Speculation: Expansion Draft Protection Slot Rental

[MinJaBen]

I've been thinking about this for a while now and I have not seen anything in the expansion draft rules that would prevent it, so I am throwing this out there to see what others think and if there are any holes in my assumptions.

The idea behind this is that the way a few teams are currently constructed, they may have a spot in their line up where they don't need as much roster protection as they have under the rules for the expansion draft next year, making those spots a waste to them. For example, the Canes have only one defenseman that will be needing protection (Faulk), so under a 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, and one goalie scenario, we would have two spots available to protect defensemen we don't really need. Given that excess, could we trade for a defenseman with a team with not enough slots (the Ducks as an example) and then trade that player back to the Ducks after the expansion draft for just a low pick or prospect? Obviously, both GMs would have to trust each other that follow on trade would happen, so there would probably be some value that went both ways for both trades as insurance.

As an example...

First Trade prior to Draft:

Canes: 1st Round Pick 2017, Nic Roy
Ducks: Cam Fowler, 4th Round Pick 2017

Second Trade after draft:

Canes: Cam Fowler
Ducks: Cane's 1st Round Pick 2017, Nic Roy

Thus, the payment in this example for protecting Fowler for the Ducks would be the 4th round pick.

Could this happen? Would the league have any recourse to stop it?

Click to read more...

 

[ck26]

Could this happen? Would the league have any recourse to stop it?

Gary Bettman has tremendous latitude to do whatever he wants in the best interest of the league.

"6.1 Office of Commissioner, Election and Term of Office The League shall employ a Commissioner selected by the Board of Governors. The Commissioner shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the League and is charged with protecting the integrity of the game of professional hockey and preserving public confidence in the League. The Board of Governors shall determine the term of office and compensation of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall be elected a majority of the Governors present and voting at a League meeting at which a quorum was present when it was convened."

Collusion between teams to circumvent league rules fits under this umbrella. I wouldn't recommend your team try it. Awful lot of risk in your example for the Ducks to save Kevin Bieksa buyout cash and awful lot of risk for #HCanes to get a 4th round pick.

 

[Seachd]

This would absolutely not be allowed by the NHL.

 

[caymanmew]

NHL already said you cant trade players back after the expansion draft for like 6 months so this wont work.

 

[MinJaBen]

NHL already said you cant trade players back after the expansion draft for like 6 months so this wont work.

I heard that, but was under the impression that the rule you mentioned had to do with the drafted players, not teams that were not trading with Vegas.

 

[dracom]

I feel like the league wouldn't allow it, but if it did happen I would bet the Ducks and Leafs would make it happen.

 

[mouser]

NHL definitely wouldn't allow it.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

There's no way that the NHL would allow that second trade to go through, and both teams would probably be penalized for even trying it.

 

[bernmeister]

Gary Bettman has tremendous latitude to do whatever he wants in the best interest of the league.


Collusion between teams to circumvent league rules fits under this umbrella. I wouldn't recommend your team try it. Awful lot of risk in your example for the Ducks to save Kevin Bieksa buyout cash and awful lot of risk for #HCanes to get a 4th round pick.

This, and in addition to indirect de facto ability to deal with collusion via commish's discretion, I think there are direct and explicit provisions somewhere about collusion specifically.

There's no way that the NHL would allow that second trade to go through, and both teams would probably be penalized for even trying it.

Agree there is no way to do it exactly as that.

only thing I can think of is this....

2 teams have similar players, coke no extra slots and pepsi has a slot
coke team wants to protect coke, pepsi is flexible

coke team deals coke and a plus to pepsi team
nothing immediate
after draft
pepsi team keeps coke, deals pepsi to coke team for like a conditional 7th, while pocketing the plus in the prior deal as a profit

It is not the exact same scenario, but that would be a comparable with a similar result.
coke team gets comparable pepsi player = equivalent value, objective to not lose player in draft for cost of making deal achieved.

Since it is a different player not same player returned, should be functional loophole.
However, not so easy to execute

Not only do you have to find a trade partner who has spare slot also willing to make it available to you, but need comparable coke for pepsi player scenario. {Obviously you don't want to take back a lesser player to the superior player you gave, and vice versa as to the potential trade partner.}

so effectively this was a good thought but not doable

 

[Draiskull]

Pretty sure both teams would be losing their 1st round picks if the made the 2nd deal.

 

[KevinRedkey]

This also tell your unprotected players they aren't even worth protecting. Telling them they are worth less than a 4th round pick probably isn't the message you want to send to your locker room.

 

[Brock Radunske]

I'm pretty sure the NHL has said that if they catch anyone using loopholes to avoid the expansion draft, they'll bring the hammer down on them...ie: forfeiting a 1st.

Think the Canes would risk a 1st for a 4th?

 

[Mike Jones]

If a team wants Vegas to avoid choosing one or two exposed players then it's probably easier (And as others have indicated, more legal) to simply negotiate an "arrangement" with Vegas where a pick goes their way for "future considerations".

 

[uncleben]

Not technically against an explicit rule, but the league would probably make something up about it.

I say, if you can get creative and play within the CBA, go for it!!

 

[Seachd]

Not technically against an explicit rule, but the league would probably make something up about it.

I say, if you can get creative and play within the CBA, go for it!!

It's not the CBA they'd need to worry about. It's the expansion draft rules.

 

[uncleben]

It's not the CBA they'd need to worry about. It's the expansion draft rules.

True.


But my point still stands.
If they can navigate the rules in a creative way to benefit them, while staying within said rules, power to them.

