Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Free agency edition Trade Rumours/Proposals [MOD - Stay on Topic] 5

Gil Gunderson said:
Looks like Merilainen will be gone via expansion draft. Ullmark has a full NMC.
Click to expand...
depending on when the draft is we probably have to go 7-3-1
stutzle, tkachuk, pinto, grieg, zetterlund, cozens, batherson
sanderson-chabot-zub (yak should be exempt if its the same rules)
ullmark

merilainen and kleven are going to be available...

just great smh
 
The league doesn't give a crap how much the product is watered down if it means getting those sweet expansion fees.

Anything to boost league revenue they are in favour of. Soon there will be ads all over jerseys and equipment. Helmets are just the start.

Salary cap will keep going up and before long we'll be unable to spend right to the cap and compete with rich U.S teams.

TheNewEra said:
depending on when the draft is we probably have to go 7-3-1
stutzle, tkachuk, pinto, grieg, zetterlund, cozens, batherson
sanderson-chabot-zub (yak should be exempt if its the same rules)
ullmark

merilainen and kleven are going to be available...

just great smh
Click to expand...

Considering age and contract status, we'd likely protect Kleven over Zub or Chabot.

But Merilainen could be a goner if he continues his strong play.
 
I wonder if any team has tried to add language to a player's NMC to say it doesn't apply to a transfer by way of expansion draft. Basically, a modified no-move, where it only applies to waivers, minors and trades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy
Senator Stanley said:
I wonder if any team has tried to add language to a player's NMC to say it doesn't apply to a transfer by way of expansion draft. Basically, a modified no-move, where it only applies to waivers, minors and trades.
Click to expand...
There was talk about some NMC not having language that prevented a claim from the expansion draft last time around, Erik Johnson I think was one of them

Edit, that said I think the more likely scenario is player agents ensuring the NMC is air tight
 
Hale The Villain said:
The league doesn't give a crap how much the product is watered down if it means getting those sweet expansion fees.

Anything to boost league revenue they are in favour of. Soon there will be ads all over jerseys and equipment. Helmets are just the start.

Salary cap will keep going up and before long we'll be unable to spend right to the cap and compete with rich U.S teams.



Considering age and contract status, we'd likely protect Kleven over Zub or Chabot.

But Merilainen could be a goner if he continues his strong play.
Click to expand...
Depends on when the expansion draft is because both Chabot and zub have protection clauses
 
Micklebot said:
There was talk about some NMC not having language that prevented a claim from the expansion draft last time around, Erik Johnson I think was one of them

Edit, that said I think the more likely scenario is player agents ensuring the NMC is air tight
Click to expand...

It was Bobby Ryan whose NMC had this language during the Vegas draft. He was left exposed, but wasn't at risk of being taken, unless the Senators made a side deal.

There may have been another player with this same language in their clause, but I don't remember hearing about it for any other player.
 
If the expansion team is in Houston, it wouldn't shock me if Ullmark would be willing to waive to keep the tandem together. All we would have to do is tell him that if we lose Merilainen, he might have to play more than 35 games, and he would rush to phone his agent.

His NMC would travel with him, so they wouldn't be able to flip him. They could only select him if they wanted to make him their Marc-Andre Fleury. There is also no guarantee he is selected. If it happens in the 2026 offseason, he will have 3 year remaining at 8.25M, and so far this season he has been up and down, partly due to injuries.

It is too early to say which D we would expose. There would be a lot of different factors, like how Kleven develops, how Chabot is playing, and whether Zub is expected to re-sign or if they want to cut bait due to how injury prone he seems to be. If expansion takes place the 2026 offseason, Yak will be exempt. Jensen will be a 37 year old UFA.

On forward, if there are rumblings about expansion, maybe that pushes a 1 year contract for Giroux instead of 2. A 2 year deal doesn't help anybody because either Giroux gets a NMC and it eats up a protection spot, or he doesn't get one and he risks getting selected if he is exposed. Even if that risk isn't high, it's still there. If Giroux doesn't need to be protected, we can be pretty comfortable with 7 protection spots at forward.

Ullmark (NMC - Protected)
Merilainen (Exposed)
*Unless Ullmark waives to keep the tandem together/possibly move to a no tax state.

Sanderson (Protected)
One of Chabot, Zub, or Kleven exposed.
Jensen UFA
Mantinpalo, whatever.
Yak, exempt.

Brady, Greig, Pinto, Stutzle, Batherson, Zetterlund, and Cozens protected.
Perron+Giroux UFAs
Amadio exposed.

In an optimal scenario, we'd have something like an injury prone Zub with 1 year left, Amadio with 1 year left, or Ullmark with a NMC and a large contract. Worst case is probably that we lose Merilainen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bicboi64
frightenedinmatenum2 said:
If the expansion team is in Houston, it wouldn't shock me if Ullmark would be willing to waive to keep the tandem together. All we would have to do is tell him that if we lose Merilainen, he might have to play more than 35 games, and he would rush to phone his agent.

