Speculation: 2020-21 News/Rumors/Roster Thread Part IV

[henkkj]

Again, any player that has played more than two professional seasons is eligible to be selected if they are not protected. If we protect Doughty, Roy, and Walker, Seattle can choose Clague or Strand, regardless of the number of games they play this season.

Can you provide a source for the bolded part? NHL.com has an article that explains the rules as follows: "* 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." According to that, seasons Strand and Clague have spent in the AHL should not count and they should still be exempt.

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft rules same as Golden Knights followed

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Not that I ever want anything to happen to Drew, but I'm confident that Roy could fill in as our 1RD.

Bjornfot - Roy
Clague - Strand
Anderson - Walker

I mean it is obviously better with Drew, but I wonder how they would do.

Without Doughty, that's a stout dcore, but there's just not enough offense there--which is why I wonder if that's the real basis for the rumor.

Like I said before, though, it doesn't even make sense to target a marginal upgrade with those 3 more or less similar dmen. It would have to be a bigger fish they're chasing, like a Werenski or Sergachev. Not saying I'd do it, just that's the only thing that makes sense in my brain.

 

[kovacro]

Can you provide a source for the bolded part? NHL.com has an article that explains the rules as follows: "* 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." According to that, seasons Strand and Clague have spent in the AHL should not count and they should still be exempt.

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft rules same as Golden Knights followed

Clague and Strand (both in 3rd pro season) are eligible for the expansion draft..

First & Second Year Pros (Exempt)

All players who have accrued two or less professional seasons at the end of the 2020-21 season, as well as all unsigned draft choices appearing on the teams reserve list, will be exempt from the upcoming expansion draft.

Expansion Draft FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

 

[lumbergh]

Not that I ever want anything to happen to Drew, but I'm confident that Roy could fill in as our 1RD.

Bjornfot - Roy
Clague - Strand
Anderson - Walker

I mean it is obviously better with Drew, but I wonder how they would do.

Matt Roy actually makes me think of Mark Giordano of the Flames. Steady, physical, stout. Not as much offense as Giordano, but they both have heavy shots from the point.

 

[henkkj]

Clague and Strand (both in 3rd pro season) are eligible for the expansion draft..

First & Second Year Pros (Exempt)

All players who have accrued two or less professional seasons at the end of the 2020-21 season, as well as all unsigned draft choices appearing on the teams reserve list, will be exempt from the upcoming expansion draft.

Expansion Draft FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

By that logic, for example, Rasmus Kupari should be eligible as well since he played two professional seasons in Finland before heading to NA and is in his 4th pro year currently. I know I might very well be wrong here but if I am, I must say that the NHL have done extremely poorly explaining the rules on their own website, as the link I quoted and shared in the previous post of mine was talking about NHL seasons, not professional seasons played in other leagues.

I do believe that you guys are right here about Clague and Strand being eligible but I just originally got confused by the inaccurate rules on NHL.com.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

Not that I ever want anything to happen to Drew, but I'm confident that Roy could fill in as our 1RD.

Bjornfot - Roy
Clague - Strand
Anderson - Walker

I mean it is obviously better with Drew, but I wonder how they would do.

That’s a very inexperienced defense. Hope we don’t see that for more than a few games. I guess it’s all speculation right now based on if Blake is able to find LHD. And if he does trade for one, I believe one of our younger dmen will be going back, especially with the upcoming expansion draft.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That’s a very inexperienced defense. Hope we don’t see that for more than a few games. I guess it’s all speculation right now based on if Blake is able to find LHD. And if he does trade for one, I believe one of our younger dmen will be going back, especially with the upcoming expansion draft.

That would be the Clague slot imo--trade clague and other assets for a major upgrade?

Again I don't think we're there yet but it's the only thing that i can reconcile that makes sense.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I’m fine with it. You protect Roy and Doughty. Then one of Clague, Strand and Walker if you lose one of the other two the depth is already there to cover it as one of them will likely be the odd one out the following year anyway. It really would not hurt us. Before the season I’d have protected Walker but now I’m leaning towards Clague but there is loads of hockey to play yet.

I'd rather protect more defensemen, and trade one later if need be, over depth wingers.

Seattle Expansion Draft Simulator - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

If that simulator is showing correct players exempt and the games remaining to meet exposure requirements, I think it makes a lot of sense to go 7-3-1. Seems like at this rate Clague and Strand won't play enough games to be available for Seattle, so only 3 d-men worth protecting would be Doughty, Roy and Walker since Bjornfot and Anderson are exempt anyways. I doubt the management cares too much about losing MacDermid or Määttä.

So my guess is they want to protect:

Kopitar
Iafallo
Kempe
Grundstörm
... and 3 of Frk/Moore/Lias/Lizotte/Wagner/Brown/Carter/AA if resigned

Doughty
Roy
Walker

Petersen

Only one that I really would care about losing is Quick, but can't protect both goalies anyways and Petersen is more important for the future so have to go with him.

EDIT: And if they decide to actually trade for a LHD before expansion draft, they could just swap to 4-4-1 and protect all those important d-men.

You're reading that incorrectly. Exposure requirements are about having to expose at least X amount of players with specific contract and GP numbers. That's where Maatta and MacD fit in. Everyone else in the exposed category can still be selected by Seattle if they're not protected. If the Kings hadn't already traded for Maatta, they would have to do so.

 

[kovacro]

By that logic, for example, Rasmus Kupari should be eligible as well since he played two professional seasons in Finland before heading to NA and is in his 4th pro year currently. I know I might very well be wrong here but if I am, I must say that the NHL have done extremely poorly explaining the rules on their own website, as the link I quoted and shared in the previous post of mine was talking about NHL seasons, not professional seasons played in other leagues.

I do believe that you guys are right here about Clague and Strand being eligible but I just originally got confused by the inaccurate rules on NHL.com.

It likely should be worded as something along the lines of 2-years pro or less in North America, rights owned by an NHL club and not limited to time spent in the minor pro ranks.

Example, Gusev for New Jersey is exempt and he's played more than 2 pro seasons, including time in the KHL.

 

[kovacro]

I'd rather protect more defensemen, and trade one later if need be, over depth wingers.



You're reading that incorrectly. Exposure requirements are about having to expose at least X amount of players with specific contract and GP numbers. That's where Maatta and MacD fit in. Everyone else in the exposed category can still be selected by Seattle if they're not protected. If the Kings hadn't already traded for Maatta, they would have to do so.

Correct....
Minimum Exposure Requirements

Teams must expose a minimum number of players that meet the following criteria for selection in the upcoming Expansion Draft:

Position	#	Criteria
Forwards	2	under contract in 2021-22, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Defense	1	under contract in 2021-22, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Goalies	1	under contract in 2021-22, OR who’s contract is expiring and is an RFA at the end of 2020-21

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[kilowatt]

That’s a very inexperienced defense. Hope we don’t see that for more than a few games. I guess it’s all speculation right now based on if Blake is able to find LHD. And if he does trade for one, I believe one of our younger dmen will be going back, especially with the upcoming expansion draft.

I totally agree, my point is just that this year, does it matter? I'm not going to lose sleep if we make the playoffs and don't win the cup this year. In fact, if we lose Doughty, we're not winning anything anyway. Unless we're going after Bowen Byram or Moritz Seider, I'm not interested in giving up one of our top prospects. Conversely, giving up one of the guys in our next tier (Kupari, Thomas, Madden, etc) isn't going to net us a return better than Bjornfot, Anderson, or Clague.

I don't have any reason not to trust Blake, I just don't see a reason to make a trade like that.

 

[henkkj]

I'd rather protect more defensemen, and trade one later if need be, over depth wingers.



You're reading that incorrectly. Exposure requirements are about having to expose at least X amount of players with specific contract and GP numbers. That's where Maatta and MacD fit in. Everyone else in the exposed category can still be selected by Seattle if they're not protected. If the Kings hadn't already traded for Maatta, they would have to do so.

Yep my bad, got it already. I was confused by bad wording on NHL.com rules regarding exempt players.

 

[KopitarFAN]

Correct....
Minimum Exposure Requirements

Teams must expose a minimum number of players that meet the following criteria for selection in the upcoming Expansion Draft:

Position	#	Criteria
Forwards	2	under contract in 2021-22, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Defense	1	under contract in 2021-22, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Goalies	1	under contract in 2021-22, OR who’s contract is expiring and is an RFA at the end of 2020-21

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It should be noted that the 40/70 has been changed to 27/54 to reflect the ~34 lost games over the last 2 seasons.

 

[Schmooley]

Watching games around the league Im starting to think Quick and Petersen are the best tandem in the league. I like to rag on Quick when hes leaking but if Im a team looking to make a deep playoff run Id take him over most others.
Its pretty low key also no one talks about Peterson and Quick is like the least respected star goalie of all time for whatever reason.

 

[regulate]

Can you provide a source for the bolded part? NHL.com has an article that explains the rules as follows: "* 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." According to that, seasons Strand and Clague have spent in the AHL should not count and they should still be exempt.

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft rules same as Golden Knights followed

Unfortunately the NHL.com article wording is incorrect and they have never fixed it. Hoven mentioned that also last night on his podcast. The rules in the Vegas expansion draft were two years professional experience, and it's the same here. AHL experience counts. Kempe was coming off of two years pro experience in the last expansion, which happened at the conclusion of his 2nd year. Had the expansion been a year later, he would not have been exempt.

 

[regulate]

Why keep Bjornfot and burn a year of entry level when Clague or Strand can take that spot. He’s only 19.

Also, would Byfield go back to OHL?

Blake's statement at the start of the season was the goal was to make the playoffs. The Kings are 6-0 with Bjornfot in the line up and the opposition has not scored a single goal at even strength with him on the ice.

Byfield has little choice, it's either the OHL or the NHL once the OHL season starts. Which is why there is a slight possibility that if the OHL start is delayed even farther, the Kings could keep him on their roster to finish out the season. They don't want to burn his ELC 18 year old year. Kings probably don't want him to have to go through the quarantine again for the third time either, returning to Canada.

 

[Cook24]

With Strand stepping up I could see Walker going the other way in a trade for a top defenseman...

Walker, Kupari, and a pick for Werenski?

 

[Esteban Tornado]

With Strand stepping up I could see Walker going the other way in a trade for a top defenseman...

Walker, Kupari, and a pick for Werenski?

Los Angeles Kings eye dynamic, left-shot defenceman ahead of NHL trade deadline - TSN.ca

Kempe?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

 

[johnjm22]

I know Bjornfot has never been considered an offensive defenseman, but he has the tools to develop that side of his game. If he continues to work on his game, I think he can eventually become somewhat offensively productive as well.

 

[KINGS17]

Los Angeles Kings eye dynamic, left-shot defenceman ahead of NHL trade deadline - TSN.ca

Kempe?

If the player Blake is looking for is a dynamic LD, under 25 years of age, he won't even get a GM to speak with him if the first name out of his mouth isn't at least as interesting as Vilardi. Kempe isn't that interesting, not for the kind of player mentioned in your linked article.

 

[Lt Dan]

Los Angeles Kings eye dynamic, left-shot defenceman ahead of NHL trade deadline - TSN.ca

Kempe?

"Stay the course" didn't last long now did it? lol

 

[johnjm22]

It could be someone like K'Andre Miller. NYR needs a center prospect.

The thing I don't like about trading for a young defenseman is that defensemen are harder to project IMO.

 

[Kudelski37]

Wasn't this the rumor over the summer or fall? Wouldn't surprise me that they are just rehashing an old story for page hits.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

It could be someone like K'Andre Miller. NYR needs a center prospect.

The thing I don't like about trading for a young defenseman is that defensemen are harder to project IMO.

He’d be a good get, not much experience but a ton of upside. Also he shouldn’t cost one of Byfield, Turcotte, or Vilardi.