 

[PTH]

No way would the league allow this to happen.

What might happen though is Fowler goes to Carolina for a reasonable price, and Carolina deals him after the expansion draft to some other team, possibly for a higher price.

ie: Carolina gets Fowler for a mid-1st rounder, then deals him after the draft for a mid-1st rounder and 2 second rounders.

Just to make the cap work, often deals like this will have other guys and middling picks thrown in, making it hard to really get what the main pieces are/were.

 

[Prairie Habs]

If a team wants Vegas to avoid choosing one or two exposed players then it's probably easier (And as others have indicated, more legal) to simply negotiate an "arrangement" with Vegas where a pick goes their way for "future considerations".

You don't have to make it a back room deal with Vegas. You are allowed to straight up trade them something in exchange for them leaving specific player(s) alone. This has been said a bunch of times.

 

[go4hockey]

I've been thinking about this for a while now and I have not seen anything in the expansion draft rules that would prevent it, so I am throwing this out there to see what others think and if there are any holes in my assumptions.

The idea behind this is that the way a few teams are currently constructed, they may have a spot in their line up where they don't need as much roster protection as they have under the rules for the expansion draft next year, making those spots a waste to them. For example, the Canes have only one defenseman that will be needing protection (Faulk), so under a 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, and one goalie scenario, we would have two spots available to protect defensemen we don't really need. Given that excess, could we trade for a defenseman with a team with not enough slots (the Ducks as an example) and then trade that player back to the Ducks after the expansion draft for just a low pick or prospect? Obviously, both GMs would have to trust each other that follow on trade would happen, so there would probably be some value that went both ways for both trades as insurance.

As an example...

First Trade prior to Draft:

Canes: 1st Round Pick 2017, Nic Roy
Ducks: Cam Fowler, 4th Round Pick 2017

Second Trade after draft:

Canes: Cam Fowler
Ducks: Cane's 1st Round Pick 2017, Nic Roy

Thus, the payment in this example for protecting Fowler for the Ducks would be the 4th round pick.

Could this happen? Would the league have any recourse to stop it?

You have way to much time on your hands. The league would never lets junk like this happen.

 

[Mike Jones]

You don't have to make it a back room deal with Vegas. You are allowed to straight up trade them something in exchange for them leaving specific player(s) alone. This has been said a bunch of times.

I didn't say the arrangement had to be back room but you make a good point.

Just out of morbid curiosity I wonder how many teams have traded away first round picks in exchange for "future considerations".

 

[mouser]

Not technically against an explicit rule, but the league would probably make something up about it.

I say, if you can get creative and play within the CBA, go for it!!

It's not explicitly against a CBA rule. However the NHL has enforced a policy that it's not permitted to "loan" players in trades, or even restrict what the acquiring team can do with a player. e.g. it wouldn't be allowed to trade a player to Team X with the stipulation that Team X can't later trade that player to another team. And the NHL has the authority under the CBA to enforce those sorts of policies covering trades.

 

[Halla]

this is basically just collusion to prevent vegas from getting a good player.
It wouldnt be allowed and both teams would probably get fined and lose multiple picks if they attempted it

 

[uncleben]

It's not explicitly against a CBA rule. However the NHL has enforced a policy that it's not permitted to "loan" players in trades, or even restrict what the acquiring team can do with a player. e.g. it wouldn't be allowed to trade a player to Team X with the stipulation that Team X can't later trade that player to another team. And the NHL has the authority under the CBA to enforce those sorts of policies covering trades.

I'm not saying your're wrong because you're right, but as it is not an explicit rule, there's more flexibility with it than that.


For example (and this is before the current CBA, I should admit), Phoenix Coyotes traded Brian Savage to the St. Louis Blues on March 9, 2004, for future considerations.

On June 28, 2004, St. Louis waived Savage and he was claimed by the Phoenix Coyotes on the 29th.

The future considerations on March 9, 2004? Coyotes agreed to claim Brian Savage off waivers when St. Louis was done with him.


The teams, I highly doubt, would be able to reverse the trade immediately after the draft, but include a future consideration along the lines of Team A receives the core piece of the trade back from Team B after Team A sometime after training camp, if Team A is still interested (except worded way better), and there may be something there.

 

[Oddbob]

Just wanted to point out, even if the league let the OP's example go through, why would Carolina (or any team) do another team a favour, for only a 4th round pick? A 2nd would be more in line, at minimum to do another team a favour, like helping the other team protect its own players. Teams have literally no need, or desire, to help out other teams in the league.

 

[Kent Nilsson]

This, and in addition to indirect de facto ability to deal with collusion via commish's discretion, I think there are direct and explicit provisions somewhere about collusion specifically.





Agree there is no way to do it exactly as that.

only thing I can think of is this....

2 teams have similar players, coke no extra slots and pepsi has a slot
coke team wants to protect coke, pepsi is flexible

coke team deals coke and a plus to pepsi team
nothing immediate
after draft
pepsi team keeps coke, deals pepsi to coke team for like a conditional 7th, while pocketing the plus in the prior deal as a profit

It is not the exact same scenario, but that would be a comparable with a similar result.
coke team gets comparable pepsi player = equivalent value, objective to not lose player in draft for cost of making deal achieved.

Since it is a different player not same player returned, should be functional loophole.
However, not so easy to execute

Not only do you have to find a trade partner who has spare slot also willing to make it available to you, but need comparable coke for pepsi player scenario. {Obviously you don't want to take back a lesser player to the superior player you gave, and vice versa as to the potential trade partner.}

so effectively this was a good thought but not doable

Holy **** what was that.