Expansion...Protection Rules

[hawksfan50]

Just saw a discussion onthe (Rogers) Sportsnet Ontario t.v. channel. .The panel included Nick Kypreos and Eliotte Friedman..they discussed the GM meeting gs in Bocas and preliminary discussions taking place on the protection of players rules fir an expansion draft..Whatever they come up with on these rules will have to go to the NHLPA for approval and the panelists commented that no way will they (implying NHLPA) allow any player with No Trade or No Movement clauses in their contracts to be exposed to an expansion draft.Whether the NHL can legally challenge or simply would not bother to challenge in court is something we do not know..but the panelists to my thinking were implying the NHL would want the NHLPA to sign off on expansion and so I think they think whatever the protection rules will be proposed they will not expire such players having the types of clauses in their contracts.

THE panelists did not bring up the cases of contracts with re-capture of cap hits if such player (eg. Hossa ) should retire before his contract term is up.


So we are left to speculate:

1. IF Hossa no longer has any No Movement or No Trade protection remaining in his contract and coukd be traded (albeit the contract subject to re-capture of cap hit if he retires early ) THEN Hossa COULD be exposed in tge expansion draft.

2.The NHLPA. has zero interest
whether the NHL tags on the re-capture penalty to the Hawks if Hossa subsequently would retire early on the expansion team ...so the issue is whether the NHL tries to apply such a tag penalty even though the expansion draft IS NOT a TRADE situation where the Hawks get back some other asset (s) ..it rather bus a league Forced procedure..Thus IF the NHL tries to still apply the tag penalty to tge Hossa contract tge Blackhawks coukd and should challenge in court because tge contract was Not Traded and no player or picks assets come back to tge Hawks in losing him to expansion.

Think of it. .the NHL could take tge NHLPA to court to insist expansion draft exposure is not a trade.or voluntary movement by the clubs..but tge NHL will nit challenge because it does not want to anger the NHLPA.

THE NHL could try to apply the tag of a potential re-capture on the Hawks if Hossa is selected in expansion them retires early but this would anger the
HAWKS because they can expose him to the expansion draft (if he has no more trade/movement protection) but are stopped from doing that because of some NHL arbitrary decision that expansion exposure is akin to a trade (it may legally not be but not wishing to anger tge NHLPA to find that out is different that making a legal finding that it is tge same thing.The Hawks could legally argue it is not tge same thing and in any case a protection in law that benefits a player is not the same thing as a penalty that may or may not legally apply to the Hawks..

THUS ...legal issues aside..does the NHL want to anger the Hawks ...Do tge Hawks want go anger the NHL? SOMEBODY is legally right but the non'legal optics and relations may influence how this shakes out.


The key issue to find out fir Hawks fans is this:


CAN HOSSA be exposed to the expansion draft (no more No trade/MO movement protection)?

IF the answer is yes ..then we will have to wait to see who blinks first as far as applying /or not accepting legally that the re-capture of cap hit would tag back to the Hawks .

The OTHER issue for All NHL teams is that since players with no trade or no movement clauses will not be exposed to this draft (if they expand) does this MEAN that such players are Exempt from the amount of players allowed to be protected Or must they be included First upto the limit of protection.


Example ..suppose a. Team.has 12 players with no trade ir no movement clauses..If the expansion draft rules allow them to protect 9 forwards and 5 Dmen and 1 goalie ...do 12 of these 15 have to come first from the no trade/no movement players ...Or are the 12 such cannot expose players excluded first before the club supplies a list of 15 others who do not have such clauses keeping them from the draft?

WHAT if a club has all 23 active roster players with no trade or no movement clauses?

YOU can see u fairness to some clubs if that is the case.

The more such guys you have protected from expansion via such clauses tge better
R you are
.Basically you giebup your aahL contracts pnly that way.

IF that is the case ..Stan would voluntarily open some contracts again with a player he wants to . Keep to give him a "freebie" of no trade or no movement ..if such players are exempt from the draft and do not ha.ve to be listed as ported in the limit of 1m5 or whatever.

IT also looks like very slim.pickings
For the expansion team IF this is the case.


One can imagine Stan ensuring g he has all tge guys he wants to keep from expansion on such clauses ..but NOT HOSSA (if he already has no more such clauses active ) and IF the Hawks threaten to take the NHL to court by insisting they drop any tag of re-capture in this process which is not legally a trade deal.


Ltd of stuff to chew on here..but it will be fascinating to watch .

Click to read more...

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Hawks are not suing NHL in court over Hossa recapture

NHL/NHLPA agreed to it in CBA and that means Hawks agreed to it and have to accept it

Hossa going anywhere will mean he will retire and hurt Hawks in longrun. He will be with Hawks until he is LTIR with some injury and NHL will look other way as they have in other cases

 

[Putt Pirate]

The quandary for the nhlpa is that more teams and jobs will be open for their members with an expansion. Do they want to make this their main battle when they are getting 50 roster spots if two more teams come in?

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

I would be absolutely floored if Hossa hurts our cap when he decides to call it. The biggest worry I have is Hossa deciding to play out his contract - as is his right - and we're stuck paying a third/fourth liner five million+.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

When the times comes, Hossa will go on LTIR. People really exaggerate the difficulty of placing him on LTIR, especially when you consider some of his past injuries.

 

[Putt Pirate]

He needs to do it before the next CBA before they make some sort of medical requirement/testing before LTIR or something like that.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

When the times comes, Hossa will go on LTIR. People really exaggerate the difficulty of placing him on LTIR, especially when you consider some of his past injuries.

That very point's been brought up essentially every time fiddy talks about it. He doesn't care.

Pronger and Philly provided the blueprint for us. Within a couple years, Hossa will claim a chronic knee or hip or back issue that puts him on LTIR. Like every veteran, he'd have residual issues that any doctor report could identify, so he'll be "retired" to no detriment towards our overall cap. People will feign shock despite it being utterly obvious, cry cap circumvention, the league might even promise a precursory investigation involving an independent doctoral checkup, and then nothing will happen.

 

[piteus]

That very point's been brought up essentially every time fiddy talks about it. He doesn't care.

Pronger and Philly provided the blueprint for us. Within a couple years, Hossa will claim a chronic knee or hip or back issue that puts him on LTIR. Like every veteran, he'd have residual issues that any doctor report could identify, so he'll be "retired" to no detriment towards our overall cap. People will feign shock despite it being utterly obvious, cry cap circumvention, the league might even promise a precursory investigation involving an independent doctoral checkup, and then nothing will happen.

I thought Pronger had serious concussion issues ... to the point he needed to live in the dark for a while. Was this all an act?

The one question with LTIR ... we can only get 10% of Hossa's cap back at the beginning of every year? And then when the season starts, we get his entire $5mn+ of his cap hit back? Is that correct?

 

[piteus]

Fiddy - it comes down to the CBA. I can't imagine the NHL and the NHLPA does not have some sort of agreement or precedent to go by. If they don't, what a major screw up by the NHLPA.

I suspect the expansion draft is fair game and the no trade clause will have zero impact. It basically places a player on waivers. The team still has to pay the player ... but it's the players option to report to the AHL or the team that picked him up. If the player doesn't report, his contract / CBA will resolve the payment matter.

The bigger question is what to do with the recapture hit regarding players drafted in expansion. The big market teams will argue that the cap hit should be reset. The small market teams will state the opposite. Obviously, the NHLPA will ask for the reset (larger money pool available).

I expect the owners to put up a united front. There will be a compromise before they negotiate with the NHLPA (if not done already). Expect a portion of the player's cap to be recaptured in the expansion draft. The most logical ... 50%.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I thought Pronger had serious concussion issues ... to the point he needed to live in the dark for a while. Was this all an act?

The one question with LTIR ... we can only get 10% of Hossa's cap back at the beginning of every year? And then when the season starts, we get his entire $5mn+ of his cap hit back? Is that correct?

Not claiming that Pronger feigned his issues, but I am saying that they set the precedent that other teams can follow.

Not sure about the latter.

 

[LordKOTL]

I think that recapture contracts are more of an exception than a rule. I think Hossa and Keith are the only ones for Chicago.

Given their rarity, and the fact that Pronger set the precedent, I think the NHL/NHLPA lets them go quietly into the night

 

[hawksfan50]

Well...your50% re-capture adjustment makes sense..But remember tge expansion team itself will ask for the full re-capture to tag to it Because it helps them get to the Floor. .Think of it. .If Hossa plays it costs them $1million a year for over $5 million of cap hit..If he retires early on them them it they get the full cap hit at zero cost... (all assuming Hossa can be exposed in the draft and he would be taken just precisely for the cap benefits to reach the floor). So an expansion club would ask for 100% not 50% of the benefit to them..The NHL would have to decide of the help to the expansion club is worth more than any residual penalty to the Hawks.I believe they would try to help the expansion club get to the Floor over any residual punish g of the Hawks.


SECONDLY ...I do not believe the CBA covers the expansion situation as regards the re-capture.If I am mistaken somebody point out the precise clause. My understanding is that the potential re-capture tags back to the Hawks if the Trade Hossa and he retires on the traded to club early.That is not the same as expansion.It is not a Trade but a forced league procedure where you lose a player and get no compensation back.Not a Trade.

So unless the CBA specifically includes expansion as upholding the tag of potential re-capture back to the Hawks..I still think legally tge Hawks would be off the hook ..If Hossa can be exposed and IF he gets selected which he should given the benefit to the expansion club as outlined above.


Thirdly ...Maybe the Hawks could get their doctors to put Hossa on LTIR every year to avoid re-capture if he wants to retire early on them ..but it is messy ..involving g wink wink subterfuge and would be exposed as a laughingstock embarrassment to the NHL for allowing the Hawks to get away with such a phoney out..Not to. Mention impugning the doctor's integrity.Far less messy to just say Hawks off the hook if he goes via expansion a nd any re-capture can benefit the expansion club.More people happy that way..both 9n the expansion club and on the Hawks.Far less messy and the right legal solution in my opinion.

SO the real issue is this.: Are there any no trade or no movement clauses active still on his contract..If not he Can be exposed to the expansion draft (not because the draft is akin to a trade..it is not a trade) but rather because to keep good relations with the NHLPA and get them to sign off on expansion the NHL does not want to allow players with such Bo trade clauses or no movement clauses to be so exposed to an expansion draft..because it would anger the PA ..not because of any legal requirement to protect such players from the expansion draft...the NHL could win a court case on this..But it would not want to even attempt to anger tge PA on this..so it will allow all such players to be protected from this draft.

BUT as I said that in itself creates unfairness among teams as some
Will have a lot of players who either must be protected first from the draft before other players of any added to protection lists
.or it means All such players are exempt from tge expansion draft even Before you submit your list of protected players to the max limit allowed from a pool of players without no trade or no movement clauses.

SO if this means all such players are protected even before a 2nd list of protected player to the max allowed is submitted from the pool of players a team has without such no trade clauses ...it means teams having the most players with such clauses get go. Protect more players than those with far fewer players with such clauses.Quite messy and unfair..not an even playing field.

In the worst scenario imaginable Team A has 23 players with such no trade/no movement clauses and Team B has Zero..If the expansion protection rule allows just 15 players ...9f 5D and 1 g to be protected ..then Team B must expose 8 players off its active roster.But Team A first gets to protect all 23 players on its active roster plus 15 more off its farm if they are on NHL deals.If tgey only have 5 on the farm with nhl deals then it only need expose these 5 ...

Clearly you see how ludicrous thus would get.

In reality no NHL team has all 23 active roster player with such not trade or no movement clauses.But if it had say 12 ..then if these are "exempt" even before starting your list of 15 other protected players who do not have such clauses..it effectively means All 23 active roster players except probably the back-up goalie who has no such clauses ...so 22 if your 23 active roster would get protected from the draft plus you still could protect 5 more off your farm team..but a team with only 3 such players with these clauses would only be able to protect 18 total off tge active roster (3 exempt +15 non-exempt protected choices)...

SO you see what unfairness could get involved here.

Suppose instead the NHL decides not on exempt players going to protect us before protection lists chosen from the "remainder" pool but rather a Fill with protective clause players First procedure..


IN that case using our scenarios of a Team with 12 vs. another Team with just 3 who have such clauses...the team with 12 protects them first and then fills 3 from their remainder pool. ..The Team with 3 protects 3 first then fills the protection list with 12 from the remainder pool to get to 15 overall protected.This is fair and still results I the same number of protected players off the active roster..But it might encourage GMS to."load" up.more no trade contracts even for just 1 year to gain advantage.So a team that has 12 such players with these clause may decide to hand out 13 extentions of 1 year with no trade deals for 1 year just to keep more protected players ..You coukd see the abuses by certain teams forming to protect as many as possible from expansion. .except for players they want to be taken off their hands.

SO How the NHL decides this. ..Exempt First or Fill Protected list first from exempt players list before adding residuals..this will be a crucial rule decision.

How to prevent the GMs from exploiting the players with no trade clauses by adding more to get more protected..that will be a big issue.


But if Hossa has no such clauses active the Hawks would want him exposed and taken..But this cannot happen unless either no or at least 50% of re-capture only tags back to them if he retires on the expansion club early.

