Speculation: 2021 NHL Expansion Draft (Seattle)

yogibear

Registered User
Mar 21, 2007
591
201
Ottawa/Gatineau
In June 2021, Seattle will try to repeat the success that Las Vegas had in 2017. Are the Senators in a better position to avoid losing a key player like Methot in 2017. Phaneuf refused to be exposed and that may have led to the team to crumble apart.

Which players the team should protect?
Which player(s) has a clause like Phaneuf had?

Here is the link to the list from 2017.

NHL Expansion Draft protected list revealed

Here the link to the 2021 NHL expansion draf rules (same as Vegas):

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft rules same as Golden Knights followed

https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle
 
Last edited:

operasen

Registered User
Apr 27, 2004
5,681
346
I think we do 7-3-1 easily. After the 2020-2021 season a lot of our prospects will qualify and need protection.
Tkachuk, Norris, Brown, Batherson, Formenton, Balcers and Duclair or CBrown (dependant on who they prefer) as the 7. White is available unless he rediscovers himself this year. Then he slots in over Duclair/CBrown.
Chabot, Brannstrom, Wolanin as the 3 D.
Hogberg or Daccord, depending on who dominates the year.
I think Seattle takes Daccord or Hogberg, whichever is available. Or we send them a 3rd to take Gus.
 
Last edited:

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
I think we do 7-3-1 easily. After the 2020-2021 season a lot of our prospects will qualify and need protection.
Tkachuk, Norris, Brown, Batherson, Formenton, Balcers and Duclair or CBrown (dependant on who they prefer) as the 7. White is available unless he rediscovers himself this year. Then he slots in over Duclair/CBrown.
Chabot, Brannstrom, Wolanin as the 3 D.
Hogberg or Daccord, depending on who dominates the year.
I think Seattle takes Daccord or Hogberg, whichever is available.

Brannstrom is exempt.

@yogibear - would you consider adding this link to the main post? https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle

It is a good tool for people to figure out our expansion list. It will help people realize who is/isn't exempt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJB

Lehner

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
7,599
53
Ottawa
I think we do 7-3-1 easily. After the 2020-2021 season a lot of our prospects will qualify and need protection.
Tkachuk, Norris, Brown, Batherson, Formenton, Balcers and Duclair or CBrown (dependant on who they prefer) as the 7. White is available unless he rediscovers himself this year. Then he slots in over Duclair/CBrown.
Chabot, Brannstrom, Wolanin as the 3 D.
Hogberg or Daccord, depending on who dominates the year.
I think Seattle takes Daccord or Hogberg, whichever is available. Or we send them a 3rd to take Gus.

Norris, Brannstrom, Formenton are all exempt. Even if they play full time next year.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
colin-white-ottawa-senators.jpg

FORWARD

Colin White will be the wild card. If he has another bad season, I doubt the Senators protect him. I am going to assume he bounces back and earns himself a spot. If he is unprotected, I could see Seattle selecting him with the hopes that a change of scenery will allow him to grow into the player he was projected as leading into the 2015 draft.

There are rumors that the Senators and Connor Brown are working on a long term contract. I am skeptical about the Senators re-signing a UFA, but for the sake of this exercise, I will assume they get it done. Which means, Brown will certainly take up a protection spot.

Drake Batherson is a borderline blue chip prospect. He has started slow, but become a star in every league he has played in. I'm fairly confident that even if he doesn't peak next season, it will be a no brainer to protect him.

I'm also assuming that we acquire a good young or star player at the draft in a similar deal to the one we made for Bobby Ryan back in 2013.

Brady Tkachuk is self explanatory.

Assuming Colin White makes the list, I would put our for sure list up front at:
-Brady Tkachuk
-Colin White
-Drake Batherson
-Connor Brown
-Unnamed Star Player

That would leave two more spots to be divided between:
-Logan Brown
-Rudolfs Balcers
-Vitali Abramov
-Anthony Duclair
-Filip Chlapik

I don't think we will use a spot on Duclair. He will only have 1 year of team control remaining, and I do not think we're going long term with him.