His NMC would travel with him, so they wouldn't be able to flip him. They could only select him if they wanted to make him their Marc-Andre Fleury. There is also no guarantee he is selected. If it happens in the 2026 offseason, he will have 3 year remaining at 8.25M, and so far this season he has been up and down, partly due to injuries.

It is too early to say which D we would expose. There would be a lot of different factors, like how Kleven develops, how Chabot is playing, and whether Zub is expected to re-sign or if they want to cut bait due to how injury prone he seems to be. If expansion takes place the 2026 offseason, Yak will be exempt. Jensen will be a 37 year old UFA.

On forward, if there are rumblings about expansion, maybe that pushes a 1 year contract for Giroux instead of 2. A 2 year deal doesn't help anybody because either Giroux gets a NMC and it eats up a protection spot, or he doesn't get one and he risks getting selected if he is exposed. Even if that risk isn't high, it's still there. If Giroux doesn't need to be protected, we can be pretty comfortable with 7 protection spots at forward.

Ullmark (NMC - Protected)
Merilainen (Exposed)
*Unless Ullmark waives to keep the tandem together/possibly move to a no tax state.

Sanderson (Protected)
One of Chabot, Zub, or Kleven exposed.
Jensen UFA
Mantinpalo, whatever.
Yak, exempt.

Brady, Greig, Pinto, Stutzle, Batherson, Zetterlund, and Cozens protected.
Perron+Giroux UFAs
Amadio exposed.

In an optimal scenario, we'd have something like an injury prone Zub with 1 year left, Amadio with 1 year left, or Ullmark with a NMC and a large contract. Worst case is probably that we lose Merilainen.
Click to expand...
If Ullman is such a team player, he should waive his NMC so we can protect Merilainen, and most likely with his contract he won't be picked up anyway. So we get to keep both.
 
TheNewEra said:
depending on when the draft is we probably have to go 7-3-1
stutzle, tkachuk, pinto, grieg, zetterlund, cozens, batherson
sanderson-chabot-zub (yak should be exempt if its the same rules)
ullmark

merilainen and kleven are going to be available...

just great smh
Click to expand...
I think this owner will trade players rather than lose them for nothing. We could trade Zub or Merilainen in a package to a team that can protect them, in exchange for a better F that team would lose. Then we just expose Zetterlund instead.

However, I suspect one of Chabot or Zub won't be here in 2 years either way.
 
DrEasy said:
If Ullman is such a team player, he should waive his NMC so we can protect Merilainen, and most likely with his contract he won't be picked up anyway. So we get to keep both.
Click to expand...

You can't really play the "you most likely won't get picked up" game with a player, because ultimately it's not Ullmark's problem and he isn't going to risk having to move if he doesn't want to. Similar to what happened with Phaneuf refusing to waive.

With that said, if the expansion is Houston, it might be a can't lose situation for Ullmark. Most players would view Houston as an upgrade to Ottawa in terms of amenities and the tax implications. So either, he gets selected and goes to a no-tax state - or he doesn't get selected and he keeps his tandem together, which lessens the workload for him. He clearly seems to be a goalie who prefers to have a solid 1B or #2 behind him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy
ottawagm said:
I think this owner will trade players rather than lose them for nothing. We could trade Zub or Merilainen in a package to a team that can protect them, in exchange for a better F that team would lose. Then we just expose Zetterlund instead.

However, I suspect one of Chabot or Zub won't be here in 2 years either way.
Click to expand...

The way it worked out with Seattle was that there was very little hedging against the draft with trades between different teams or trades directly with Seattle for draft conditions. First, teams saw how badly it worked out for teams that dealt with Vegas, and knowing they had to lose one player regardless decided to simply lose the player. The other thing is that Seattle refused to lower their prices to make deals down to what the actual market value was at the time. They wanted prices like what Vegas got, but nobody bit.

Toronto did make a smart trade where they acquired Jared McCann for a B prospect and a 6th in order to protect Kerfoot. Seattle was apparently asking for a much higher price for conditions, and they got outsmarted by Dubas because Dubas paid less and was guaranteed to keep one of McCann or Kerfoot.

For hedging against the draft to work, a team actually needs to have their own open protection spot to use, and then they have to want your player badly enough to pay you more than the value of your second best protected player. As in, if we're going to lose Merilainen and a team offers us a 2nd for him, that doesn't make sense for us if we value our next best exposed player at a 2nd or higher. We might as well just leave it and only lose one.

In general, every team who is remotely decent and isn't in the first few years of a rebuild is probably losing a good player to expansion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
adding hide avatars option

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom