Thanks! Were there any notable examples of this during this past Expansion Draft (that we know of) that corroborate that? Not that I don't believe you or anything, just curious.
I don't blame you. I got it from this article.
Thanks! Were there any notable examples of this during this past Expansion Draft (that we know of) that corroborate that? Not that I don't believe you or anything, just curious.
Would Chris Pronger apply? Just throwing it out there.Thanks! Were there any notable examples of this during this past Expansion Draft (that we know of) that corroborate that? Not that I don't believe you or anything, just curious.
He was on LTIR I believe, and would've been exempt (same as Horton) - Doesn't look like he was protected or made available.Would Chris Pronger apply? Just throwing it out there.
His contract with NMC ended 2016/2017
Kris Versteeg had a one year deal with the Flames that was set to expire the year of expansion draft, he had a modified NTC. Calgary didn't protect him. Is that a better example?He was on LTIR I believe, and would've been exempt (same as Horton) - Doesn't look like he was protected or made available.
As per the link posted by biotk above(thanks for that), players with NMCs on expiring contracts to not need to be protected.
Yeah, I think so - The only thing that would separate that example would be that it was a modified No-Trade Clause, rather than a No-Movement Clause. Regardless, doesn't seem like this will be something we need to concern ourselves with.Kris Versteeg had a one year deal with the Flames that was set to expire the year of expansion draft, he had a modified NTC. Calgary didn't protect him. Is that a better example?
Exactly - They didn't have to be protected, but could be. Marleau falls under that strange transition window, but would likely be neither protected nor selected (if he hasn't even retired by that point).
Yeah, I'll be really surprised if he plays out that last season with us. My expectation is that he's traded after July 1st, 2019.and speculation is his contract is deliberately set up for him to be traded in the 3rd year. He gets majority of his salary in bonuses each year but that last year he gets $3M bonus but $1.25 salaray so after july 1 he gets his $3M we could trade him, could retain 50% even.
The format is extremely flawed. If the new expansion team get 30 Zaitsev type players they will again be better than most NHL teams. Gone from not giving up enough to giving up too much to the new teams.
Each team can only lose one - One player is selected from each team. Or am I misunderstanding your post?I am still saying, let the teams protect 1 more player and/or each team can only lose one.
keep liljegren in the marlies for 3 more years? that's crazy. You protect a potential elite RH dman and you let a Connor Brown type go, Brown is a great story but he is a dime a dozen type player. Every team has there own brown. I say brown because if given a choice id imagine babcock would keep hyman
Pretty sure you can only protect 3 Dman (Rielly, Dermott, Gardiner/Zaitsev)
And besides the earliest he even makes the team would be 2019-20 and even that's a huge longshot (Lilly is competing in the AHL and isn't exactly dominating the league yet. In a year or two when he is playing on the top line,driving the play will Toronto look at him as NHL player)
Pretty sure bettman just said Seattle will get the same rules .
There are teams who were forced to lose guys that ended up costing them the playoffs. The net win for that franchise is zero. One team lost its spot.