Line Combos: Roster/Lineup/Movement Discussions Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

koteka

Registered User
Jan 1, 2017
3,934
4,271
Central Ohio
Here are the expansion rules:

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft rules same as Golden Knights followed

Seattle must choose a minimum of 20 players under contract for the 2021-22 regular season and those with an aggregate Expansion Draft value that is between 60-100 percent of the prior season's upper limit for the salary cap. Seattle cannot buy out players chosen in the Expansion Draft earlier than the summer following its first season.

Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie, under the following conditions.

* All players with no movement clauses at the time of the draft, and who decline to waive those clauses, must be protected and will be counted toward their team's applicable protection limits.

* All first- and second-year NHL players, and all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward protection limits.

In addition, all NHL teams must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the draft:

* One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played in at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* One goalie who is under contract in 2021-22 or will be a restricted free agent at the end of his current contract immediately prior to 2021-22. If a team elects to make a restricted free agent goalie available to meet this requirement, that goalie must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the team's protected list.

* Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a team's player exposure requirements unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection.
 

koteka

Registered User
Jan 1, 2017
3,934
4,271
Central Ohio
Given there are specific rules about players we have to expose players to Seattle:

Kivlenieks meets the goalie requirement

It was assumed that Kukan would meet the minimum games requirement. He might not. We might have to extend MDZ just to meet the requirement. Seattle could still pick Kukan even if he doesn’t meet the games requirement.

We could expose Nyquist and Cam to meet the forward requirements. Those are pretty big contracts to absorb for aging players. So Seattle might not pick those guys. Robinson is another option.

I think Kukan is the guy who is gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJ Dangler

DarkandStormy

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
7,092
3,325
614
Given there are specific rules about players we have to expose players to Seattle:

Kivlenieks meets the goalie requirement

It was assumed that Kukan would meet the minimum games requirement. He might not. We might have to extend MDZ just to meet the requirement. Seattle could still pick Kukan even if he doesn’t meet the games requirement.

We could expose Nyquist and Cam to meet the forward requirements. Those are pretty big contracts to absorb for aging players. So Seattle might not pick those guys. Robinson is another option.

I think Kukan is the guy who is gone.

Playoff games count towards the games played requirement, so Kukan has already met that threshold (60 games played in the last 2 seasons...NHL is requiring 54 in the past two seasons or 27 this season).

Barring some big trades, our players eligible will be Robinson, Stenlund, Kukan, and Kivlenieks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koteka

koteka

Registered User
Jan 1, 2017
3,934
4,271
Central Ohio
Can’t say I agree on Grigorenko, he produced quite alright given the ice time he was given

I wonder if they might have a trade in place if he clears waivers. Like to a contender that might want him as insurance but doesn’t want him on the NHL roster now. I could especially see a Canadian team doing something like this since he’ll have the 2 week quarantine. Like maybe Toronto, since we have obviously been discussing trades with them. Or to Winnipeg with Savard. He might be more valuable to trade if he can go to the practice squad. We wouldn’t get much back. Maybe a 6th.
 

VT

Registered User
Jan 24, 2021
6,875
3,528
Slovakia
Can’t say I agree on Grigorenko, he produced quite alright given the ice time he was given
Domi, Bjorkstrand, Laine, Atkinson in TOP 6. Robinson is an ideal grinder. Stenlund is better than Grigo, Texier and Bemstrom two young, skill, agressive guys. Foudy is more ideal in bottom 6 than he. Plus the return to Nyquist is comming. And if Foligno wouldn't trade?
Besides he didn't create so many chances even for his ice time, he didn't play agressive, problems at the board, in the defense. The most of his assists for assists.
I really want so that he would be our TOP 6 player, it's a pity Torts didn't try to move him to Line as a center but .... . :(
 

VT

Registered User
Jan 24, 2021
6,875
3,528
Slovakia
We have TPO 6 center - Max Domi. I understand he isn`t ideal in defense but can`t find TOP 6 center so soon, especially if Nyquist`ll return.

Laine-Domi-Bjorkstrand
Texier-Roslovic-Atkinson
Foligno-Jenner-Bemstrom
Robinson-Nash-Stenlund
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebus88

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,078
2,705
Michigan
Lol. Shot attempts aren't made up, no matter how much you try to rail against them. Neither are goals.


What’s made up is the (much of the time inconsistent or inaccurate) “scores” or “numbers” associated with all different types of plays on the ice that are then morphed into different arguments why a guy is or isn’t effective at a certain thing or with certain players.

What’s also bogus is the idea that each guy on the ice for a goal scored or goal against (or shots/shot attempts) has the exact level of impact on each goal.

There is also no such thing as .11, .32, or .84 of a shot or shot attempt.
 

DarkandStormy

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
7,092
3,325
614
What’s also bogus is the idea that each guy on the ice for a goal scored or goal against (or shots/shot attempts) has the exact level of impact on each goal.

That's...literally what +/- is but it adds in weird situations (on ice for a short-handed goal is a minus, for example).

There is also no such thing as .11, .32, or .84 of a shot or shot attempt.

None of the stats cited show that. It sounds like you're just making something up because you don't understand what the stats are capturing.

Here is a pretty good intro.
 

Monstershockey

Registered User
Sponsor
Dec 31, 2017
2,849
3,145
That's...literally what +/- is but it adds in weird situations (on ice for a short-handed goal is a minus, for example).
You get a minus for a shorthanded goal against and a plus for a short handed goal for. That makes sense. You should get a minus if you give up a goal with a man advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebus88
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad