LadyStanley
Registered User
Hard to believe that there would be no pending RFA or under contract guy that would not be what they want, but yeah. (I've seen nothing that prevents it.)
Expansion Draft Rules, Alignment & Schedule Matrix for Las Vegas
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
Hard to believe that there would be no pending RFA or under contract guy that would not be what they want, but yeah. (I've seen nothing that prevents it.)
DANOZ28
Registered User
may be a repeat ? but i haven't seen the answer. las vegas picks 30 players however with only 23 roster spots what happens to the other 7 nhl players? do they get demoted to the ahl or traded? 2nd ? how does vegas build an ahl team? thx.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
While Vegas picks 30 players, they're only required to pick 20 players under contract for the next season. They can choose to pick as many or as few players under contract as they wish between those two numbers. I imagine they'll pick as many current NHL caliber players as possible and deal the "unneeded" ones off for prospects to help build the AHL team and gather more talent for the future.
They could also go the other route and pick as few as 20, draft 10 players that won't be on the team (ie: people that will retire or really don't have the talent) and go the free agent route for lower level NHL guys and development players.
For example, Anaheim today has 28 or 29 players that will be exposed for the expansion draft, Vegas could draft the 29th "best" player from the Duck and cut, trade, or do whatever with him, just to use their pick for Anaheim and not be "stuck" with a player they don't want.
A lot of people say that every draft pick you use above and beyond the minimum 60% of cap and 20 contracts is bad for Vegas since theoretically you could get a better player from the much wider pool of free agents or people not under contract than you could from the 28-29 players exposed in Anaheim.
I just picked Anaheim as an example since they're first in alpha order.
LadyStanley
Registered User
They will probably be picking guys that may be depth guys, and assigned to AHL farm team.
(In addition to any players they swap for picks/prospects.)
(In addition to any players they swap for picks/prospects.)
Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
I haven't checked myself yet but based on the expansion rules, it seems like almost anyone that is eligible for selection would, by definition, be waiver eligible as well.
Meaning anyone that Vegas selects intending to send down could immediately be lost on waivers. They definitely could still go this route but I imagine trading for prospects/picks will also be a strong likelihood.
I have two remaining questions that I haven't seen answered yet (or, rather, haven't seen a good explanation for the answer):
1) It sounds like RFAs can be protected or selected.. but won't qualify as the 70/40 requirements? That seems foolish as the player is still under team control.
2) We've gotten clarification about pretty much every type of player but there's still Joe Blandisi. He will somehow be eligible for expansion despite making his debut in the AHL/NHL this past year. The reasoning we got was that Blandisi is considered to have played a professional year in Juniors because he signed his ELC during his OA year. I know they get paid but I wasn't aware that Juniors was considered a professional league by the NHL.
LadyStanley
Registered User
True, but many of the AHL vets/depth sent to farm teams end up having to clear waivers. (IOW it's not as bad a deal as you might think.)
Players on their 3rd year of ELS might be exposed (and could still be waiver exempt).
"Pending RFAs" may be exposed but not meet the contract requirement (because they won't be QO'd before expansion draft) to be one of the "required" (1G, 1D, 2F) skaters. They also could have spent a couple of years in AHL so not eligible to be one of the required exposed skaters due to experience. They still could be selected.
To give a specific example, here's my list of the Sharks players that are exempt or not that have to be protected to be kept. One player that may be exposed is defenseman Mirco Mueller who will be finishing his ELS; probably won't make experience (40 games in NHL) and is still waiver exempt. Sharks might choose to do a "future consideration" protection trade to keep him.
http://www.generalfanager.com/players/1228
Looks like he'll be finishing his "third" pro year this coming season.
Unlike ELS deals that slide for 18 and 19 year olds playing in CHL, it actually "counts" in your OA year. (So, 14-15 OA, 15-16 debut, 16-17 debut+1 == three "pro" years so not exempt.) Also would have counted had he played in Europe in 14-15. Had he been signed at 18 and played in Europe for two years, those would have counted as pro years too.
(Sharks are lucky with Joonas Donskoi, 25. He will be finishing 2nd year of ELS. But because he was NOT signed to NHL deal while he played in Europe for the past few years, he is considered to just be playing his 2nd pro year this coming season.)
