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

[Mr Misty]

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?

No, he doesn't need to be protected because he hasn't played in 3 pro seasons. A pro season has a specific definition in the CBA, but number of games played is not a consideration in determining who needs to be protected, with the exception of 10 NHL games being considered a pro season even if the player gets sent back to junior.

The purpose of the 40/70 rule is different. If a team was structured favorably, it would be possible to protect all its experienced players if enough contracts expire in 2017. The Sharks are a good example with Thornton, Marleau, and Burns all being UFAs in the summer; if they protect their 10 and make handshake deals with those 3 to re-sign on July 1, Vegas is left with scraps. To make it more fair since the Sharks didn't choose this and benefit by accident while other teams are hurt, some players of worth to Vegas must be left exposed. Games played over the past 2 seasons is a good way to determine the difference between actual contributors and somebody like Oleksiak who has been on the Stars roster for years but mostly sits in the press box.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

"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.

OK clearer now. Having said that, whether a player will worry about getting bought out depends on at least a couple of things:

1. How much money is the player entitled to when he is bought out.
   
2. The player's confidence in his abilities and of getting signed later by a different team

If the player is still a decent player and not too old and injury ridden, he might want to get bought out.

I don't know how a player would convince himself that he absolutely knows what the Las Vegas team would do.

Avoiding the use of "he" and other pronouns is also quite useful in situations like this.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

No, he doesn't need to be protected because he hasn't played in 3 pro seasons. A pro season has a specific definition in the CBA, but number of games played is not a consideration in determining who needs to be protected, with the exception of 10 NHL games being considered a pro season even if the player gets sent back to junior.

The purpose of the 40/70 rule is different. If a team was structured favorably, it would be possible to protect all its experienced players if enough contracts expire in 2017. The Sharks are a good example with Thornton, Marleau, and Burns all being UFAs in the summer; if they protect their 10 and make handshake deals with those 3 to re-sign on July 1, Vegas is left with scraps. To make it more fair since the Sharks didn't choose this and benefit by accident while other teams are hurt, some players of worth to Vegas must be left exposed. Games played over the past 2 seasons is a good way to determine the difference between actual contributors and somebody like Oleksiak who has been on the Stars roster for years but mostly sits in the press box.

I didn't think there was a rule (exception) for players who are UFA in 2017. I thought eligibility was based on the teams roster in 2016 (and 2015).

IF I understand the 40/70 rule, its applicability and purpose is for 1st year (40 games) and 2nd year (70 games over the two years) players. There are players who may have played in some games over the course of their first and/or 2nd year, but because of their low amount of games played, they aren't for all intents and purposes deemed to be regular players.

I have not heard about the three pro seasons rule before.

 

[HookKing]

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.

Ah, someone that understands reality. The market for trading D before the draft will be abysmal.

Anyone know of a team that will likely keep 4 D? Also, will the protected lists be made public?

 

[Mr Misty]

I didn't think there was a rule (exception) for players who are UFA in 2017. I thought eligibility was based on the teams roster in 2016 (and 2015).

IF I understand the 40/70 rule, its applicability and purpose is for 1st year (40 games) and 2nd year (70 games over the two years) players. There are players who may have played in some games over the course of their first and/or 2nd year, but because of their low amount of games played aren't for all intents and purposes deemed to be regular players.

I have not heard about the three pro seasons rule before.

No no no no no no no no no no

It isn't a rule, but the situation for UFAs is that their rights expire on July 1st. If Vegas drafts Thornton and he isn't under contract in 2017-18 then he can become a free agent before ever playing for them and they wasted their pick.

For determining players that Vegas can pick, the only criteria that matters is pro seasons. Matthews will have one pro season by draft time, therefore he does not need to be protected. McDavid will have 2 pro seasons by draft time, therefore he will also not need to be protected. Ekblad will be in his 3rd pro season and is therefore fair game for Vegas if Florida chooses not to protect him.

The 40/70 rule ensures Vegas can choose a regular NHL forward or defenseman under contract for at least one season from each team.

 

[HookKing]

No no no no no no no no no no

It isn't a rule, but the situation for UFAs is that their rights expire on July 1st. If Vegas drafts Thornton and he isn't under contract in 2017-18 then he can become a free agent before ever playing for them and they wasted their pick.

For determining players that Vegas can pick, the only criteria that matters is pro seasons. Matthews will have one pro season by draft time, therefore he does not need to be protected. McDavid will have 2 pro seasons by draft time, therefore he will also not need to be protected. Ekblad will be in his 3rd pro season and is therefore fair game for Vegas if Florida chooses not to protect him.

The 40/70 rule ensures Vegas can choose a regular NHL forward or defenseman under contract for at least one season from each team.

Just to add some clarification -- pro season means seasons played in the AHL/NHL while under an NHL contract.

 

[Mr Misty]

Just to add some clarification -- pro season means seasons played in the AHL/NHL while under an NHL contract.

With respect, you left plenty out and the issue here is such a deep misunderstanding by the poster that this is much more likely to further confuse than clarify.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

No no no no no no no no no no

It isn't a rule, but the situation for UFAs is that their rights expire on July 1st. If Vegas drafts Thornton and he isn't under contract in 2017-18 then he can become a free agent before ever playing for them and they wasted their pick.

For determining players that Vegas can pick, the only criteria that matters is pro seasons. Matthews will have one pro season by draft time, therefore he does not need to be protected. McDavid will have 2 pro seasons by draft time, therefore he will also not need to be protected. Ekblad will be in his 3rd pro season and is therefore fair game for Vegas if Florida chooses not to protect him.

The 40/70 rule ensures Vegas can choose a regular NHL forward or defenseman under contract for at least one season from each team.

OK thanks. Yes, I do get the distinction and I got a little lazy here (read on).

However, just out of curiosity, do you know many NHL rookies (their 1st year is 2016-17) that play a regular shift that would play less than 40 games (unless they had a serious injury)?

Same question for a sophomore, do you know many NHL sophomores (2nd year is 2016-17, their 1st year was 2015-16) that play a regular shift that would play less than 70 games (unless they had a serious injury)?

Also, Las Vegas can negotiate with any UFA just like any team can. I approached that in an odd way to get you to admit that so that we could get to the real point (read on).

So, let's move on to the main, real subject and point in hand, or in other words, what I was really talking about. i.e., the erroneous "deep misunderstanding" LOL.

Scenario A. - A vet player over 26 years of age is going to get paid no matter what. If they still have some gas in the tanks and decent playing years ahead of them, then they will get paid 2/3rds of their salary spread out over twice as many years even if they don't waive their NTC/NMC and get bought out.

Scenario B. - However, if I'm a vet (over 26 years of age) and my performance is declining, assuming the player still wants to (enjoys) play, I'm not seeing a whole lot of incentive for them to move as moving is a hassle and a lot of work and prospects for landing on a new team would most likely not be good.

A team may really want to move a player in the Scenario A situation, and they could have some luck doing so, but only if the player is interested. And in Scenario B, the player is highly unlikely to waive his NTC/NMC.

So, in summary, the way its described here on the board is that the team will do this or that, and has control. It doesn't seem to be the case in either of these Scenarios.

 

[grewalwings]

Would someone mind sharing what Ottawa plans to do? Will they protect Methot or Ceci (since Phaneuf has a NMC)

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Would someone mind sharing what Ottawa plans to do? Will they protect Methot or Ceci (since Phaneuf has a NMC)

Senator fans around here have stated that they suspect that Methot won't be protected and will be the player most likely to get snagged off their roster by LV.

 

[Viqsi]

If screwed means having a top 3 dcore of Werenski, Jones, & Murray - sign me up!!

They'll definitely lose a solid player/prospect (Savard, Johnson etc.), but I doubt they lose a potential impact player.

Yep, pretty much this. We can protect our entire top-4 and still stick to a 7-3-1 format. We're actually in relatively really good shape.

Really, the whole "Columbus is screwed" thing is a persistent myth that has been going on because certain folks have been drooling over the chance to see yet another twist in the Clarkson train wreck saga. That LTIR announcement must have totally ruined their day.

* * *​

The people who think Columbus is screwed haven't been paying attention, they are probably in the best shape or in consideration for being in the best shape.

Jenner, Dubinsky, Foligno, Hartnell, Wennberg, Atkinson, Saad all protected, Murray, Savard, Jones all protected.

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

CBJ would probably lose one of Jack Johnson, Matt Calvert, Bill Karlsson, or a prospect like Bjorkstrand or Anderson or Milano, but Johnson and Bjorkstrand would be the only ones who really hurt.

Bjorkstrand and Milano are actually exempt from selection. The biggest question is Anderson, really - we may find ourselves wanting to protect him instead and so might end up dealing a forward as a result.

Losing one of Calvert or Karlsson would be rough, but we've got guys in line to take their places and Vegas can only pick one guy. If Anderson really takes off this year and makes himself visible, though, then we find ourselves in a bit of a quandary that may well end up getting resolved with exposing Atkinson, or some other similar move.

* * *​

Anyone know of a team that will likely keep 4 D?

Nashville. Minnesota's also a candidate, but Nashville is a virtual certainty.

Also, will the protected lists be made public?

IIRC they get made public at the same time that the selections are made public. So not in advance.

 

[Breakers]

"Who is in the worst shape..."

Canucks are the answer no matter how the sentence finishes.

Clearly you didn't read OP's question

 

[Jumptheshark]

"Who is in the worst shape..."

Canucks are the answer no matter how the sentence finishes.

nucks have little depth and if they lose a player it will be a 4th liner

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

The top teams can afford to lose an NHLer, but maybe not lottery teams.

The Leafs have few forwards that have to be protected, and I see that will make a trade or two to get other teams "4th" Dmen., as the Leaf will protect 4 or even 5 Dman.

 

[PG Canuck]

"Who is in the worst shape..."

Canucks are the answer no matter how the sentence finishes.

Maybe so, but not when it ends in expansion draft. We aren't losing anyone of value - the perks of being crap.

 

[Oddbob]

This kind of thing is hard to peg right now, because you have to believe that this year, teams are going to be making more trades, from now to the deadline, to set themselves up better for the expansion draft.

Also, take Pittsburgh for example: I find it hard to believe, that the Pens are going to risk losing a goalie for nothing, when they can easily get a good return for either or. There are lots of teams in tough spots, but there are also teams, like Toronto who aren't going to lose anyone of prominence.

I also think the league is going to more fussy about trades with Las Vegas, that help teams keep extra players protected. They already said they want Vegas to be better than the last 6 or 7 expansion teams were, so the league is probably going to put something in place to prevent that kind of stuff, but who knows.

 

[rypper]

The Canucks might lose perennial Norris candidate Luca Sbisa or Culture carrier Derek Dorsett. SHOOT.

 

[topnotch]

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.

A player has no personal reason to waive his NMC - only the threat of a buyout, or putting team first in order to lose a lesser player.

For Pominville though, the buyout threat might not be such a large threat. In the next two years he's owed 7.5 million in salary and 2.5 million in a signing bonus. A buyout only reduces salary, not the signing bonus. Thus, the buyout reduces his salary to 5 million and he gets his full signing bonus to total 7.5 million instead of 10 if he wasn't bought out. If Pominville can sign for more than 1.25 million for 2 years - which I think he can - he'll come out ahead financially.

Of course, Pominville likes Minnesota and might be willing to waive his NMC in order to not be bought out and forced to play somewhere else.

 

[Thai jet*]

I think Big Buff will be in the worst shape going into the expansion draft.

Your comment is out of date. The big guy has been in shape starting coming to camp last season. He had nearly 30 in game mins the other night than changed into sweats at 11pm and went back on the ice to practice his shot.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Would someone mind sharing what Ottawa plans to do? Will they protect Methot or Ceci (since Phaneuf has a NMC)

The majority of Sens fans that would protect Ceci over Methot.
I think the preference would be to get Phaneuf to waive his NMC for expansion so they can protect Methot. At 7 million per for Phaneuf until 20/21 the feeling is he would be passed over for someone like Lazar, Boro or Wideman.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

A player has no personal reason to waive his NMC - only the threat of a buyout, or putting team first in order to lose a lesser player.

1. For Pominville though, the buyout threat might not be such a large threat. In the next two years he's owed 7.5 million in salary and 2.5 million in a signing bonus. A buyout only reduces salary, not the signing bonus. Thus, the buyout reduces his salary to 5 million and he gets his full signing bonus to total 7.5 million instead of 10 if he wasn't bought out. If Pominville can sign for more than 1.25 million for 2 years - which I think he can - he'll come out ahead financially.

2. Of course, Pominville likes Minnesota and might be willing to waive his NMC in order to not be bought out and forced to play somewhere else.

Yes, its an interesting situation. Pominville might actually not mind a buy-out and could do OK financially because of one.

And, you'd think that the idea of getting a player to waive a NMC is because the intent of the team is to move that player (so that they can protect another more valued player). Not sure how the player would not think of that.

Also, if JP does not waive his NMC and gets bought out, then the Wild are still on the hook for 2/3rds of his salary spread across the remaining years ($3.7 m/yr x 2 years I think).

There's a lot of variables in a situation like this, but there's a bunch of scenarios where the player hasn't got much incentive to waive his NMC.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Yes, its an interesting situation. Pominville might actually not mind a buy-out and could do OK financially because of one.

And, you'd think that the idea of getting a player to waive a NMC is because the intent of the team is to move that player (so that they can protect another more valued player). Not sure how the player would not think of that.

Also, if JP does not waive his NMC and gets bought out, then the Wild are still on the hook for 2/3rds of his salary spread across the remaining years ($3.7 m/yr x 2 years I think).

There's a lot of variables in a situation like this, but there's a bunch of scenarios where the player hasn't got much incentive to waive his NMC.

It's $4.35M the first year, $1.85M the second year and $1.25M for the third and fourth years.

So, assuming that his spot would be filled by Tuch next year (ELC). There would be very little cap savings or penalty next year (4.35 + .925 = 5.275 or $325,000 less than what Pominville currently makes). The second, third and fourth years would be a bit inconvenient to have dead money sitting on the books, but it's still manageable.

 

[Dr Quincy]

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

Absolutely. I mean people get mad when a player holds out or requests a trade and we call it disloyal and not honoring your obligation, but then we say it's fine and dandy for a GM to try and get out of a contract he signed. It's fine for a GM to ask I guess, but I'm hoping players say no.

 

[Djp]

I didn't think there was a rule (exception) for players who are UFA in 2017. I thought eligibility was based on the teams roster in 2016 (and 2015).

IF I understand the 40/70 rule, its applicability and purpose is for 1st year (40 games) and 2nd year (70 games over the two years) players. There are players who may have played in some games over the course of their first and/or 2nd year, but because of their low amount of games played, they aren't for all intents and purposes deemed to be regular players.

I have not heard about the three pro seasons rule before.

a pro season is a year in the AHL (not as an 18 or 19 year old by Jan 1), a burned year in the NHL as an 18/19 year old, and a year in europe loaned under contract from the nhl).

So the late birthday folks who turned 20 between Sept 16-Dec 31 who weree not sent back to the CHL but instead went to the AHL counted as a pro season. There are about 10 or so players like this.

The 3 pro years is in essene players still on ELC except those players whose contract slid because the went to the AHL at 19 but didnt play in 10 NHL games accruing the contract. pro seasons also count players european time under contract that were loaned to europe.

Some examples with Buffalo:

Carrier---he had the late birthday and went to Rochester for the 14/15 season but his contract slid for ELC purposes, but it counted as a pro season.

Ullmark--he is a goalie in the aHL they had to sign him because he was drafted in 2012 under the old CBA . His first ELC year he was signed then loaned to Sweden. but that year was burned. HE had to be signed because he was drafted in the old CBA where european players had to signed by 1 june draft year+2. Under the new CBA european player rights are kept for 4 seasons till 1 Jun draft year +4. So if he was drafted in 2013 after the new CBA he likely wouldnt have been signed till this past summer and starting his ELC this year and thus be exempt.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

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.

Except that LV could draft a player even if he doesn't meet the games played requirement...

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?

Yes, but not for the reason stated.

If the 2016-17 (or 2015-16) is the player first pro season (be it in the AHL or NHL), he would be exempt because he would not have played more than 2 pro seasons.