Speculation: Who is the worst shape going into the expansion draft?

[Halla]

heres to hoping most of the guys being asked to waive end up declining. teams should have to live with the NMC they handed out and
no vet is gonna wanna play on an expansion team for the last few years of his career

 

[MacDonald4MVP]

Wild?

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Pominville, however, should get the 'waive or be bought out' option. Chances should be pretty good that Vegas isn't going to take a 33/34 year old RW that makes $5.6M and scores 15 goals.

Yes, lots of talk about teams asking players with NMC/NTC to waive. But, even if they did, why would this be an attractive option for LV? If the player in question was under-performing + had a bad contract, why would LV want that player?

It seems odd but I guess I could be missing something.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

As a Jackets fan, I would be pissed if they lost Anderson.

For a promising 1st year player, couldn't a team limit the amount of games he gets this year, thus making that player not eligible for the draft?

 

[Curufinwe]

heres to hoping most of the guys being asked to waive end up declining. teams should have to live with the NMC they handed out and
no vet is gonna wanna play on an expansion team for the last few years of his career

This expansion team should be a lot better than some of the previous ones, though.

 

[airbus220]

Or just use the Buffuglien loophole and temporarily list certain players as Forwards or Defensemen as needed. There's nothing that says a player has to be a certain position. Centers and wingers swap all the time, so why not forward and defense?

To me this is very easy. If you're not sure whether a player is a F or D then surely he's a skater. So those teams who use a player at both positions have only one choice, to protect 8 skater and 1 goalie.

If I were Vegas I would watch carefully how teams use their players, forcing more teams into the 8 skater mode.

 

[OCPenguin]

Pittsburgh. Got to think either Fleury or Murray will have to be exposed in the expansion draft.

UMMM ... Pittsburgh doesn't sign Murray to the extension it did to lose him in the expansion draft. Pretty sure about that. Murray won't be exposed. Why is it so hard to figure that out?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Yes, lots of talk about teams asking players with NMC/NTC to waive. But, even if they did, why would this be an attractive option for LV? If the player in question was under-performing + had a bad contract, why would LV want that player?

It seems odd but I guess I could be missing something.

He wouldn't waive with the expectation of being chosen. He'd waive to open up another protection spot under the assumption that Vegas would choose a different unprotected player.

 

[airbus220]

Sure Korpisalo could be grabbed, but so can Murray, Vail or Bishop in TB, Subban in Boston, Saros or Rinne in Nash, Varlamov from Colorado, etc

Murray won't be exposed, PIT would buyout Fleury.

Vegas won't be interested in goalies with high salaries in the draft because we are only allowed to draft an avg cap hit of 2.4M. Not interested in Varlamov, Rinne and Bishop in the draft. Vegas could sign Bishop in July if they want to.

Subban isn't proven to play NHL, Saros is much more tempting, but Korpisalo is very interesting, we have to take 3 goalies.

Most likely we will draft a goalie when other exposed F and D have less quality than on other teams, no matter how good the goalie is, we have to draft 3. Vegas could get good enough goalies in July.

 

[airbus220]

For a promising 1st year player, couldn't a team limit the amount of games he gets this year, thus making that player not eligible for the draft?

Limiting the games played doesn't make a player exempt. Teams have to expose players with 40/70 games played.

 

[Curufinwe]

I used the crowd sourced protections on the CF tool, and ended up with 14 forwards, 13 dmen, and 3 goalies. The quality of dmen that will be available seems much higher than the forwards.

https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft

 

[nmbr_24]

Simple solutions aren't always easy. To me the solution to a team's problem is simple: If a team doesn't want to lose certain players then they pay up.

The hard work will come when Vegas names their price and the negotiating proceeds.

I can't see why Vegas wouldn't want to run in to the next 3-4 drafts with up to 30 extra picks.

Las Vegas is going to want to have some players that fans can cheer for. I am not sure I can see them not picking one of the good players that will be available just for a draft pick. They are going to have their own picks and they will probably be pretty good too.

Maybe they would pick a lesser player if they get something like a prospect that is close to NHL ready and looks like he will be an impact player, but even then, I doubt they do that with a bunch of teams. At the point of the expansion draft any player left unprotected is someone they could take and in order for them not to take that player they are going to have to give up equal value or maybe even more if the team really wants that player.

It's not simply or easy.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Yes, lots of talk about teams asking players with NMC/NTC to waive. But, even if they did, why would this be an attractive option for LV? If the player in question was under-performing + had a bad contract, why would LV want that player?

It seems odd but I guess I could be missing something.

He wouldn't waive with the expectation of being chosen. He'd waive to open up another protection spot under the assumption that Vegas would choose a different unprotected player.

Who is "he"? The player?

If its the player, and said player already has a NMC/NTC, then he is protected anyhow, no?

If "he" is the GM, and the player in question has a NMC/NTC, is under-performing plus has a bad contract, the GM would want to move that player. The GM would want this obviously. But, unless the player wants out, I can't see the player's motivation to do this.

I'm still not getting it, and/or maybe I'm still missing something.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Anaheim just needs to move one Dman for a forward and they can protect their entire core.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

For a promising 1st year player, couldn't a team limit the amount of games he gets this year, thus making that player not eligible for the draft?

Limiting the games played doesn't make a player exempt. Teams have to expose players with 40/70 games played.

Correct. So, a 1st year rookie with less than 40 games played would not be exposed. Maybe the word "exempt" is the exact word to use, but the net impact is the same.

 

[caliamad]

Anaheim just needs to move one Dman for a forward and they can protect their entire core.

I wouldn't use the word "just", not many people want to trade for a defense men they'd have to expose in the expansion draft unless its a "great" deal or their defense is atrocious.

Also Bieksa waiving/buy out isn't an automatic and painful since he is on a 35+ deal.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Who is "he"? The player?

If its the player, and said player already has a NMC/NTC, then he is protected anyhow, no?

If "he" is the GM, and the player in question has a NMC/NTC, is under-performing plus has a bad contract, the GM would want to move that player. The GM would want this obviously. But, unless the player wants out, I can't see the player's motivation to do this.

I'm still not getting it, and/or maybe I'm still missing something.

He is the player (which in the Wild's case is Jason Pominville being asked to waive). He's protected by the NMC if he doesn't waive it. If he waives it, he can be exposed. He could theoretically waive it to open up another protection spot (the one vacated by his NMC) so the Wild can keep another good player.

And he MIGHT waive it, if Fletcher can convince him Vegas won't pick him/Wild won't buy him out.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Anaheim just needs to move one Dman for a forward and they can protect their entire core.

Seeing that the Ducks are scouting Grand Rapids, Sounds like Murray really wants Mantha something around Mantha for Fowler around the draft maybe. All the more reason why Holland needs to bring up Mantha and possibly show case him.

 

[Mr Misty]

Correct. So, a 1st year rookie with less than 40 games played would not be exposed. Maybe the word "exempt" is the exact word to use, but the net impact is the same.

To be clear, the number of games doesn't matter in terms of who is eligible to be drafted, what matters is the number of pro seasons. A rookie drafted in 2016 is not eligible but a player in his first NHL season who was under NHL contract but playing in Europe for the previous 2 seasons is eligible.

The 40/70 part is about forcing a team to expose an experienced player, even in the case where the team could protect all its important not-exempt players.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

He is the player (which in the Wild's case is Jason Pominville being asked to waive). He's protected by the NMC if he doesn't waive it. If he waives it, he can be exposed. He could theoretically waive it to open up another protection spot (the one vacated by his NMC) so the Wild can keep another good player.

And he MIGHT waive it, if Fletcher can convince him Vegas won't pick him/Wild won't buy him out.

I think theoretically is the operative word here. I don't know why Pominville (or another player in a similar situation) would waive. He signed a contract with a team that he expected to honor the contract.

I see motivation for the team. That part is clear.

I struggle to see motivation for the player. The player would really want out or have some attraction to Las Vegas for this to happen you'd think.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

I wouldn't use the word "just", not many people want to trade for a defense men they'd have to expose in the expansion draft unless its a "great" deal or their defense is atrocious.

Also Bieksa waiving/buy out isn't an automatic and painful since he is on a 35+ deal.

I consider Bieksa waiving or being bought out to be a foregone conclusion, there's no way they let him eat up a protection slot with what we have to lose.

If we are talking about moving a guy like Vatanen or Fowler then your other point isn't valid as teams would obviously be acquiring them to be one of their three protected D.

Seeing that the Ducks are scouting Grand Rapids, Sounds like Murray really wants Mantha something around Mantha for Fowler around the draft maybe. All the more reason why Holland needs to bring up Mantha and possibly show case him.

Vatanen is the guy we should be looking to move, his role could be immediately replaced internally and the same can't be said of the other 3 we'd be protecting (Lindholm/Fowler/Manson).

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Who is "he"? The player?

If its the player, and said player already has a NMC/NTC, then he is protected anyhow, no?

If "he" is the GM, and the player in question has a NMC/NTC, is under-performing plus has a bad contract, the GM would want to move that player. The GM would want this obviously. But, unless the player wants out, I can't see the player's motivation to do this.

I'm still not getting it, and/or maybe I'm still missing something.

"He" is Pominville.

Since he has an NMC, we would be forced to protect him. If the GM gave him (Pominville) the option of waiving the clause, knowing pretty close to 100% that Vegas wouldn't select him, in order to allow us to protect another talented player, then Pominville would have to weigh that decision vs. being bought out and forced to move to another team.

 

[ThatGuy22]

I think theoretically is the operative word here. I don't know why Pominville (or another player in a similar situation) would waive. He signed a contract with a team that he expected to honor the contract.

I see motivation for the team. That part is clear.

I struggle to see motivation for the player. The player would really want out or have some attraction to Las Vegas for this to happen you'd think.

The motivation would be to keep that contract. There is a very real possibility the Wild buyout Pominville to open up the protection spot. Waiving allows him to keep his contract, and likely remain with the Wild. It's certainly not a given, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I think theoretically is the operative word here. I don't know why Pominville (or another player in a similar situation) would waive. He signed a contract with a team that he expected to honor the contract.

I see motivation for the team. That part is clear.

I struggle to see motivation for the player. The player would really want out or have some attraction to Las Vegas for this to happen you'd think.

He would waive if the other option is being bought out and forced to relocate to another team, unless that's what he wants.

Option #1: waive the clause and take the chance that Vegas selects you (very low IMO). If not selected, remain on the team for the duration of the contract.

Option #2: be bought out; get paid and gain the ability to sign another contract somewhere else, but be forced to relocate. Not an attractive option if he likes it here.

No option #3.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Correct. So, a 1st year rookie with less than 40 games played would not be exposed. Maybe the word "exempt" is the exact word to use, but the net impact is the same.

To be clear, the number of games doesn't matter in terms of who is eligible to be drafted, what matters is the number of pro seasons. A rookie drafted in 2016 is not eligible but a player in his first NHL season who was under NHL contract but playing in Europe for the previous 2 seasons is eligible.

The 40/70 part is about forcing a team to expose an experienced player, even in the case where the team could protect all its important not-exempt players.

Still not seeing the distinction. Let's use an example & keep Europe out which is a distraction (causes confusion). The player in question was drafted in (summer of) 2015. The 2016 (17) season is the players 1st season. Let's assume that player plays less than 40 games.

IF I understand the rules correctly, for the example stated above, this player would not be eligible because he hasn't played 40 games.

Is this correct?