Value of: Stashing players in Vegas during the expansion draft.

[Ted Hoffman]

I thought about a different approach to dealing with Seattle . For Example Edmonton needs a goalie . The talk to Seattle about selecting a goalie they want then after the ED draft trading for said goalie . I am sure the NHL would probably have rules about talking trades about a player that isn’t Seattle property. I am sure Edmonton could say we are looking for a goalie if you have an extra one after the draft we will touch base with you .

This is totally fine. It's happened before. In fact, the scenario earlier where Team A sees a guy from Team B on the available list and tells Seattle "we really want that guy, we'll give you ____ to take him and then flip him to us" is totally permissible as well.

absolutely. But Seattle has to build the best team they can. They don’t have to accept the deal. They may like the player available to them better than any compensation offered.

I'm going to nitpick this. Seattle doesn't have to "build the best team they can." Yes, it's a goal, but the requirements are to take the requisite number of players for the requisite number of cap dollars. That's it. How it chooses to go about it is its decision.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

vegas trading those players they acquired after the ED is illegal and the league will block ot.

any player vegas acquires between now and ED must be on the team for one calendar year before they could be traded.

Link to this?

it’s the same as you match an offer sheet.

it’s not in CBA because it’s expansion draft related or you getting a player back you traded.

They have to keep any player they acquire pre-ED for a calendar year? Do you have a source for this?

That sounds preposterous. Daly is looking at obvious draft circumvention and 'parking' players to be returned to the same team.

the same will apply to teams not named vegas where teamX has a 4th Dmannand other team has an 8th forward but room for a Dman( Arizona has an open D spot). Thrm trading for thrm thrn trading thrm back Dally woukd fine the teams. If they use middle ment, those teams will get punished too.

Let's try this again, since you've given 2 responses and still not answered my question. Do you have a link for this (any player vegas acquires between now and ED must be on the team for one calendar year before they could be traded)? Never mind, I found it. For those wondering, it's in the 2020-21 transition rules that were released in December.

https://cdn.nhlpa.com/img/assets/fi...-Critical-Dates-and-Expansion-Calendar-PR.pdf

 

[CupInSIX]

Let's try this again, since you've given 2 responses and still not answered my question. Do you have a link for this (any player vegas acquires between now and ED must be on the team for one calendar year before they could be traded)? Never mind, I found it. For those wondering, it's in the 2020-21 transition rules that were released in December.

https://cdn.nhlpa.com/img/assets/fi...-Critical-Dates-and-Expansion-Calendar-PR.pdf

So nothing in writing apart from the obvious renting out of players a team can't protect. Any team can flip players they get between now & the ED so long as it's not glaringly obvious they're circumventing the draft.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

So nothing in writing apart from the obvious renting out of players a team can't protect. Any team can flip players they get between now & the ED so long as it's not glaringly obvious they're circumventing the draft.

Correct. If it's questionable, the league will probably not do much if anything look at it just to make sure it passes the sniff test.

Team A can flip a player to Team B. Team A just can't get the guy back until after 1/31/22. Team B could even be Vegas and the flip could be before the Expansion Draft, but Vegas will (A) have to have the cap space for the guy now, and (B) have to have the cap space for the guy during most of '21-22, which might (will likely) be an issue.

Team A can flip a player to Team B (not Vegas) before the expansion draft for Team B to protect. Again, Team A still can't get them back before 1/31/22 and it means Team B has to leave unprotected someone it might really want to protect. Doubtful any Team B has a roster of guys and thinks nah, we only want 3 or 4 of these guys. Including Buffalo.

Team A could send a player to Vegas, who holds the guy through the Expansion draft and then sends the guy to Team B. Again, Vegas has to have the cap space for that guy. Given the offseason cap rules won't go into effect until the date that UFA opens, Vegas is going to be cap-strapped as it is so it won't have space to take on guys - but pretending it did, Team A still can't get the guy back from Team B until 1/31/22 so Team B has to have the cap space to sit on that guy. Some Team Bs might have the cap space for it, but even if they do if a guy goes back to Team A between 1/31/22 and the '22 trade deadline, you can bet the league is going to be investigating those pretty closely.

It's a lot of noise over nothing, IMO. The opportunities to take advantage of Vegas are going to be pretty much nil because of how the cap will be applying at the time.

 

[Mike Jones]

Vegas only has so many roster spots and cap space available so even if they were legal these trades have to be few and far between. How many experienced, NHL level goalies, for example, can they possibly fit in their organization?

 

[Djp]

Correct. If it's questionable, the league will probably not do much if anything look at it just to make sure it passes the sniff test.

Team A can flip a player to Team B. Team A just can't get the guy back until after 1/31/22. Team B could even be Vegas and the flip could be before the Expansion Draft, but Vegas will (A) have to have the cap space for the guy now, and (B) have to have the cap space for the guy during most of '21-22, which might (will likely) be an issue.

Team A can flip a player to Team B (not Vegas) before the expansion draft for Team B to protect. Again, Team A still can't get them back before 1/31/22 and it means Team B has to leave unprotected someone it might really want to protect. Doubtful any Team B has a roster of guys and thinks nah, we only want 3 or 4 of these guys. Including Buffalo.

Team A could send a player to Vegas, who holds the guy through the Expansion draft and then sends the guy to Team B. Again, Vegas has to have the cap space for that guy. Given the offseason cap rules won't go into effect until the date that UFA opens, Vegas is going to be cap-strapped as it is so it won't have space to take on guys - but pretending it did, Team A still can't get the guy back from Team B until 1/31/22 so Team B has to have the cap space to sit on that guy. Some Team Bs might have the cap space for it, but even if they do if a guy goes back to Team A between 1/31/22 and the '22 trade deadline, you can bet the league is going to be investigating those pretty closely.

It's a lot of noise over nothing, IMO. The opportunities to take advantage of Vegas are going to be pretty much nil because of how the cap will be applying at the time.

Daly will fine/ punish a Vegas pass through trade bern if it seems legit

under other rules you can’t get a player back if there is retained salary. I don’t recall the details but Pittsburgh I think at last yr deadline wanted to acquire a player they had the year prior but coukdnt and was blocked by the league

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Daly will fine/ punish a Vegas pass through trade bern if it seems legit

under other rules you can’t get a player back if there is retained salary. I don’t recall the details but Pittsburgh I think at last yr deadline wanted to acquire a player they had the year prior but coukdnt and was blocked by the league

Yes, all of that too - but the more immediate concern as regards all the discussions here is that no one is throwing a player to Vegas for Vegas to "protect from Seattle" and then getting the player back shortly after, salary retention or not.

 

[CupInSIX]

Correct. If it's questionable, the league will probably not do much if anything look at it just to make sure it passes the sniff test.

Team A can flip a player to Team B. Team A just can't get the guy back until after 1/31/22. Team B could even be Vegas and the flip could be before the Expansion Draft, but Vegas will (A) have to have the cap space for the guy now, and (B) have to have the cap space for the guy during most of '21-22, which might (will likely) be an issue.

Team A can flip a player to Team B (not Vegas) before the expansion draft for Team B to protect. Again, Team A still can't get them back before 1/31/22 and it means Team B has to leave unprotected someone it might really want to protect. Doubtful any Team B has a roster of guys and thinks nah, we only want 3 or 4 of these guys. Including Buffalo.

Team A could send a player to Vegas, who holds the guy through the Expansion draft and then sends the guy to Team B. Again, Vegas has to have the cap space for that guy. Given the offseason cap rules won't go into effect until the date that UFA opens, Vegas is going to be cap-strapped as it is so it won't have space to take on guys - but pretending it did, Team A still can't get the guy back from Team B until 1/31/22 so Team B has to have the cap space to sit on that guy. Some Team Bs might have the cap space for it, but even if they do if a guy goes back to Team A between 1/31/22 and the '22 trade deadline, you can bet the league is going to be investigating those pretty closely.

It's a lot of noise over nothing, IMO. The opportunities to take advantage of Vegas are going to be pretty much nil because of how the cap will be applying at the time.

True, but you never know. I can see Hill/Kuemper being offered around the league this summer to every team. A few teams don't have to worry about using a protection slot on one of them.

The most likely thing is Vegas does an actual hockey trade with some cap going back the other way. That's the best time to move a guy like Holden, and they can take a couple players back with low cap hits and maybe send back an expansion-exempt player.

Nothing really obvious jumps out to me, because the ideal trade partners in this scenario would be Colorado, St Louis and Minnesota. And that ain't happening.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

True, but you never know. I can see Hill/Kuemper being offered around the league this summer to every team. A few teams don't have to worry about using a protection slot on one of them.

The most likely thing is Vegas does an actual hockey trade with some cap going back the other way. That's the best time to move a guy like Holden, and they can take a couple players back with low cap hits and maybe send back an expansion-exempt player.

Agreed. What you're talking about are actual hockey-related moves, not Phoenix trying to hide Hill/Kuemper out somewhere so Seattle doesn't snag one/both of them and then reacquire one/both after Seattle makes its picks. That said, I think a lot of trades will happen after everyone knows what Seattle is doing, unless someone really wants a player from another team and is willing to spend a protection spot on them or has a deal with Seattle to not take the guy.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Hypothetically, could a team make a future considerations trade with Vegas pre-expansion?

Trade non exempt player for future considerations. Then call the considerations after the expansion draft? Not trading the player back, but just finishing the trade afterwards?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Hypothetically, could a team make a future considerations trade with Vegas pre-expansion?

Trade non exempt player for future considerations. Then call the considerations after the expansion draft? Not trading the player back, but just finishing the trade afterwards?

Hypothetically? Yes.

In reality? Vegas still has to have the cap room to take the player on. Not the "offseason, you get to go over by 10%" cap, it's almost certainly going to be the "regular season, all the impending UFAs are still under contract to you so they all still count in full" one.

 

[CupInSIX]

Hypothetically, could a team make a future considerations trade with Vegas pre-expansion?

Trade non exempt player for future considerations. Then call the considerations after the expansion draft? Not trading the player back, but just finishing the trade afterwards?

For a decent player? Sounds fishy. The league might punish them for that.

Too good a player and I doubt 'X for futures' is even allowed by the league.

 

[supsens]

Fist problem is the price Vegas could charge you to get the player back...highest bidder around the NHL gets it done. Second problem is Vegas could just keep the player and laugh at you

If you are paying Vegas why not just pay the Kraken
Kraken what a stupid name.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

For a decent player? Sounds fishy. The league might punish them for that.

Too good a player and I doubt 'X for futures' is even allowed by the league.

Unless it's specifically written about, could be an interesting loophole, just unsure if they wrote a clause about that.

 

[Paulinbc]

Vegas is exempt from the expansion draft. How can they use this to their maximum advantage?

Scenario A:

A team has to expose 1 good player and several expendable bad ones. They know Seattle will take the good one. They trade the good player to Vegas for a pick, getting something and lose an expendable bad player to Seattle.

Scenario B:

Two teams want to trade with each other are afraid their new player will just get picked by Seattle. They trade both guys to Vegas, plus some picks as a fee. After the expansion draft, Vegas completes the trade.

Smells like collusion. NHL has rules to prevent this. At the very least it’s icky.
Nice try.

 

[North Cole]

Vegas would probably screw you for a bigger price than just paying off Seattle to take someone else. Honestly youre looking at exposing the 5-8th best player. No chance the player is so good as to warrant any of this.

Edit - also can't imagine the NHLPA would be overly happy with teams sending guys all over the continent and getting them back 8 months later.