Speculation: Players that will be moved cheap due to the exspansion draft.

[EP to Kuzmenko]

There could be a situation where a team trades a good player for a good prospect as they would then be able to protect all the players they care to, and not lose a good player for nothing. Example, if Dorsett or Sbisa were taken from the Canucks, we would not care one bit.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I get the OP's point and think there will be some moves. Fleury and Murray being the obvious example.

There have to be other scenarios out there where a team would rather trade a guy and get something decent then lose him for free.

The Flyers example might be Scott Laughton. Sure the Flyers will still have a other forward they can lose but they don't have much value. I'd rather they trade Laughton and get a pick or something AND lose say Read. Then just lose Laughton and still have Read.

Does it make sense to move Fluery at a huge discount (the basic premise of this thread), and then to lose a d-man like Pouilot instead? I don't think so.

 

[klamla]

I'm excited to see how things unfold for Vegas. It certainly adds a huge element of interest as to what teams to do best position themselves, and the strategy Vegas takes in building a team.

I was too young to appreciate the business and transactional side in the early 90s, and even when Atlanta and Nashville joined in the late 90s and CBJ and Minnesota after that.

The next few years will be extremely interesting and exciting for hockey.

 

[BatVader]

Habs are going to need a goalie or need to re-sign one.
They have Price under contract past this season and Montoya and Condon who are both UFA after this season.
According to the Expansion Draft requirements, "One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent (RFA) at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18", this means Price could be exposed.

 

[tjs*]

Yes, but perhaps you are missing something? The player traded might be significantly better than the player they eventually lose. Ben Bishop for example. Tampa does not need to expose another goalie. They will have other players exposed that won't be that big of a loss. It would be foolish to not trade Bishop and lose him for nothing insteas of some marginal player.

Bishop is a UFA and will not require protection in the draft, not to mention we can't afford to resign him anyway due to the cap. Your premise is therefore entirely invalid.

 

[Djp]

The average 4D is better than the average best 3rd liner, and defensemen are worth much more than forwards in general.

Your example is extremely poorly explained and I can't make heads or tails of it. What team would trade for Fowler if he wouldn't be in their top 3? If you have 3 better defensemen than him you don't need to pay the price for him. All teams are going to lose a player, and most will lose a good player.

No I didn't say thT.

The issue is factoring in fowler as in their top 3 but who is would be #4 that they could lose. If they opt to protect 8 skaters then they expose 3 more forwards..

Which is why I reference 5-6-7 forwards vs 4 Dman.

A team may say in a trade offer of trading 2 of 5-6-7 forwards for Fowler which means the new team could opt to go 8 skaters and 1 goalie if they feel their depth can replace the other of the 5-6-7 that would be exposed.

For example buffalo likely protects...

D--Ristolainen, Bogosian,McCabe, and wait to resign kulikov till after the draft.
F--ROR, Okposo, Kane, Ennis, Larsson, Girgensons, and Foligno

If they acquire fowler for Ennis and Girgensons then they accept exposing Foligno because they have exempted players who could replace him. McCabe is more valuable than Foligno given he is 3 years younger and on a lower c9ntract and not 1 yr away from ufa.

This will affect fowler value because anaheim won't get exempted players for fowler. They would instead just talk to vegas and offer them something lesser to vegas to draft one of the available dmen that were exposed.

 

[Flukeshot]

Does it make sense to move Fluery at a huge discount (the basic premise of this thread), and then to lose a d-man like Pouilot instead? I don't think so.

Depends on what deal would be out there for Fleury or Murray. The Pens could always trade a D too.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Doubt it, the only real situation where it makes any sense is when there's a drastica drop off in value from your 1st exposed player to your 2nd exposed player, you trade the first exposed player that you were going to lose anyway for value and then lose the 2nd player who isn't all that good anyway. And even then there's a large enough market if you're shopping say a 4th defenseman you'll get enough value out of them from teams looking for that.

For example putting random number values on players suppose you had to expose players of values 50, 15, 14, 14, 13, 11, 10, 10, etc etc. Las Vegas would take the 50 value guy. Instead you trade the 50 value guy for exempt players prospects, or picks adding up to say a 45 value and lsoe the 15 guy instead. Instead of lose 50 units of value you lose 5 in the trade(50 to 45) and then 15 in expansion for a total loss of 20 instead of losing 50.

The problem is that situation won't be overly common. I think you'll see far more trades post expansion with Vegas flipping guys to other teams who tried to acquire them ahead of time but didn't have the assets said team wanted but Vegas are fine with taking.

 

[Mr Misty]

No I didn't say thT.

The issue is factoring in fowler as in their top 3 but who is would be #4 that they could lose. If they opt to protect 8 skaters then they expose 3 more forwards..

Which is why I reference 5-6-7 forwards vs 4 Dman.

A team may say in a trade offer of trading 2 of 5-6-7 forwards for Fowler which means the new team could opt to go 8 skaters and 1 goalie if they feel their depth can replace the other of the 5-6-7 that would be exposed.

For example buffalo likely protects...

D--Ristolainen, Bogosian,McCabe, and wait to resign kulikov till after the draft.
F--ROR, Okposo, Kane, Ennis, Larsson, Girgensons, and Foligno

If they acquire fowler for Ennis and Girgensons then they accept exposing Foligno because they have exempted players who could replace him. McCabe is more valuable than Foligno given he is 3 years younger and on a lower c9ntract and not 1 yr away from ufa.

This will affect fowler value because anaheim won't get exempted players for fowler. They would instead just talk to vegas and offer them something lesser to vegas to draft one of the available dmen that were exposed.

You are obviously way too deep into whatever this thing is for anyone else to follow you. If the premise of this thread is "which players will everyone be surprised were traded for peanuts because of expansion fears," not one bit of what you said is relevant. Fowler won't be moved for peanuts because of expansion, if he was Anaheim would still lose a player and then have peanuts instead of Fowler.

Depends on what deal would be out there for Fleury or Murray. The Pens could always trade a D too.

Only one goalie can be protected. Fleurry and Murray represent the best options in net for Las Vegas, they'd be much more attractive than a defenseman.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Not if they need to move a player in order to protect a more important player

I must admit I'm .

Just don't protect the player you want to move.

It's not rocket science.

And don't write the magic expression "NMC".

If that player has a NMC, you can't... move him (unless he agrees).

 

[Lunatik]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

It could be who they protect. Keep in mind that there is the option of 8 skaters or 3 defensemen/7 forwards. A team may have 4 defensemen they feel they need to protect, but as a result they will have to leave 3 forwards exposed. This is where a team would potentially trade a defenseman at a reduced cost. Another example is a goaltender if a team has 2 that they would like to protect.

 

[Some Other Flame]

If Fleury doesn't agree to waive his NMC for the purposes of the expansion draft, the Penguins have no choice but to protect him. So, if they want to keep Murray, the Penguins would gladly give up Fleury for pennies on the dollar. The only other option is a buyout which is likely less palatable.

Right now the options for the Penguins are either lose Murray because they were forced to protect Fleury or lose Pouliot while trading Fleury cheaply or buying him out. Pretty easy decision if Murray continues to impress.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

I must admit I'm .

Just don't protect the player you want to move.

It's not rocket science.

And don't write the magic expression "NMC".

If that player has a NMC, you can't... move him (unless he agrees).

Most players can be talked into waiving their NMC

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Most players can be talked into waiving their NMC

Is that a bit of "pensée magique" (magical thinking) as we say in French...

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Is that a bit of "pensée magique" (magical thinking) as we say in French...

Nope players waive their NMC all the time. It's not there to prevent a move it's there to prevent a move to a team like say, The Jackets or Arizona or Vancouver teams that are absolute garbage

 

[buttman*]

Bishop is a UFA, they are going to lose him for nothing.

If we pretend you didn't make a horrific mistake right off the bat, you are describing a situation that doesn't actually exist. For what you say to make sense, there must be an acute dropoff at a very specific place in the team's depth chart. We know that as we look at progressively worse players, the difference in ability shrinks to the point of interchangability. For a trade to be made, there must be another team with cap space, budget room, the desire to sacrifice the future for the present, and assets to move. There might be one team in that position.



Say your team has Player A and Player B, the most desirable and 2nd most desirable candidates on your roster from a Las Vegas perspective. You are going to lose one, so you have a choice

Player B
OR
Magic Beans you got from trading Player A

No GM is going to sacrifice the present success Player B represents today for the magic beans.

Before you say, "but what if Player C is the return instead of magic beans" consider this: If Player C > Player B, Player C goes to Vegas and you gain nothing by trading Player A. And in the event that Player C < Player B, you are worse off by trading Player A.

And no team is going to be trading good expansion exempt assets for an 8th forward or 4th defenseman, even if there wasn't an expansion draft those cheap contributors wouldn't be on the trade market except for big fish.

SO nobody has traded a pending UFA for anything significant? Happens every year. Teams give up top picks and prospects.

That said there are plenty of other examples other than Bishop that aren't UFA's.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

Is that a bit of "pensée magique" (magical thinking) as we say in French...

Depends on the player

A player like Clarkson will most certainly waive his NMC. No point in screwing over his team like that when there is 0% chance he gets taken.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

Doubt it, the only real situation where it makes any sense is when there's a drastica drop off in value from your 1st exposed player to your 2nd exposed player, you trade the first exposed player that you were going to lose anyway for value and then lose the 2nd player who isn't all that good anyway. And even then there's a large enough market if you're shopping say a 4th defenseman you'll get enough value out of them from teams looking for that.

For example putting random number values on players suppose you had to expose players of values 50, 15, 14, 14, 13, 11, 10, 10, etc etc. Las Vegas would take the 50 value guy. Instead you trade the 50 value guy for exempt players prospects, or picks adding up to say a 45 value and lsoe the 15 guy instead. Instead of lose 50 units of value you lose 5 in the trade(50 to 45) and then 15 in expansion for a total loss of 20 instead of losing 50.

The problem is that situation won't be overly common. I think you'll see far more trades post expansion with Vegas flipping guys to other teams who tried to acquire them ahead of time but didn't have the assets said team wanted but Vegas are fine with taking.

This.

The only likely scenario where this should actually occur is in Pittsburgh with Fleury.

 

[Tripod]

The average 4D is better than the average best 3rd liner, and defensemen are worth much more than forwards in general.

Your example is extremely poorly explained and I can't make heads or tails of it. What team would trade for Fowler if he wouldn't be in their top 3? If you have 3 better defensemen than him you don't need to pay the price for him. All teams are going to lose a player, and most will lose a good player.

Just since we are using examples....Philly and Anaheim.

Anaheim doesn't want to lose Fowler for nothing.
Philly currently protecting Gudas and Ghost....then Hagg is the next in line.
So Philly could do a deal with Anaheim to add Fowler cheaper than he normally might be worth since Anaheim could lose him for nothing. And Philly losing Hagg is no big deal.
Then Anaheim exposes other guys they are fine with losing for nothing.

In the scenario we are talking about, it's only a big deal if there is a big drop off between the guy you might lose, and the next best guy. If there is little difference, then who cares.

At forward, Philly will be exposing 2 of Read, Weise, Laughton and Cousins. It really doesn't matter much....unlike Fowler for example.

 

[Leafs87]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

Picks? Players that don't need protection?

 

[ichabod13]

Most players can be talked into waiving their NMC

can you name a few?

 

[ichabod13]

Nope players waive their NMC all the time. It's not there to prevent a move it's there to prevent a move to a team like say, The Jackets or Arizona or Vancouver teams that are absolute garbage

you forgot to mention toronto.

 

[Riptide]

This makes no sense. Absolutely none. Just protect the more important player.

If you mean to say there's an NMC, then your premise is flawed. If you have an NMC player who isn't in your top 3 defensemen or 7 forwards, by definition that player is in fact not "solid" and nobody is going to be surprised if they get traded for peanuts. You are imagining there are a bunch of teams with both cap space and empty protection slots when in fact there are almost none.

This very offseason has seen teams pay through the nose to be rid of contracts like Bickell and Boland. There's every reason to think the cost of moving a Callahan or Girardi that the new team would be forced to protect would exceed the expansion draft benefit of doing so.

What about teams who protect 4D? Those teams are in real danger of losing a pretty decent forward. And in that case, I could see them looking to move the 5th best one for other assets. Either some depth to help offset what they will lose or just some futures. Same goes for teams with 4 good D of which they only want to protect 3 of them. Move the 4th for some decent pieces, and then move forward. Sure you'll still lose someone, but would you rather lose a quality player for nothing, or a slightly lesser player and still have something to show for that player (aka move C.Wilson for a 2nd and a 3rd liner - said 3rd liner gets drafted in the draft - NSH still has the 2nd). Is it ideal? Absolutely not. But that's still better than just losing a good player.

Teams will absolutely try to mitigate their loses. Some will be able to due to the nature of how their team is constructed and who they need to protect. Others will not be able to. But teams would be absolutely foolish not to at least attempt to ensure that the player they're going to lose is the least valuable one possible or that they at least have a replacement for who they may lose.

 

[MikeyMike01]

If a team moves a player for cheap, they still lose another player. It would be the height of foolishness for a team to subtract 2 players instead of just one.

Say you have 9 A guys, but you can only protect 8. Perhaps a team would prefer to trade an A guy for a solid return, and lose a B guy for free instead.

Not terribly likely, but it's a possiblity.

 

[gwh]

Nope players waive their NMC all the time. It's not there to prevent a move it's there to prevent a move to a team like say, The Jackets or Arizona or Vancouver teams that are absolute garbage

Look at the leafs fan talking about other teams:

Jackets = Better than Leafs

Arizona = Better than Leafs

Vancouver = Better than Leafs

Absolute garbage is the last team in the league...