Expansion Draft in 2017 (It's Happening!)

[Pinkfloyd]

Absolutely.

Absolutely in terms of concern or absolutely in terms of talent being there? lol

Well if it's in 2017 I'd try to re-sign Marleau and Thornton without NMC's and risk one or both depending on how they play.

When would the draft be, anyway? If it's in June, surely the NHL won't force you to protect players with NMCs that are days away from free agency, right?

The draft will occur before their current deals are up so it'll make no difference whether they re-sign without a clause. As for the NMC stuff, that's not entirely for the NHL to say. They're going to have to come to some arrangement with the PA and it wouldn't surprise me if NMC's are force-protected. I think the players have the right of it to get that enforced on this.

Is expansion really necessary?

Nothing in sports is actually necessary but when you have 500 mil on the table for one expansion team, that's a tough deal to pass up. I'm sure Hasso will be happy with another 16.7 mil per expansion team in his pocket. I don't see it hurting the game any either.

You'd have to assume it would be before the rookie draft, so that the expansion teams have an idea of what they have before they go picking their 1st round pick. Which gives us another question: Where in the 1st round do they pick?

It will be before the Entry Draft and I would hope that the NHL is smart enough to put the expansion teams at the top of the lotto. I don't think they should be awarded the top pick(s) but they should be in the lotto game like everyone else but with even odds as the worst team in the league.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Why would we need to protect Thornton or marleau? They will be UFA's and neither would re-sign with the expansion teams anyway. And if they don't want to sign with us as free agents then it is pointless to protect them anyways.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Why would we need to protect Thornton or marleau? They will be UFA's and neither would re-sign with the expansion teams anyway. And if they don't want to sign with us as free agents then it is pointless to protect them anyways.

They may not have a choice. It'll depend on what the NHL and the PA agree to in how to address it. Plus, would you really want to risk either player going to July 1 where they can talk to any team and go even if you have a handshake deal to sign them back? It's a choice they may need to make but I doubt either don't sign a new deal before the draft happens. It could happen but I don't see it. They're likely extended for another year or two and will need to protect them anyway.

 

[67 others]

They may not have a choice. It'll depend on what the NHL and the PA agree to in how to address it. Plus, would you really want to risk either player going to July 1 where they can talk to any team and go even if you have a handshake deal to sign them back? It's a choice they may need to make but I doubt either don't sign a new deal before the draft happens. It could happen but I don't see it. They're likely extended for another year or two and will need to protect them anyway.

The nhlpa will never make rules or allow rules made for UFA's regarding expansion.

The risk would would that they walk, and Thornton wants to retire a Shark. He has taken a hometown discount at every opportunity, including when he was a Hart Candidate. In some cases a huge discount, making near or less than the Gomez' and Drury's

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The nhlpa will never make rules or allow rules made for UFA's regarding expansion.

The risk would would that they walk, and Thornton wants to retire a Shark. He has taken a hometown discount at every opportunity, including when he was a Hart Candidate. In some cases a huge discount, making near or less than the Gomez' and Drury's

I don't understand what you're trying to say with the first sentence. It's possible that players with NMC's in their contracts will be required by the team to be protected. That is still unknown at this time and will play a part in who they may or may not protect. People that are impending UFA's will still be part of the expansion draft process and they have been chosen before then walked and one happened to go back to the team he was drafted from.

It's hard to say what it will look like until a more firm outline of the process is hammered out.

 

[Barrie22]

I can see deals being signed after the expansion draft announcement not counting ntc and nmc as force protected. Just to stop a team from signing a bunch of 1 year deals with movement clauses in them to keep them protected.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I can see deals being signed after the expansion draft announcement not counting ntc and nmc as force protected. Just to stop a team from signing a bunch of 1 year deals with movement clauses in them to keep them protected.

Well, when I use the term force-protected, I mean they will be forced to use one of their 7 protected forward, for example, on those with NMC's. The other two options are to make those contracts exempt (not going to happen) or to make them available. So a team probably won't want to sign people with NMC's so they don't have to be forced into keeping them if necessary.

 

[CanadienShark]

Well, when I use the term force-protected, I mean they will be forced to use one of their 7 protected forward, for example, on those with NMC's. The other two options are to make those contracts exempt (not going to happen) or to make them available. So a team probably won't want to sign people with NMC's so they don't have to be forced into keeping them if necessary.

I know this isn't really realistic, but what if a team had 8 forwards with a NMC and a few d-men with a NMC as well. You can't really "force protect" all of them. Would it be the team's decision as to which of the players among that group are protected?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I know this isn't really realistic, but what if a team had 8 forwards with a NMC and a few d-men with a NMC as well. You can't really "force protect" all of them. Would it be the team's decision as to which of the players among that group are protected?

Tough to say how they'd handle it but since I don't think anyone has such an issue to deal with, the league would probably just prioritize those deals with NMC's signed before the announcement as being force-protected.

 

[Led Zappa]

What about NTC's?

They may have to put a limit on NMC's. You have to expose 25% of your CAP, so......... that's gonna be hard to do and protect all the players we want especially if NTC's like Paul Martin's count. Every other player with a NMC or NTC we'd want to protect anyway.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I don't understand what you're trying to say with the first sentence. It's possible that players with NMC's in their contracts will be required by the team to be protected. That is still unknown at this time and will play a part in who they may or may not protect. People that are impending UFA's will still be part of the expansion draft process and they have been chosen before then walked and one happened to go back to the team he was drafted from.

It's hard to say what it will look like until a more firm outline of the process is hammered out.

I don't understand how people who are UFA's are going to be a part of the expansion draft. Not only does it provide no benefit to the expansion team to choose them (they could just sign them as FA's instead) because they technically aren't under contract when the expansion teams officially enter the league on July 1st.

 

[Limekiller]

What about NTC's?

They may have to put a limit on NMC's. You have to expose 25% of your CAP, so......... that's gonna be hard to do and protect all the players we want especially if NTC's like Paul Martin's count. Every other player with a NMC or NTC we'd want to protect anyway.

I doubt NTCs will count. I suspect NMCs will, but I wouldn't be surprised if they also didn't count. All depends on what the NHLPA thinks about it.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if an expansion team took Martin or Ward. They have to get to the cap floor, so they will absolutely be wanting to pick some mid-high priced vets, and will no doubt concentrate on ones with good reputations and that are playing well. Right now at least, Martin and Ward certainly fit that description. Picking up Martin especially would help an expansion team reach the cap floor.

Besides, there's no rules against the team making a trade with an expansion team to get them to pick someone specific. If we desperately want the expansion team to pick Martin, or NOT pick someone like Tierney, we can trade them something in exchange for them agreeing to a specific pick. Doubt it would cost more than a 5th rounder, though obviously I have no way of definitively knowing that.

Also, lets not go immediately assuming that Martin and Ward will be Stuart/Irwin/etc, levels of terrible in a year or two. Obviously Martin is more likely to drop off by the end of his contract, but there's no guarantee he'll end up Wallin/Huskins terrible. He'll probably still be a perfectly serviceable bottom pairing guy, and by the time his contract is ending, it's possible the cap has gone up enough that his salary won't be out of line for a bottom pairing veteran D-man at that point. So why all the panic about their contracts?

What, if anything, to do about Martin's and Ward's contracts are way way down my list of concerns about the Sharks at this point. My primary concern at this point is about getting Hertl and Burns re-signed to workable deals. (or trading Burns for several kings' ransoms worth of pieces if his contract demands are insanely outlandish, which I don't think they will be.) Those two issues override anything else in the offseason, imho. Getting Thornton and possibly Marleau re-signed are more important concerns as well, looking forward a couple years from now.

I just don't see a need to be making plans and agonizing about how to get rid of their contracts when we only JUST signed them, and there are much bigger and more important things to be worried about. I am really totally unconcerned by their contracts at this point. In a couple years, if they've started falling off a cliff, then I might start worrying. But considering that Chicago was able to get someone to take Scuderi off their hands with how he was playing for them at the time at his cap hit, I have no worries about us being able to offload Martin and/or Ward as cap dumps if it proves necessary.

 

[TimAllen]

If they can re-sign their UFA's without "protecting" them then the Sharks actually look like they'll in pretty good shape. They might lose Karlsson or Nieto but they aren't irreplaceable. The draft could even help the Sharks get rid of Ward or Martin during their bad contract years. It's still dumb that teams that build their teams well are going to be affected more than bad teams, but if the Sharks use some of the apparent loopholes then they could come out of this much less scathed than other teams.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't understand how people who are UFA's are going to be a part of the expansion draft. Not only does it provide no benefit to the expansion team to choose them (they could just sign them as FA's instead) because they technically aren't under contract when the expansion teams officially enter the league on July 1st.

In previous expansions, teams would take UFA's for the compensation picks when they left. Some did it for the honest effort of re-signing the players picked. I doubt that there will be a temporary compensation system for this expansion process but if a team wants to sign someone that is an impending free agent, it may prove valuable to select him in this process. I don't see too much of that occurring this go-around. I think the focus will be a lot more on promising young players/prospects as opposed to fringe players since the cap forces such things.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If they can re-sign their UFA's without "protecting" them then the Sharks actually look like they'll in pretty good shape. They might lose Karlsson or Nieto but they aren't irreplaceable. The draft could even help the Sharks get rid of Ward or Martin during their bad contract years. It's still dumb that teams that build their teams well are going to be affected more than bad teams, but if the Sharks use some of the apparent loopholes then they could come out of this much less scathed than other teams.

If they're smart, they trade assets to get additional protection if necessary or move out those that they can't afford to protect in that manner. I'd pay an expansion team a 3rd round pick to keep someone like Karlsson or Nieto.

 

[Led Zappa]

I doubt NTCs will count. I suspect NMCs will, but I wouldn't be surprised if they also didn't count. All depends on what the NHLPA thinks about it.

I don't see how they don't count. They are both No Trade Clauses. The only difference in the NMC is that they can't be buried in the AHL.

 

[Limekiller]

In previous expansions, teams would take UFA's for the compensation picks when they left. Some did it for the honest effort of re-signing the players picked. I doubt that there will be a temporary compensation system for this expansion process but if a team wants to sign someone that is an impending free agent, it may prove valuable to select him in this process. I don't see too much of that occurring this go-around. I think the focus will be a lot more on promising young players/prospects as opposed to fringe players since the cap forces such things.

Well, it depends. If there's a rule about a minimum amount of cap the teams have to take as part of the expansion draft, and not just the cap floor to reach by the start of the season, then that obviously changes the calculus about picking high priced UFAs. Also, you could certainly see teams offering a later round pick to the expansion team to get them to take their high priced UFA while agreeing not to sign him so the original team can sign him back. I don't think it could count as tampering, as long as that's made part of the trade deal. i.e. trade them a 4th in return for their both agreement to pick UFA player X + permission for his original team to do contract negotiations with him in the dead space between the expansion draft and the start of free agency, as an example.

I don't see how they don't count. They are both No Trade Clauses. The only difference in the NMC is that they can't be buried in the AHL.

Because being selected as part of an expansion draft isn't a trade, by the definition of a trade. It would, however, count as movement.

 

[Led Zappa]

Because being selected as part of an expansion draft isn't a trade, by the definition of a trade. It would, however, count as movement.

You're splitting hairs. The purpose of an NTC is to let the player decide whether to play for another team and which team that is. A NMC is used to accomplish the same thing only it also makes sure the player continues to play in the NHL at all times unless the contracts contain some language about expansion drafts I'm not aware of.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well, it depends. If there's a rule about a minimum amount of cap the teams have to take as part of the expansion draft, and not just the cap floor to reach by the start of the season, then that obviously changes the calculus about picking high priced UFAs. Also, you could certainly see teams offering a later round pick to the expansion team to get them to take their high priced UFA while agreeing not to sign him so the original team can sign him back. I don't think it could count as tampering, as long as that's made part of the trade deal. i.e. trade them a 4th in return for their both agreement to pick UFA player X + permission for his original team to do contract negotiations with him in the dead space between the expansion draft and the start of free agency, as an example.

Possibly but historically the NHL hasn't placed such stipulations on expansion teams. Instead they do so in the Entry Draft for some odd reason. lol

Trades to have an expansion team not pick a guy has occurred. I'm sure future consideration trades for having them select one of theirs is not out of the question. However, your example is highly unlikely just because of the off-season 10% bump teams get and the fact that free agency hasn't begun yet. I don't think a team is in that tough of a spot where the 10% is not going to be enough space that it necessitates them to do a trade like that.

 

[LadyStanley]

Until the union and league reconcile WRT NTC and NMC, it's really a guess as to who might "have" to be on the list, vs what players you might want to make available.

(Players with NMCs, if "forced" protection, **COULD** waive it to be picked up by expansion team.)

 

[Limekiller]

You're splitting hairs. The purpose of an NTC is to let the player decide whether to play for another team and which team that is. A NMC is used to accomplish the same thing only it also makes sure the player continues to play in the NHL at all times unless the contracts contain some language about expansion drafts I'm not aware of.

