC. Same way if a guy takes up too much cap space because he wanted an extra $500k or whatever. It's always easier to ask someone else to sacrifice for the good of the group.

"have to play?"

You make it sound like punishment if players "have to play" in certain NHL cities.

You'd think the vast majority of players would look at playing in the NHL as an honor and a lifelong dream, but... I've made wrong assumptions about players in the past...

 

[KingsFan7824]

They are officially compliant as Matt Puempel has just signed. They can now meet the exposure requirements at forward by exposing Stepan and Puempel. They were not prior to the Puempel signing.

Just going by what capfriendly had. Nash, Stepan, Kreider, Zuccarello, Miller, Hayes, and Grabner have a green check. Then Zibanejad is a RFA, and throw in Puempel. That's 7 guys in the green, and two of them had to be exposed. They had enough guys to expose for the requirements according to the site. But, signing Puempel, now they can expose him and I would guess Grabner over Stepan. Entirely possible capfriendly was wrong, but it looks to me like they've been officially compliant, they were just going to have to expose Hayes or Stepan without Puempel signed. Either way, they probably won't let Stepan or Hayes go.

"have to play?"

You make it sound like punishment if players "have to play" in certain NHL cities.

You'd think the vast majority of players would look at playing in the NHL as an honor and a lifelong dream, but... I've made wrong assumptions about players in the past...

I would guess that's part of the reason to have a NMC. It's part of the reason players wanted free agency in the first place. The vast majority of players don't have a NMC. Once you get to the NMC level, if you want to play in the NHL, you don't want to have to play somewhere you don't want to be. If the players could, they'd probably get rid of the draft and certainly the cap. Players used to have another job in addition to playing NHL hockey. Of course they're a little spoiled today. I don't want to make millions there, I want to do it here.

 

[ScoreZeGoals]

Girardi boughtout by the Rangers:

James Mirtle‏ @mirtle 1m1 minute ago

Dan Girardi's buyout cap hit:

Year 1: $2,611,111
Year 2 & 3: $3,611,111
Year 4, 5 & 6: $1,111,111

 

[kovacro]

Just going by what capfriendly had. Nash, Stepan, Kreider, Zuccarello, Miller, Hayes, and Grabner have a green check. Then Zibanejad is a RFA, and throw in Puempel. That's 7 guys in the green, and two of them had to be exposed. They had enough guys to expose for the requirements according to the site. But, signing Puempel, now they can expose him and I would guess Grabner over Stepan. Entirely possible capfriendly was wrong, but it looks to me like they've been officially compliant, they were just going to have to expose Hayes or Stepan without Puempel signed. Either way, they probably won't let Stepan or Hayes go.

They were not compliant until they signed Puempel.

From the TSN link I had posted previous...

"The New York Rangers have agreed to terms with forward Matt Puempel meaning they will now meet the required needs for the Vegas expansion draft.

The Rangers only had one forward under contract for 2017-18 to expose in the expansion and needed to sign a second or face punishment from the league."

They will expose Stepan if they cannot trade him along with Puempel. They will opt to keep Grabner.

 

[KingsFan7824]

They were not compliant until they signed Puempel.

From the TSN link I had posted previous...

"The New York Rangers have agreed to terms with forward Matt Puempel meaning they will now meet the required needs for the Vegas expansion draft.

The Rangers only had one forward under contract for 2017-18 to expose in the expansion and needed to sign a second or face punishment from the league."

They will expose Stepan if they cannot trade him along with Puempel. They will opt to keep Grabner.

I read the link, I just don't get it. Unless capfriendly is wrong. Nash, Stepan, Kreider, Zuccarello, Miller, Hayes, Grabner. As far as I can tell, they all fell into the expansion requirements. Before Puempel signed, they would've had to expose 2 of those 7 guys, which they could've done. 6 guys really, Nash has the NMC. Now they can expose Puempel, and at least one of those 6 other guys.

I don't see where they had just one forward under contract to expose. Maybe I'm blind on this one. If so, please show me. That sentence on TSN doesn't make sense, or isn't complete. They had one forward under contract, if, they wanted to protect 2 of Stepan/Hayes/Grabner. Again, unless capfriendly is wrong. Signing Puempel wasn't about being compliant, it was about being able to protect an additional forward. They had the 2 forwards that fit the requirements before Puempel.

 

[kovacro]

I read the link, I just don't get it. Unless capfriendly is wrong. Nash, Stepan, Kreider, Zuccarello, Miller, Hayes, Grabner. As far as I can tell, they all fell into the expansion requirements. Before Puempel signed, they would've had to expose 2 of those 7 guys, which they could've done. 6 guys really, Nash has the NMC. Now they can expose Puempel, and at least one of those 6 other guys.

I don't see where they had just one forward under contract to expose. Maybe I'm blind on this one. If so, please show me. That sentence on TSN doesn't make sense, or isn't complete. They had one forward under contract, if, they wanted to protect 2 of Stepan/Hayes/Grabner. Again, unless capfriendly is wrong. Signing Puempel wasn't about being compliant, it was about being able to protect an additional forward. They had the 2 forwards that fit the requirements before Puempel.

I understand your explaination but why would they expose any of those guys listed besides Stepan and his over priced contract? That's why they signed Puempel so they can expose him and one other player, most likely Stepan and not have to expose any of those others listed.

Puempel is a fringe player and he helps them meet the 2 player requirement at forward.

Go over to the Rags board, at your peril, and they will explain it as well. Just don't tell them you would of exposed Hayes and Grabner.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I understand your explaination but why would they expose any of those guys listed besides Stepan and his over priced contract? That's why they signed Puempel so they can expose him and one other player, most likely Stepan and not have to expose any of those others listed.

Puempel is a fringe player and he helps them meet the 2 player requirement at forward.

Go over to the Rags board, at your peril, and they will explain it as well. Just don't tell them you would of exposed Hayes and Grabner.

I'm not saying they would've exposed them, but before the Puempel signing, they had to expose two of Stepan/Hayes/Grabner. They still have to, whether it's Stepan or whoever. If they trade Stepan before the draft, that's fine, but then they still need another forward that meets the requirements to expose. If they get another forward in any Stepan deal to expose, that's fine, but they were never not expansion draft compliant in general. The sentence from TSN gives no context is all.