Last edited:
While this is all true, very few players are claimed off waivers during initial cuts and teams will only claim players off waivers at that time which they feel are NHL ready because they cannot demote them. Vegas will likely take 5 or so prospects they feel have potential and that should pass through waivers.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Not exactly. The claiming team may have a NHL roster hole due to injury and pick up a guy on waivers (now) that they plan to demote (via waivers) later. But yes, to claim a player you need a NHL roster spot (that day).
Of the hundreds of players that go through waivers every year (some more than once, after playing their 10th+ NHL game or on the NHL roster 30+ days, cumulatively), maybe 3-5 are actually claimed.
Obviously I was over simplifying, but the type of prospects I mentioned I see Vegas claiming aren't really the ones that would be claimed. Seems like most claimed players seem to be guys to fill out 4th lines or sit in the pressbox.
LadyStanley
Registered User
http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-...ow-las-vegas-make-pre-expansion-draft-trades/
Sounds like (per LeBrun) that Vegas may be able to begin trades (especially for future consideration around protecting exposed players) about June 1.
Sounds like (per LeBrun) that Vegas may be able to begin trades (especially for future consideration around protecting exposed players) about June 1.
Good to know but I'm sure they'll be negotiating those trades well before that time.
tokyoite
I changed my name from "nipponjin" last summer.
Draft rules seem too harsh, in my opinion. Is the league considering some kind of compensation if the team lose key player at the draft ?
Last edited:
Actually the rules are more than generous. In some ways they're far too generous for existing teams - especially when it comes to young players. Some of the best players in the league won't have to be protected as they are exempt. Once the young players are off the table existing teams can then protect 9-11 players after that. If there is a player a team is worried about losing that person can be traded out of the picture or a draft pick can be thrown at the new team so that they'll pick someone else.
While the new team will pick some decent players they won't be taking anybody from an existing team's core.
If a team does lose a "key" player in this process their GM should be fired.
LadyStanley
Registered User
There may be a "key" player or two willing to be exposed/traded to enjoy a new challenge in an expansion team.
The key player may want to be left available (Good point) but the decision is the GM's and I can't see them letting someone important go free like that.
A couple of cheaper alternatives would be to sign free agents and make waiver claims as the season progresses. The Flames, for example, have already signed a goalie who is signed for 17-18 and will probably be one of the players exposed in the expansion draft.
I'm surprised only a few of this season's training camp PTOs were signed. Some of these guys who have been perfect for the draft.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Teams can only protect ONE goalie, and
- THREE defensemen, SEVEN forwards OR
- NINE skaters
KingLB
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2008
- 9,034
- 1,160
I've always felt this way about the expansion drafts. We wonder why many of the more recent expansion teams struggled at the gate after a few years. But the teams they started with were dreadful for years. If an expansion team was a playoff contender by year 3, maybe lots of the initial support won't fade so quickly.
Obvious there have been other reasons for struggles, and better expansion teams mean alienating fans in existing markets. Just wondering others opinions on if to many players are allowed to be protected.
I did read your quote and was trying to agree with you.
Obviously that was a problem so I apologize.
That doesn't make much sense to me. First of all, they would be picking only 7 extra players, since the NHL team will have 23 players. You need depth, and 7 extra guys doesn't even begin to build your AHL squad. They'll need to sign 15 more players off free agency to build that AHL team.
Therefore, it doesn't make sense to pick ''the worst'' players in order to just let them go. 1) They don't care about those extra players and can just waive them in order to send them to the AHL. 2) There could be a trade market for a couple of guys LV may draft, so they may as well pick the best players available and perhaps get a pick or two in a trade during training camp or something.
Those two options are much better than just picking ECHL-level players for no reason whatsoever.
Realistically LV will identify a couple young players with potential that may not have to go through waivers and will pick them in order to develop them in the AHL. (i.e. 3rd year ELCs)
The ''minimum contracts'' rules is to make sure LV can actually field a team, they don't want LV to be picking only RFAs or pending UFAs and have them all walk out on them, leaving them with nothing. They need to pick players under contract to make sure they have an NHL-worthy team for 2017-18, even if not a very a good one.
Also LV won't be anywhere near the salary cap ceiling and also can easily give overpaid 1-year contracts to a couple of players to reach to cap floor, so the cap won't be a problem for them in their early seasons.
Last edited:
