Speculation: Will Teams Be Able to Make Expansion Protection Deals?

[NSH615]

Only thing is I think a few teams might try offer them a 1st rounder to pick a certain player, so Brown's 6 year contract is going to be hard to unload. I know from an Islanders perspective I would offer a 1st for them to take Grabovski(who at the time would only have 1 year remaining on his deal so Vegas could turn around and dump him at the trade deadline)

And it's bad to have 4 or 5 first round picks, especially as a brand new team? The biggest concern will be salary cap not how many extras they get.

 

[boredmale]

20 players for their active roster, but this will potentially help them build their farm team as well. The Vegas team will be able to bring in 10 guys, if there are that many, who don't have to clear waivers to go up and down. Its about organizational depth just as much as it is about finding their starting roster.

It's easy to say if I was the GM I would do this but if you have an owner who wants to win now, it could be hard. But if I was the GM I would pick about 15 players for my team and then try trade the other 15 for a combination of picks and prospects

And it's bad to have 4 or 5 first round picks, especially as a brand new team? The biggest concern will be salary cap not how many extras they get.

I am guessing at most they will be able to take on 4 "bad" (5M+) contracts, maybe 5 and you will have about 10 teams offering them deals to be the team that loses that bad contract. I guess what comes into question with bad contracts is:

1. How bad is the deal(both length and term)
2. What is a team offering for them to take it
3. What else do they have available to pick up if we don't accept that deal.

I know in the case of the Islanders there is a chance that Brock Nelson or Anders Lee and/or De Haan will be left exposed(and picking one of them might be enough for Vegas to accept a lesser deal for another worse contract then Grabovski from another team)

 

[ManofSteel55]

I think a lot of people will be surprised with how bad they will be though. Just because they are being given a better start than previous new teams doesn't mean they are going to be a strong team. They are still getting at best 3rd line forwards and 2nd pairing defenders.

They will get a bunch of 2nd line forwards too. There will be teams who opt to protect only 8 players. The Vegas team could realistically end up with 2 starting caliber goalies, 6 second pair defensemen and 12 2nd/3rd line forwards. They will lack the top end star power for a couple of seasons but will absolutely have depth that will allow them to compete with every team in the league.

 

[Soundgarden]

Only thing is I think a few teams might try offer them a 1st rounder to pick a certain player, so Brown's 6 year contract is going to be hard to unload. I know from an Islanders perspective I would offer a 1st for them to take Grabovski(who at the time would only have 1 year remaining on his deal so Vegas could turn around and dump him at the trade deadline)

Just an example, they aren't going to pick up every teams bad contract, but they can snag a few firsts and underrated prospects(Nashville grabbed Timonen from LA), still fill out their roster and hit the floor if they manage well enough.

Most of the bad contracts are still NHL caliber players, they may be 4th liners, but Vegas needs forth liners and to fill out an AHL team, so if they can kill two birds with one stone it'd be beneficial.

 

[ManofSteel55]

It's easy to say if I was the GM I would do this but if you have an owner who wants to win now, it could be hard. But if I was the GM I would pick about 15 players for my team and then try trade the other 15 for a combination of picks and prospects



I am guessing at most they will be able to take on 4 "bad" (5M+) contracts, maybe 5 and you will have about 10 teams offering them deals to be the team that loses that bad contract.

That would be a mistake. You would be left trying to fill up your team using free agents, most of which will either be overpaid or aren't players that teams want anyway. They can trade for a couple of other picks, but need to have a roster that they could ice on opening day after the draft is done.

 

[boredmale]

That would be a mistake. You would be left trying to fill up your team using free agents, most of which will either be overpaid or aren't players that teams want anyway. They can trade for a couple of other picks, but need to have a roster that they could ice on opening day after the draft is done.

I would definitely try get a few close to NHL ready prospects(ie guys who played a year or 2 in the AHL) and I would use waivers in October to fill out my roster with the last couple players

 

[RandV]

Yeah it costs money for pittsburgh. It also doesnt help LV since they wont be able to pick Murray anyway. So i dont see why LV rather let pens buy MAF out than geting a 3rd round pick?

Trades are done through negotiation. If I was the LV GM I'd respond give me your 1st + 3rd or I'll call your bluff and let you buyout Fleury just to keep Murray. Then what does Pittsburgh do?

That's just hypothetical though, I don't think it's going to get to the point. I'd think the rules in place (such as no trading a player back for x months that someone corrected me on) are their to prevent the existing teams from colluding among each other to keep their assets away from Vegas. The league wants to help Vegas get off to a good start, so they're going to be less concerned with them making deals.

That said, getting back to the point if Pittsburgh goes into the playoffs with Fleury and Murray then it's too late for them, one will have to be exposed. The NHL isn't going to let teams shuffle the deck just before expansion, we'll probably be locked in from the trade deadline. That's why you see teams buying out NMC players like Fedor Tyutin now.

 

[RandV]

Also, I think some fans will be over exaggerating the need to not lose anyone valuable. If it's a matter of too goalies like with Pittsburgh, where the guy they want is a younger guy but the vet has a NMC, then sure. But for a team like the Islanders with multiple players at both F and D, it's far more trouble than it's worth to trade all of them just so you don't lose one.

Unless maybe they're not in the playoff race at the deadline and do a massive sell, otherwise you have good players exposed because you have depth. If the Isles lose De Haan they still have a blueline with Leddy/Boychuk/Hamonic/Pulock/Hickey.

 

[topnotch]

I think people are underestimating what it will take to persuade Vegas to not select a good player - and also to select a cap dump.

Vegas can select a player and then trade that player to another team. For instance, if the Islanders want to keep De Haan and Pulock they will have to offer Vegas what either one of those two would return in a hypothetical trade. To entice Vegas to select a cap dump (Grabovski) instead of one of those two would take a whole lot more added to an initial proposal - Two 1sts (for Grabo) then whatever Pulock/De Haan is worth in trade.

It's just not worth it. Every team will lost a decent player/prospect. There may be some dealing but I suspect most GMs will just accept the loss of a player.

 

[tim212]

History has shown that the price for these side deals is pretty low. I remember the Sabres gave up Jean Luc Grand-Pierre and Matt Davidson for Columbus not to select a few players.

The price will probably be higher but nothing ludicrous like a first round pick.If that were the case, then Arizona --who for all intents and purposes is functioning like an expansion team-- would have gotten a 1st for taking Datsyuk.

LV should be reasonably competitive but not trying to win it all in the first two years. So they should be taking on bad contracts with 2-3 years left. So they can stack a few decent prospects/2nds/3rds in exchange for taking guys like Moulson, McDonald, Clarkson, or Orpik.

 

[CausewayLegends]

Is this actually allowed? I can see why GMs would want to do this but I can't see how it would be legal. I have never heard of a GM trading a draft pick to a team with a higher pick to guarantee they don't pick a specific player. I thought that if you were making trades there had to be an exchange of tangible assets and not just a gentleman's agreement that a certain player will not be picked. Are there any actual examples of this happening in past expansion drafts?

 

[tim212]

I think people are underestimating what it will take to persuade Vegas to not select a good player - and also to select a cap dump.

Vegas can select a player and then trade that player to another team. For instance, if the Islanders want to keep De Haan and Pulock they will have to offer Vegas what either one of those two would return in a hypothetical trade. To entice Vegas to select a cap dump (Grabovski) instead of one of those two would take a whole lot more added to an initial proposal - Two 1sts (for Grabo) then whatever Pulock/De Haan is worth in trade.

It's just not worth it. Every team will lost a decent player/prospect. There may be some dealing but I suspect most GMs will just accept the loss of a player.

You're WAY overestimating. There have been cap dumps before and there have been numerous expansion drafts in the 90s and no one to my knowledge has ever given up anything resembling a first round pick.

Teams are built through the draft. LV has 30 picks in the expansion draft. THIRTY. They don't need thirty #4-5 defensemen, fringe starting goalies, and third line forwards. They also will be able to buy similar players in FA. They will want as many draft picks as possible.

 

[tim212]

Is this actually allowed? I can see why GMs would want to do this but I can't see how it would be legal. I have never heard of a GM trading a draft pick to a team with a higher pick to guarantee they don't pick a specific player. I thought that if you were making trades there had to be an exchange of tangible assets and not just a gentleman's agreement that a certain player will not be picked. Are there any actual examples of this happening in past expansion drafts?

wikipedia:
Shortly after the Olympics, the Kings traded Timonen, along with Jan Vopat, to the Nashville Predators organization (the team not yet having begun play) in agreement that Nashville would not select Garry Galley in the 1998 NHL Expansion Draft.


http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_player/Grand-Pierre,Jean-Luc

Buffalo Sabres (Blue Jackets agreed to select Geoff Sanderson & Dwayne Roloson in expansion draft)
Columbus Blue Jackets acquire
future considerations

Matt Davidson
Jean-Luc Grand-Pierre
2000 5th round pick (#150-Tyler Kolarik)
2001 5th round pick (#157-Andreas Jamtin)

 

[CharlieKelly]

Is this actually allowed? I can see why GMs would want to do this but I can't see how it would be legal. I have never heard of a GM trading a draft pick to a team with a higher pick to guarantee they don't pick a specific player. I thought that if you were making trades there had to be an exchange of tangible assets and not just a gentleman's agreement that a certain player will not be picked. Are there any actual examples of this happening in past expansion drafts?

Take a look at the "Deals" section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_NHL_Expansion_Draft#Deals

 

[Seachd]

I'm not sure to what extent the league will allow this. Keep in mind trades are stricter than they used to be. So when it comes to "if you leave our player alone, we'll give you a pick", that officially adds up to a draft pick for future considerations, which is very unlikely to fly, if I had to guess.

In terms of getting more creative, I'm not sure the league will have much say, as long as it's tangible asset for tangible asset.

I think deals might get made, as long as "you don't take my player" is officially a central and blatant asset in the trade.

 

[Freudian]

There are two reasons for Las Vegas to do it. First, extra picks allows them to build up a prospect pool slightly quicker. Secondly, they are only allowed to draft one player from each other NHL team. So if they know they most likely will draft player A from a team, if they can get a 6th round pick for a promise not to draft player B from that team it's basically a free pick for doing nothing.

 

[Shady Machine]

LV doesnt really gain anything from trying to hardball the teams trying to "bribe" them tho. Take pittsburgh for example.

We will give you a 3rd round pick not to take Murray. Sure seems low, but, if LV doesnt bite, the pens will buy out or give away MAF and LV cant take Murray anyway. And while pens ends up with some dead cap space, that doesnt help LV the slightest. And opposite what HF seems to think, this aint the school yard where the "why should we help them when we can watch them suffer" approach is the way. If a team can upgrade, they will do that rather than the satisfaction of watching other teams suffer.

So LV will know that theres no way they will be able to pick Murray anyway, and they would rather take the asset they get.

That's one specific example where the team has an option to buy out a veteran. In a scenario where a team has 4-5 blueliners they love, it's going to cost a lot more to bribe LV not to take them.

 

[Shady Machine]

Trades are done through negotiation. If I was the LV GM I'd respond give me your 1st + 3rd or I'll call your bluff and let you buyout Fleury just to keep Murray. Then what does Pittsburgh do?

That's just hypothetical though, I don't think it's going to get to the point. I'd think the rules in place (such as no trading a player back for x months that someone corrected me on) are their to prevent the existing teams from colluding among each other to keep their assets away from Vegas. The league wants to help Vegas get off to a good start, so they're going to be less concerned with them making deals.

That said, getting back to the point if Pittsburgh goes into the playoffs with Fleury and Murray then it's too late for them, one will have to be exposed. The NHL isn't going to let teams shuffle the deck just before expansion, we'll probably be locked in from the trade deadline. That's why you see teams buying out NMC players like Fedor Tyutin now.

Very good points. On the Pittsburgh board, I think we just assumed there would be a buyout period post playoffs and before expansion, but you are probably right.

 

[Shady Machine]

Is this actually allowed? I can see why GMs would want to do this but I can't see how it would be legal. I have never heard of a GM trading a draft pick to a team with a higher pick to guarantee they don't pick a specific player. I thought that if you were making trades there had to be an exchange of tangible assets and not just a gentleman's agreement that a certain player will not be picked. Are there any actual examples of this happening in past expansion drafts?

It's legal. Bill Daley already said it would be permitted. The idea here to make LV as good as possible as early as possible. If they can snag a few extra picks and still have a decent roster, they can be competitive sooner.

I think people underestimate how cheap these "bribes" will be. LV likely wants more picks, but they aren't just going to roll over and accept a bunch of 4th round picks.

 

[topnotch]

You're WAY overestimating. There have been cap dumps before and there have been numerous expansion drafts in the 90s and no one to my knowledge has ever given up anything resembling a first round pick.

Teams are built through the draft. LV has 32 picks in the expansion draft. THIRTY-TWO. They don't need thirty-two #4-5 defensemen, fringe starting goalies, and third line forwards. They also will be able to buy similar players in FA. They will want as many draft picks as possible.

Past expansion drafts did not have the talent available in this expansion draft.

Cap dumps have been expensive if the player is actually being paid a hefty salary - Teravainen was traded to dump 1 year of Bickell; Datsyuk was cheap in terms of trade because Arizona isn't paying him anything.

 

[Shady Machine]

Does anyone know for a fact that LV will be required to hit the salary cap floor in their first year? That seems unfair to me if the goal is to make them as competitive as possible.

 

[tim212]

Cap dumps have been expensive if the player is actually being paid a hefty salary - Teravainen was traded to dump 1 year of Bickell; Datsyuk was cheap in terms of trade because Arizona isn't paying him anything.

Chicago got a 2nd and 3rd back in that trade. They would have gotten slightly more if they'd traded teravainen straight up. So Bickell didn't cost them all that much....the equivalent of a 2nd or 3rd. Got another example that's ever happened?

 

[Duck Off]

I think you'll see Vegas acquire several late round picks for players they wouldn't have taken anyways. Example would be the Ducks trading them a late round pick to confirm they won't take Bieksa. Why would the Ducks do this? As a compromise to get Bieksa to waive so they can protect another player.

 

[Goose312]

They will get a bunch of 2nd line forwards too. There will be teams who opt to protect only 8 players. The Vegas team could realistically end up with 2 starting caliber goalies, 6 second pair defensemen and 12 2nd/3rd line forwards. They will lack the top end star power for a couple of seasons but will absolutely have depth that will allow them to compete with every team in the league.

I think the teams that might do 8 skaters are doing so more because they don't have a strong 2nd forward line to begin with though. So you might get a guy who's considered a 2nd line player who really isn't as good as you would hope for a 2nd line guy.

 

[Shady Machine]

I think you'll see Vegas acquire several late round picks for players they wouldn't have taken anyways. Example would be the Ducks trading them a late round pick to confirm they won't take Bieksa. Why would the Ducks do this? As a compromise to get Bieksa to waive so they can protect another player.

That's an interesting angle I hadn't thought of.

How does the timing on that work though? I guess I thought the Ducks (in this example) would have to submit their list of protected players BEFORE they can negotiate trades with LV. Bieksa would have to agree to waive his NMC before having a guarantee that LV wouldn't take him.

If the Ducks can talk to LV and get them to agree to not take Bieksa in the expansion draft (with draft pick compensation) and then they can present that to Bieksa and his agent, then I think your logic makes sense. I'm just not sure if the timing will work for that to be a possibility.