Speculation: Expansion Draft Protection Slot Rental

[Juicy Pop]

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.

[...]

Though there are no expansion draft rules by which the NHL explicitly disallows this sort of maneuver, it would certainly be seen as a breach in the spirit/intent of the rules.

 

[Taytro]

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

First of all how dare you insinuate that coke and pepsi are comparable?!

And secondly how on earth did you think this up? Its brilliant but like you said it would be a chore to find a willing team with comparable players and contracts but you could always just downgrade the player as the payment. Still better than losing them in the draft.

 

[Lunatik]

NHL definitely wouldn't allow it.

well they could allow it, but they would deem the player ineligible to play for the remainder of the year like the old rule regarding the waiver draft.

 

[Habsrule]

The Kitchener Rangers and London Knights manipulated the system like this back in 2008 and it has been banned from the OHL since. The Rangers were hosting the Memorial Cup that year and went all in at the trade deadline. At the deadline the Rangers traded a boatload of picks to the Knights for Steve Mason. Mason was the top goalie in the OHL that year. In the offseason Knights traded all of those picks back to the Rangers for Nazem Kadri.

So in the end the trade worked out to a 19 year old Steve Mason for a 17 year old Nazem Kadri. The league deemed that the original trade was essentially this but that the Rangers could keep Kadri for the playoffs. Neither teams got penalized for it but doing these type of trades are now not allowed.

 

[Riptide]

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.

The only way that goes down without someone getting fined from the league is if Fowler goes back to the Ducks after the season starts and someone can point to something else making him "available". Eg, someone gets injured in ANA while someone really steps up in CAR to the point where extending him (if he even would) could be said 'doesn't make sense'. Then, maybe, just maybe you could convince Bettman that it wasn't collusion to circumvent the expansion draft rules, but a hockey move that was done to benefit your team but that didn't pan out due to circumstances changing.

And even then I doubt GB would buy it. Which is moot, because I don't think any GM would actually do that.

 

[Jumptheshark]

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?

Any player traded from team A to Team B would not able to appear back on Team A roster for one full year. NHL has already stated that all moves made in the off season would follow rules applied previously to the waiver wire rules

 

[uncleben]

Any player traded from team A to Team B would not able to appear back on Team A roster for one full year. NHL has already stated that all moves made in the off season would follow rules applied previously to the waiver wire rules

1) There is no such waiver wire rule like that. Both claimed and cleared waived players may be traded.
2) Where did you see this? I know they have previously said drafted players cannot be traded back within 6 months or a year (cannot remember specifically), but I certainly have not heard anything about traded players being simply non-reacquirable for a year. That'd be way overkill.

 

[Jumptheshark]

1) There is no such waiver wire rule like that. Both claimed and cleared waived players may be traded.
2) Where did you see this? I know they have previously said drafted players cannot be traded back within 6 months or a year (cannot remember specifically), but I certainly have not heard anything about traded players being simply non-reacquirable for a year. That'd be way overkill.

Yeah there is. It was first used in the 80's when the oilets arranged a three way trade that saw Craig munI moved to I believe minny first then pens and then back to the oilers. It was used later for I believe Acton and Pete peters getting mover by Philly and then back. It wasas used last year of the waiver draft. I forget the player. He got traded right before the draft. Team B kept him but tried to trade the player back at the trade deadline and the nhl blocked the deal. When I get home I will post the three deals I am talking about.

 

[Jumptheshark]

October 2nd 2002

2002-Oct-01 Traded from Calgary Flames Dean McAmmond with Jeff Shantz and Derek Morris to Colorado Avalanche for Chris Drury and Stephane Yelle

2003-Mar-11 Dean McAmmond Traded from Colorado Avalanche to Calgary Flames for round 5 pick in the 2003 draft (Mark McCutcheon)

the nhl ruled that that trade circumvented the rules for waiver wire--where a player tried prior to the waiver wire could not appear back on the fist teams roster again during that season.

The trade stood but Dean McAmmond was not allowed to play again that season

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/mcammond-a-flame-but-can-t-play-rest-of-season-1.409123

"The player technically was not eligible to return to Calgary," Bill Daly, NHL executive vice-president and chief legal officer, said in a statement Friday. "The Flames traded McAmmond to Colorado on Oct. 1, 2002, three days prior to the NHL waiver draft, and Article 13.36 of the collective bargaining agreement states explicitly that 'a player traded by a club within the four weeks prior to the waiver draft may not be re-acquired by such club within the forthcoming season.'

I imagine the rules will be like this for the expansion draft

 

[Jumptheshark]

here is the Craig Muni deal I talked about earlier

Muni is the player in all the trade

1986-Oct-02 Traded from Edmonton Oilers to Buffalo Sabres for cash
1986-Oct-03 Traded from Buffalo Sabres to Pittsburgh Penguins for future considerations
1986-Oct-06 Traded from Pittsburgh Penguins to Edmonton Oilers for to complete earlier deal

BTW the earlier deal that sent him from the Pens to the Oilers
Gilles Meloche 1985-Sep-12 Traded from Edmonton Oilers to Pittsburgh Penguins for Marty McSorley and Tim Hrynewich

the acton/Peters trade where while the trade was allowd both sides got fines

1989-Sep-28 Traded from Philadelphia Flyers with Pete Peeters to Winnipeg Jets for future considerations
1989-Oct-03 Traded from Winnipeg Jets with Pete Peeters to Philadelphia Flyers for future considerations

so there is the evidence of the NHL getting involved in deals the viewed as breaking the rules