Expansion Draft in 2017 (It's Happening!)

[OffSydes]

They're not being traded though

But its "movement"

 

[Led Zappa]

They're not being traded though

And a No Movement Clause means the team that signed the contract can't move them. It doesn't mean they can't be taken in an expansion draft unless the contract states that or unless the NHL and NHLPA decide otherwise. If the NHL allowed it to be stated in a NMC contract then so be it.

 

[Limekiller]

Yeah, the status of players with NMCs and NTCs (full or modified) during an expansion draft is almost certainly not explicitly laid out as part of the collective bargaining agreement. At most in there would be language that anything related to that has to be negotiated at the time.

I can see them going just about any direction with it, too. I suspect it will be NMCs can't be picked and use up protected slots, but NTCs won't be a factor, but there's no telling for sure.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

And a No Movement Clause means the team that signed the contract can't move them. It doesn't mean they can't be taken in an expansion draft unless the contract states that or unless the NHL and NHLPA decide otherwise. If the NHL allowed it to be stated in a NMC contract then so be it.

I think so too. Players with NMC's or NTC's should be allowed to be picked up by expansion teams.

 

[Barrie22]

Allowing nmc and ntc to not be protected will make 2 owners mad (new owners to boot). Not allowing nmc and ntc to be protected will make 50+ players mad (just me guessing how many ntc and nmc there are currently in the league).

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think so too. Players with NMC's or NTC's should be allowed to be picked up by expansion teams.

Personally, I don't see the expansion draft any different than a team's ability to put a player on waivers so a no-move clause should give the player the choice as to whether they should be open to that process or not. NTC's don't have that privilege.

 

[210]

Personally, I don't see the expansion draft any different than a team's ability to put a player on waivers so a no-move clause should give the player the choice as to whether they should be open to that process or not. NTC's don't have that privilege.

Agreed.

And I think players with NMC are going to take up a team's protected slots.

 

[Limekiller]

Agreed.

And I think players with NMC are going to take up a team's protected slots.

I think this is the most likely outcome as well. Like I said, though, we have no way of knowing the NHLPA's opinion on this, and that's the most important factor. I doubt the league really cares anywhere near as much about how it ends up shaking out with regard to NMCs/NTCs and the expansion draft as the NHLPA does. As a result, the league is probably likely to go along with what the NHLPA wants, within reason, of course.

 

[Led Zappa]

It's my understanding that many if not all players take cuts in pay to get an NTC, so that they know where they will be or to not be on a bottom dweller during the contract. Players are not going to be happy going to an expansion team having made that sacrifice. Not sure how the NHLPA is going to be happy about it.

And if the NHL/NHLPA agree to let these players be exposed then there's the rep a team will have that don't protect the players that they gave these clauses to.

 

[magic school bus]

And a No Movement Clause means the team that signed the contract can't move them. It doesn't mean they can't be taken in an expansion draft unless the contract states that or unless the NHL and NHLPA decide otherwise. If the NHL allowed it to be stated in a NMC contract then so be it.

No trade clauses just cover trades, no move's cover everything else. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually written in these contracts that they can't be taken in an expansion draft without their permission. Marleau signed a couple years ago and the nhl's been talking about expansion for much longer than that.

 

[Led Zappa]

No trade clauses just cover trades, no move's cover everything else. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually written in these contracts that they can't be taken in an expansion draft without their permission. Marleau signed a couple years ago and the nhl's been talking about expansion for much longer than that.

I already suggested as much. It doesn't take away from any of the other points I made. In fact, there's nothing to say that those same clauses aren't in some NTC's.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that the NHL either never allowed such a clause in a contract or that they won't honor them. We may or may not find out. I doubt any player with a NMC isn't going to be protected by the team.

Hawks have like $50M in NMC's lol.

 

[hohosaregood]

I already suggested as much. It doesn't take away from any of the other points I made. In fact, there's nothing to say that those same clauses aren't in some NTC's.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that the NHL either never allowed such a clause in a contract or that they won't honor them. We may or may not find out. I doubt any player with a NMC isn't going to be protected by the team.

Hawks have like $50M in NMC's lol.

beautiful

 

[LadyStanley]

There is NO language in NHL contracts, the NHL-NHLPA CBA **how** NMCs and NTCs will be handled in an expansion draft.

It will be NEGOTIATED (started yesterday) between the league and union.

And how things will be handled will be made public long before the possible (June 2017) expansion draft.

 

[Limekiller]

There is NO language in NHL contracts, the NHL-NHLPA CBA **how** NMCs and NTCs will be handled in an expansion draft.

It will be NEGOTIATED (started yesterday) between the league and union.

And how things will be handled will be made public long before the possible (June 2017) expansion draft.

That's pretty much what I figured. Like I said before, I think the NHLPA cares far more about the way these are handled than the NHL does. So, I expect the NHL to "give" a fair bit on this issue in order to have the NHLPA give a little in another area.

 

[Limekiller]

Just saw this in a NY Post article on the Rangers and the Expansion Draft I was reading, and thought it was pretty applicable:

By the way: Daly did confirm that second-year pros meant to be exempt from the process would, “include Players who just finished their second years.â€

Article here: http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/what-we-know-of-nhl-las-vegas-framework-it-shafts-good-teams/

So, I think that means that we wouldn't have to use a protection slot on either Goldobin or Donskoi, since both would have just finished their 2nd years next summer. That makes our lives significantly easier, obviously.

Assuming we have to protect NMC's, and don't have to protect Goldobin or Donskoi, Would our protect list look something like this?

Forwards:
Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, Hertl, Couture, Tierney, and one of Nieto/Karlsson/Ward

Defense:
Vlasic, Braun, Burns

Goalie:
Jones


One other interesting point made in the article is about the Blackhawks, who have a TON of players on NMCs: Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Marian Hossa, Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson and Corey Crawford. That is where the vast bulk of their cap is, too, so reaching the 25% cap requirement is going to be an issue. Only their 2nd line center, Anisimov, makes north of $4m, so he'd almost have to be included, but how do they expose enough cap with the rest of their roster in order to get to the 25% cap requirement?

 

[DG93]

Assuming we have to protect NMC's, and don't have to protect Goldobin or Donskoi, Would our protect list look something like this?

Forwards:
Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, Hertl, Couture, Tierney, and one of Nieto/Karlsson/Ward

That would be the perfect time to let Ward get snatched up by someone. I hope Martin does too. Those contracts are gonna suck by year 3 (after the 2016-2017 season). I don't think that Karlsson is much better than a 3rd/4th liner at this point whereas Nieto still has room to grow, so I'd definitely protect him over Ward/Karlsson.

 

[Barrie22]

Just saw this in a NY Post article on the Rangers and the Expansion Draft I was reading, and thought it was pretty applicable:



Article here: http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/what-we-know-of-nhl-las-vegas-framework-it-shafts-good-teams/

So, I think that means that we wouldn't have to use a protection slot on either Goldobin or Donskoi, since both would have just finished their 2nd years next summer. That makes our lives significantly easier, obviously.

Assuming we have to protect NMC's, and don't have to protect Goldobin or Donskoi, Would our protect list look something like this?

Forwards:
Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, Hertl, Couture, Tierney, and one of Nieto/Karlsson/Ward

Defense:
Vlasic, Braun, Burns

Goalie:
Jones


One other interesting point made in the article is about the Blackhawks, who have a TON of players on NMCs: Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Marian Hossa, Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson and Corey Crawford. That is where the vast bulk of their cap is, too, so reaching the 25% cap requirement is going to be an issue. Only their 2nd line center, Anisimov, makes north of $4m, so he'd almost have to be included, but how do they expose enough cap with the rest of their roster in order to get to the 25% cap requirement?

