I do think, relating to our expansion list, Myers -- who of course is the attention grabbing player who may be exposed -- gets overvalued. Not to say we overvalue his potential, but he may only have 1-2 years of NHL experience at that point, with various ups and downs. He might not get a shred of PP time and will have to do his damage in 5v5 minutes. We might be talking 20-25 points here as a green NHL, undrafted d-man. I don't think a reasonable trade with Seattle is that outlandish in possibility or cost. Each d-man sinking the cost of the other benefits us here.
And the idea of losing Voracek instead of a late 1st+NAK or something just seems questionable to me, barring the dramatic. Those 4 years after expansion could be our window, and we're giving away a soon to be 31 year old high end winger with term -- who makes $1.25 mil more than Evander Kane? I hate to say it, but a player like Jake is more important and irreplaceable to our contending than someone who ideally is our 4th most important d-man. But I think we can have our cake and eat it too. Based on the last expansion draft and seemingly all of NHL general managing, it isn't dog-eat-dog -- it's high society politeness. And if we protect 7 forwards, we have room to add and protect another high quality forward in lieu of Vorobyev, etc.
Another thing worth mention: we likely have to expose a d-man with 40/70 games. Does make me wonder if Hagg gets a 3 year contract this summer.
I also imagine that with this expansion, we'll see more trades between teams to set up a protected list and fewer with Seattle. The Jets moved down 13 spots in last year's draft and gave up an additional third round pick to protect Enstrom. The Wild gave up Alex Tuch and a third to protect Dumba. The Islanders gave up a first, a second, and some plugs to protect their core. The Penguins gave up a second to ensure they also gave up Fleury. The Lightning gave up a second and a fourth to protect Koekkoek and Dotchkin. The Ducks gave up Theodore to protect Manson and Vatanen.
It really does depend though, doesn't it? We know that some teams made questionable trades to protect questionable players. I look at the Ducks as being in the EXACT same situation we could be in, and I look at them as a team that did well all things considered -- and they got Vegas to take Stoner, who was worthless.
They had Fowler, Manson, Lindholm, Vatanen all wanting to be protected for obvious reasons; and they had Theodore and Montour in the wings as similar offensive d-men needing PP time in limited minutes. And it wasn't even a 1-for-1 with the Flyers; the Ducks HAD to protect Bieksa and leave 2 highly valued d-men available, not 1.
They decided that Theodore was more expendable than Vatanen -- who later became Henrique+ -- and Manson, based on performance and/or value. I don't think they were wrong. And Montour matched Theodore's rookie year for the Ducks and might be better; that was a case of opportunity cost. I don't think they're a team who came out any worse than when they went in.