While keeping him on LTIR may still be an out of last resort if he cannot be exposed I the draft..then it is messy and embarrassing to lie to get him.iff book like that ..and I do not believe tge league would stand for such subterfuge...far cleaner to just let him go in expansion and give 100% of any re-capture consequence to the expansion club as a Benefit to help them get to the Floor.

I think I have logically argued this all out very well..

O do not believe LTIR is such a simple solution as some have argued and so Why go through such messy nies when it is simpler to just expose him.and rule that expansion is not the same thing as a trade and so the Hawks are off the hook on any re-capture.
.

 

[Putt Pirate]

One team max per team can be lost per Twitter today. 2 if two teams enter NHL.7f/3D/1g can be protected.

 

[Enyaw]

One team max per team can be lost per Twitter today. 2 if two teams enter NHL.7f/3D/1g can be protected.

its all talk ... nothing is finalized

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Plus, I'll still want to know what the guidelines for prospects are before I make any decision on who I'd want to protect, assuming that an expansion draft happens.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

plus, i'll still want to know what the guidelines for prospects are before i make any decision on who i'd want to protect, assuming that an expansion draft happens.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Thanks, Dags.

So, guys in juniors and college are exempt. Players with less than two years of NHL/AHL/KHL experience are exempt. Everyone else is fair game.

 

[Taze em]

Panarin and Teuvo are exempt then and the entire team signed beyond next year can't be picked including Shaw.

Darling is the only one that could be picked.

 

[CourtneyDagger50]

Most of the guys in Rockford could be too, no?
Hartman, Ross, McNeill, Pokka, Sved?

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Panarin and Teuvo are exempt then and the entire team signed beyond next year can't be picked including Shaw.

Darling is the only one that could be picked.

Earliest case scenario, an expansion draft would take place in the 2017-18 offseason in all likelihood, if not later. So Panarin and Teravainen wouldn't be exempt (and I'm not sure if either would be exempt if the expansion took place today or not, depends on one's definition of pro leagues and their experience in Europe and especially Russia). I'd assume that anybody with a combined two years of NHL and AHL experience is kosher by expansion draft standards, and very possibly KHL and other euro leagues, too.

As for the longer contracts, I think that the only barrier would be NMCs/NTCs, but even that might be open for debate. I don't think that a player signed for a multiyear deal is automatically out of the picture.

 

[scarchelli]

They wouldn't be exempt in 2017-2018, so extend them with a NMC, so you don't have to protect them, assuming NMCs are exempt from expansion.

 

[Taze em]

Earliest case scenario, an expansion draft would take place in the 2017-18 offseason in all likelihood, if not later. So Panarin and Teravainen wouldn't be exempt (and I'm not sure if either would be exempt if the expansion took place today or not, depends on one's definition of pro leagues and their experience in Europe and especially Russia). I'd assume that anybody with a combined two years of NHL and AHL experience is kosher by expansion draft standards, and very possibly KHL and other euro leagues, too.

As for the longer contracts, I think that the only barrier would be NMCs/NTCs, but even that might be open for debate. I don't think that a player signed for a multiyear deal is automatically out of the picture.

This tweet made it seem like a "this offseason" type thing. But you could be right.

 

[Taze em]

Doesn't really matter if Panarin and Teuvo aren't exempt anyways I had us protecting some bottomfeeders like Desi/ Panik.

Toews/Kane/Hossa/Anisimov/Panarin/Teuvo/Kruger (shaw will be gone before then)

Keith/Seabs/Hammer

Craw

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Looks like this will happen July 2017. Also, saw a rumor that the cap will be 74m next year if the players use the escalator. So Hawks protect something like this (assuming they resign Shaw knowing Hossa will go on LTIR after next year)

Toews
Kane
Panarin
TT
Anisimov
Kruger
Shaw
Keith
Seabrook
Hammer
Crow

 

[No Fun Shogun]

This tweet made it seem like a "this offseason" type thing. But you could be right.

I read that as saying that they'll make a decision on expansion this offseason: i.e. - do it or don't do it, not that they'd be ready and rearing to go to actually expand immediately.

Let's face it.... expansion approved, then an expansion draft, then an actual draft, then a couple months later start playing? That's a very rapid turnaround.

More likely, expansion approved this offseason, new team(s) spend the season scouting potential draftees, expansion draft candidates, and free agents, and then the 2017-18 offseason is where the action takes place. And even that seems fast to me.