Well, I still am technically correct, right? And as we all know from Futurama, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

In all seriousness, I think ultimately it is going to be an issue the NHL negotiates with the NHLPA. I do think NTCs won't count, if only because there are so many more of them, both full and partial, than there are NMCs. Would a partial NTC with a list of 6 teams you can't get sent to count? How about one where you have to give a list of teams you CAN get traded to? How about a team that has more players on NTCs of various stripes than they have available protection slots? (say they have 2 goalies each with some form of NTC, even) I highly doubt there are any teams in the NHL right now with more players with NMCs than there are protectable slots, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were at least a couple with too many NTCs.

Possibly but historically the NHL hasn't placed such stipulations on expansion teams. Instead they do so in the Entry Draft for some odd reason. lol

Trades to have an expansion team not pick a guy has occurred. I'm sure future consideration trades for having them select one of theirs is not out of the question. However, your example is highly unlikely just because of the off-season 10% bump teams get and the fact that free agency hasn't begun yet. I don't think a team is in that tough of a spot where the 10% is not going to be enough space that it necessitates them to do a trade like that.

Oh, I didn't think the team with the UFA would be doing it for cap reasons. I think they'd do it because they don't want one of their more important players getting picked. Look at a team like us, for example. (assume for the purposes of this example that either Marleau had no NMC or that NMCs can be exposed, we want to bring him back, and he wants to be here). Say we don't want them picking one of our young guys like Tierney/Nieto/Karlsson. We offer them a pick for them to both take Marleau with their expansion draft pick + give us negotiating rights with him. Marleau helps them get to a minimum cap number from expansion picks if there is one, they get a draft pick out of the deal (plus any compensatory ones for losing an expensive FA), we get Marleau back, and don't lose the young guy we couldn't protect and would have gotten taken by the expansion team. Seems a reasonable use of resources, and an arrangement that benefits all parties.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Oh, I didn't think the team with the UFA would be doing it for cap reasons. I think they'd do it because they don't want one of their more important players getting picked. Look at a team like us, for example. (assume for the purposes of this example that either Marleau had no NMC or that NMCs can be exposed, we want to bring him back, and he wants to be here). Say we don't want them picking one of our young guys like Tierney/Nieto/Karlsson. We offer them a pick for them to both take Marleau with their expansion draft pick + give us negotiating rights with him. Marleau helps them get to a minimum cap number from expansion picks if there is one, they get a draft pick out of the deal (plus any compensatory ones for losing an expensive FA), we get Marleau back, and don't lose the young guy we couldn't protect and would have gotten taken by the expansion team. Seems a reasonable use of resources, and an arrangement that benefits all parties.

It would be surprising, at least to me, if the league put a floor cap figure on the expansion team at the expansion draft. It wouldn't surprise me if they exempted the expansion team from reaching the floor in the first season. However, if that is the case, you may have something there to that. I still would rather do that in exchange for Paul Martin instead though. haha

I bet though that the standard trade made during this process though will just be a pick/prospect to not select someone and then they take someone else as it has in previous expansion drafts. This one may though include higher priced players as opposed to fringe players. Good for everyone involved, imo.

 

[Limekiller]

It would be surprising, at least to me, if the league put a floor cap figure on the expansion team at the expansion draft. It wouldn't surprise me if they exempted the expansion team from reaching the floor in the first season. However, if that is the case, you may have something there to that. I still would rather do that in exchange for Paul Martin instead though. haha

I bet though that the standard trade made during this process though will just be a pick/prospect to not select someone and then they take someone else as it has in previous expansion drafts. This one may though include higher priced players as opposed to fringe players. Good for everyone involved, imo.

The only reason I could see them doing it is because of how they have been very specific about how much cap teams have to expose. That at least suggests to me that cap numbers are going to play a role in the expansion draft somehow, beyond just adding up for the teams' payroll.

Honestly, I could see all kinds of deals being made around the expansion drafts. Ones like I mentioned, trades to get the expansion teams to specifically take someone like Martin, and trades to get the expansion teams to NOT take someone in specific. I'd expect the expansion teams to accumulate as many picks as they can with such deals, as then they can turn around and convert them into a ton of players to build up their depth in a hurry, trade them to get better selections, or trade them away for additional players.

 

[dwood16]

1 team is fine, 2 teams is stupid imo.
Really stupid

Sayonara Nieto & Dillon :,/


to poster #2, you need to post more with that username

Nieto and Dillon are garbage anyway. My 2 first choices on players to move.

 

[magic school bus]

I don't see how they don't count. They are both No Trade Clauses. The only difference in the NMC is that they can't be buried in the AHL.

They're not being traded though