19 million is the needed number. As the team is right now, just roster players. They have about 9 million worth of cap space they can let go. That doesn't count players in the ahl that doesn't fit the protection rules.

 

[Limekiller]

That would be the perfect time to let Ward get snatched up by someone. I hope Martin does too. Those contracts are gonna suck by year 3 (after the 2016-2017 season). I don't think that Karlsson is much better than a 3rd/4th liner at this point whereas Nieto still has room to grow, so I'd definitely protect him over Ward/Karlsson.

I suppose that will depend on how Ward does for us in the playoffs. From everything Caps fans were saying when we signed him, Ward has his best performances in the postseason. If that holds true and he's outstanding for us in this playoff run, then it would make sense to hang on to him. Otherwise, I agree with your choice.

19 million is the needed number. As the team is right now, just roster players. They have about 9 million worth of cap space they can let go. That doesn't count players in the ahl that doesn't fit the protection rules.

Well, do they HAVE $19m in cap that is available to be drafted? Assuming the $50m combined salary of players with NMCs is right (I haven't added them up), and several more million aggregate across their prospects that aren't eligible for the draft (since they're in juniors, overseas, not enough pro experience, etc.), that leaves them with very little wiggle room to expose 19m worth of players. You have to wonder if they might do something like trade a draft pick for Pronger (or some other player on permanent LTIR), just so they have a big contract they can expose.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Ward + Martin + Dillon is at least $11-12M on their own. Add up the other miscellaneous contracts (Karlsson/Nieto/Wingels/Etc) and I have no doubt we'll easily hit the 25% of the cap threshold.

It's nice that we don't have to protect Donskoi or Goldobin, but I honestly wish we had to. There are a lot of teams who would be much more screwed than us.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That would be the perfect time to let Ward get snatched up by someone. I hope Martin does too. Those contracts are gonna suck by year 3 (after the 2016-2017 season). I don't think that Karlsson is much better than a 3rd/4th liner at this point whereas Nieto still has room to grow, so I'd definitely protect him over Ward/Karlsson.

I just have a hard time seeing any expansion team picking up Ward and/or Martin with the options available on the Sharks. I mean, in Martin's case, why would you when you have Dillon as an option? In Ward's case, you have Karlsson or Wingels. Wingels as an expiring contract is probably more appealing than Ward heading into a last year at 37 years old.

 

[Barrie22]

I just have a hard time seeing any expansion team picking up Ward and/or Martin with the options available on the Sharks. I mean, in Martin's case, why would you when you have Dillon as an option? In Ward's case, you have Karlsson or Wingels. Wingels as an expiring contract is probably more appealing than Ward heading into a last year at 37 years old.

It could possibly happen depending on what they already got from other teams or if they are going to be forced to reach the cap floor.

 

[jwhitesj]

How would expiring contracts work? Like Marleau and Thornton's. Since their contracts expire in the Summer but potentially after the expansion draft?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It could possibly happen depending on what they already got from other teams or if they are going to be forced to reach the cap floor.

Possibly but the difference between Martin and Dillon is around 1.6 mil and the difference between Ward and Wingels is 800k. Plus, with free agency around the corner from that, they shouldn't have a problem where they feel the need to take the best options.

How would expiring contracts work? Like Marleau and Thornton's. Since their contracts expire in the Summer but potentially after the expansion draft?

They will be part of the process and teams have to choose whether to protect them or expose them.

 

[jwhitesj]

Possibly but the difference between Martin and Dillon is around 1.6 mil and the difference between Ward and Wingels is 800k. Plus, with free agency around the corner from that, they shouldn't have a problem where they feel the need to take the best options.



They will be part of the process and teams have to choose whether to protect them or expose them.

But then couldn't the player just refuse to sign a new contract with the expansion club?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

But then couldn't the player just refuse to sign a new contract with the expansion club?

Yup.