Tierney will be gone before then. Either traded this summer, at the deadline, or allowed to walk as a UFA.

Meaning, I think we protect the two most promising young players out of Brown, Balcers, Abramov, and Chlapik.

Assuming Brown is protected, up front, Seattle will have their choice of a good young B prospect, or Anthony Duclair.



nikita-zaitsev.jpg

DEFENSE

On defense, I think we protect Chabot, Wolanin, and Zaitsev.

Jaros and Lajoie would be the two notable unprotected names. Jaros was barely used by DJ Smith this past season. Lajoie projects to maybe be a bottom pairing guy in the NHL.

Protecting Zaitsev will raise a few eyebrows, but it is pretty clear that this organization sees him as a player. Otherwise, they wouldn't have acquired his long term contract. It's Cody Ceci all over again in terms of having a defender who is used in the role of a difference maker by the coaching staff, praised by the GM, but dogged by fans and advanced stats guys. I think the Senators protect him. If he goes unprotected, I think Seattle would consider taking him. He would only have three years remaining on his contract, so he wouldn't have the same suffocating term that he had when Toronto tried to deal him and we were the only serious taker.

Mark Borowiecki would be another notable unprotected defenseman. If Seattle takes Borowiecki, I'd imagine it would be highly motivated by his strong leadership and work ethic. On paper, we'd have more valuable young players unprotected.

Brannstrom and Zub are both exempt from selection. This will be huge for the Senators, because in a best case scenario those two players are going to be pivotal parts of the top 6 defense of the team as soon as this season.



marcus-hogberg.jpg

GOALTENDING
It's way too early to figure this out. So much is going to change in one year. The goalie exposure requirements are easier to meet than with other positions, because the goalie we expose can be an RFA. They do not have to have outstanding term, or NHL experience.

Unless we go out and acquire a long term solution in net this summer, we simply protect the most promising of Hogberg, Daccord, or Gustavsson.



hkn-sabres-senators-20190326.jpg

CONCLUSION
Seattle might select Anthony Duclair. He will only have 1 year of team control remaining, but Seattle will be in a good position to extend him to a mid-term contract. This will give them a young top 6 forward who the Senators at that point refused to commit to. In the short term, this could be a huge win for Seattle. They'd add an exciting goal scorer who is in his prime who is undervalued based on the up and downs he had early on in his career.

Alternatively, Seattle might get a strong goalie prospect if two of the Senators three young goalies take steps forward. The Senators can only protect one, and there isn't much purpose in trading one to hedge against the draft, which will just result in the Senators losing more than one piece.

I think it is less likely that Seattle take one of our exposed young forward prospects or defensemen. Unless the Senators inexplicably expose Logan Brown, they won't be the best options. The only way Seattle takes one is if they don't want to extend Duclair long term, and if there are better goalie options from multiple other teams.
 

Tkachuckycheese

Oilers/Sens
Feb 2, 2016
830
796
I don't remember but wasn't there some sort of controversy when the protected lists was revealed last time?
 

operasen

Registered User
Apr 27, 2004
5,681
346
colin-white-ottawa-senators.jpg

FORWARD

Colin White will be the wild card. If he has another bad season, I doubt the Senators protect him. I am going to assume he bounces back and earns himself a spot. If he is unprotected, I could see Seattle selecting him with the hopes that a change of scenery will allow him to grow into the player he was projected as leading into the 2015 draft.

There are rumors that the Senators and Connor Brown are working on a long term contract. I am skeptical about the Senators re-signing a UFA, but for the sake of this exercise, I will assume they get it done. Which means, Brown will certainly take up a protection spot.

Drake Batherson is a borderline blue chip prospect. He has started slow, but become a star in every league he has played in. I'm fairly confident that even if he doesn't peak next season, it will be a no brainer to protect him.

I'm also assuming that we acquire a good young or star player at the draft in a similar deal to the one we made for Bobby Ryan back in 2013.

Brady Tkachuk is self explanatory.

Assuming Colin White makes the list, I would put our for sure list up front at:
-Brady Tkachuk
-Colin White
-Drake Batherson
-Connor Brown
-Unnamed Star Player

That would leave two more spots to be divided between:
-Logan Brown
-Rudolfs Balcers
-Vitali Abramov
-Anthony Duclair
-Filip Chlapik

I don't think we will use a spot on Duclair. He will only have 1 year of team control remaining, and I do not think we're going long term with him.

Tierney will be gone before then. Either traded this summer, at the deadline, or allowed to walk as a UFA.

Meaning, I think we protect the two most promising young players out of Brown, Balcers, Abramov, and Chlapik.

Assuming Brown is protected, up front, Seattle will have their choice of a good young B prospect, or Anthony Duclair.



nikita-zaitsev.jpg

DEFENSE

On defense, I think we protect Chabot, Wolanin, and Zaitsev.

Jaros and Lajoie would be the two notable unprotected names. Jaros was barely used by DJ Smith this past season. Lajoie projects to maybe be a bottom pairing guy in the NHL.

Protecting Zaitsev will raise a few eyebrows, but it is pretty clear that this organization sees him as a player. Otherwise, they wouldn't have acquired his long term contract. It's Cody Ceci all over again in terms of having a defender who is used in the role of a difference maker by the coaching staff, praised by the GM, but dogged by fans and advanced stats guys. I think the Senators protect him. If he goes unprotected, I think Seattle would consider taking him. He would only have three years remaining on his contract, so he wouldn't have the same suffocating term that he had when Toronto tried to deal him and we were the only serious taker.

Mark Borowiecki would be another notable unprotected defenseman. If Seattle takes Borowiecki, I'd imagine it would be highly motivated by his strong leadership and work ethic. On paper, we'd have more valuable young players unprotected.

Brannstrom and Zub are both exempt from selection. This will be huge for the Senators, because in a best case scenario those two players are going to be pivotal parts of the top 6 defense of the team as soon as this season.



marcus-hogberg.jpg

GOALTENDING
It's way too early to figure this out. So much is going to change in one year. The goalie exposure requirements are easier to meet than with other positions, because the goalie we expose can be an RFA. They do not have to have outstanding term, or NHL experience.

Unless we go out and acquire a long term solution in net this summer, we simply protect the most promising of Hogberg, Daccord, or Gustavsson.



hkn-sabres-senators-20190326.jpg

CONCLUSION
Seattle might select Anthony Duclair. He will only have 1 year of team control remaining, but Seattle will be in a good position to extend him to a mid-term contract. This will give them a young top 6 forward who the Senators at that point refused to commit to. In the short term, this could be a huge win for Seattle. They'd add an exciting goal scorer who is in his prime who is undervalued based on the up and downs he had early on in his career.

Alternatively, Seattle might get a strong goalie prospect if two of the Senators three young goalies take steps forward. The Senators can only protect one, and there isn't much purpose in trading one to hedge against the draft, which will just result in the Senators losing more than one piece.

I think it is less likely that Seattle take one of our exposed young forward prospects or defensemen. Unless the Senators inexplicably expose Logan Brown, they won't be the best options. The only way Seattle takes one is if they don't want to extend Duclair long term, and if there are better goalie options from multiple other teams.
You put a lot of thought into this. Thank you
 
  • Like
Reactions: danielpalfredsson

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
The only way we dont protect Duclair is if we dont plan on extending him. Otherwise leaving him unprotected over a guy like Chlapik makes zero sense.

Duclair is arguably our 2nd best forward right now.

I don't think we plan to protect him, and I don't think he will be worth a ton in a trade. If he isn't extended long term this summer, it's never going to happen. We have so little money on the books, and logically if we believe in extending him, by going 1 year again and giving him a chance to further raise his value, the cost will only go up. Therefore, it's rational to assume that unless it's a scenario where Duclair is playing hardball, if the Senators don't extend him long term this summer, they are probably never going to do it.

It's not exclusive to Duclair. I'm surprised about the talk of us extending C.Brown long term. Especially with COVID-19 hurting revenues, I don't think we're going to give term to UFAs. Maybe 2 year type deals for really low end guys who cost in the 1.XXM range, but that's a completely different beast than paying Tierney, Brown, or Duclair 3.5-5.0 per season million over 3-6 years.

We've apparently made UFA offers in the past to Dzingel, Ceci, and Pageau - but it seems like we offer below market value and the players turn it down. So I don't know if that is a fair indication that we are serious about keeping these guys. It almost seems like when the trade deadline comes up, we offer Dzingel, Pageau, or Stone something that they wouldn't ever sign, and then we have plausible deniability about trying to keep them. (Maybe that is too much of a #Senspiracy.)

Although, on a side note, I think we genuinely wanted to keep Ceci if it is true that we offered him 6 x 4.75M. Especially since we committed that money to a player in a similar role (Zaitsev). So maybe Ceci was the exception even know 4.75M was a low offer for how he was used as a #1 shutdown defender.

(The Ceci conundrum = using a player well above their skillset, which makes it difficult to re-sign them at what should be their market value, because we've inflated their value to our team beyond where it should be based on their ability)

I assume some combo of L.Brown, Balcers, and Abramov will be ahead of Chlapik for those two protection spots. Duclair exposed would be trading the last year of Duclair by proxy for whoever our second best exposed piece would have been. (assuming he is selected)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NB613 and DJB

ChurchOfAlfie

Registered User
Dec 4, 2016
886
1,292
I don't remember but wasn't there some sort of controversy when the protected lists was revealed last time?

Are you thinking of Dion Phaneuf refusing to waive his NMC, meaning he had to be protected, which left Methot available to Vegas? Some people were upset with him over that.

Funny to look back on how that played out. Vegas wanted a first round pick to not choose Methot. We sure dodged a bullet refusing that deal. Some people wanted to protect a fourth defenseman (Methot), which would have left Pageau unprotected.

All in all, Dorion played the Vegas draft as well as he could have, and I'll give him credit for that. Other teams got fleeced, and unfortunately for Seattle, probably learned their lesson.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
I don't remember but wasn't there some sort of controversy when the protected lists was revealed last time?

Phaneuf had a NMC, which meant we were obligated to protect him.

We wanted Phaneuf to waive his NMC so that we could expose him. This way, we could protect Methot. The idea was apparently sold to Phaneuf under the justification that while Phaneuf was an important part of the Senators lineup, Vegas was not going to select him because of his contract. So he would have nothing to lose by waiving. It would keep the team together. They could then make another run at the Stanley Cup.

Phaneuf refused to waive. The Senators then proceeded to shop Phaneuf at the 2017 NHL draft. If I recall, they were close to a deal, but the team was on Phaneuf's trade list.

The Vegas Golden Knights selected Marc Methot. They later flipped Methot to Dallas for a 2020 2nd, and a goalie who was just selected in the 7th round of the 2017 draft. This return was surprisingly soft considering how strong of a playoff Methot had. Some posters criticized the Senators for not just trading Methot, but it was unlikely that this return was on the table for Ottawa before the expansion draft, because any team that acquired Methot would have to then protect him and lose a player of their own. The Senators also may have then lost another player like Mark Borowiecki to Vegas.

I remember some #boardinsiders were making claims about what Vegas was asking Ottawa for to not pick Methot. I don't remember what exactly it was.

I wonder what the Senators plan would have been if Vegas did not select Methot because Ottawa had a 68M budget. They were gunning for Duchene that off season. He would increase the budget further. If we didn't lose Methot or Phaneuf, I would speculate that someone else with a similar cap hit would have had to get moved.

The entire thing ended up not mattering, because both Methot and Phaneuf declined in their level of play, and are out of the league now. Assuming Methot was insured, the end result would have been pretty similar to what happened when the Senators moved Phaneuf for Gaborik.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tkachuckycheese

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
Are you thinking of Dion Phaneuf refusing to waive his NMC, meaning he had to be protected, which left Methot available to Vegas? Some people were upset with him over that.

Funny to look back on how that played out. Vegas wanted a first round pick to not choose Methot. We sure dodged a bullet refusing that deal. Some people wanted to protect a fourth defenseman (Methot), which would have left Pageau unprotected.

All in all, Dorion played the Vegas draft as well as he could have, and I'll give him credit for that. Other teams got fleeced, and unfortunately for Seattle, probably learned their lesson.

I'm pretty sure, at certain points I felt strongly about the team going 4-4. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been very bad.

Methot was incredibly valuable to the team, and we struggled for years to fill out our defense while we waited for Wiercioch and Cowen to develop, which they never did.

I think we probably end up declining in 2017 regardless, but in the short term, Methot leaving left a huge hole in our team. It was made worse by Guy Boucher playing Chabot on his offside, and refusing to revise his system after he no longer had the personnel to make it work. Part of that was him losing Methot. (Although, maybe it ends up being irrelevant if he suffers the same decline here as he did in Dallas.)
 

Tkachuckycheese

Oilers/Sens
Feb 2, 2016
830
796
Are you thinking of Dion Phaneuf refusing to waive his NMC, meaning he had to be protected, which left Methot available to Vegas? Some people were upset with him over that.

Funny to look back on how that played out. Vegas wanted a first round pick to not choose Methot. We sure dodged a bullet refusing that deal. Some people wanted to protect a fourth defenseman (Methot), which would have left Pageau unprotected.

All in all, Dorion played the Vegas draft as well as he could have, and I'll give him credit for that. Other teams got fleeced, and unfortunately for Seattle, probably learned their lesson.

I was more so talking about the actual lists from each GM of who they are protecting which showcases which players GM's actually value more than other players. I remember that the GM's were kinda split on releasing that info and half were not happy about it. I wonder if they will do the same thing or this time not reveal their players value.
 

Tkachuckycheese

Oilers/Sens
Feb 2, 2016
830
796
Phaneuf had a NMC, which meant we were obligated to protect him.

We wanted Phaneuf to waive his NMC so that we could expose him. This way, we could protect Methot. The idea was apparently sold to Phaneuf under the justification that while Phaneuf was an important part of the Senators lineup, Vegas was not going to select him because of his contract. So he would have nothing to lose by waiving. It would keep the team together. They could then make another run at the Stanley Cup.

Phaneuf refused to waive. The Senators then proceeded to shop Phaneuf at the 2017 NHL draft. If I recall, they were close to a deal, but the team was on Phaneuf's trade list.

The Vegas Golden Knights selected Marc Methot. They later flipped Methot to Dallas for a 2020 2nd, and a goalie who was just selected in the 7th round of the 2017 draft. This return was surprisingly soft considering how strong of a playoff Methot had. Some posters criticized the Senators for not just trading Methot, but it was unlikely that this return was on the table for Ottawa before the expansion draft, because any team that acquired Methot would have to then protect him and lose a player of their own. The Senators also may have then lost another player like Mark Borowiecki to Vegas.

I remember some #boardinsiders were making claims about what Vegas was asking Ottawa for to not pick Methot. I don't remember what exactly it was.

I wonder what the Senators plan would have been if Vegas did not select Methot because Ottawa had a 68M budget. They were gunning for Duchene that off season. He would increase the budget further. If we didn't lose Methot or Phaneuf, I would speculate that someone else with a similar cap hit would have had to get moved.

The entire thing ended up not mattering, because both Methot and Phaneuf declined in their level of play, and are out of the league now. Assuming Methot was insured, the end result would have been pretty similar to what happened when the Senators moved Phaneuf for Gaborik.

It really was a messy situation. My friend went to school with Methot's brother Matthew and from what I heard Methot was really pissed and still has a grudge about the whole situation.
 

Alfie11

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,009
1,086
The great thing about having a team denuded of NHL talent is there is we have nothing to worry about losing in an expansion draft.

Maybe one of the young goalies could become something really good. The rest is spare parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmix and Emerica

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
colin-white-ottawa-senators.jpg

FORWARD

Colin White will be the wild card. If he has another bad season, I doubt the Senators protect him. I am going to assume he bounces back and earns himself a spot. If he is unprotected, I could see Seattle selecting him with the hopes that a change of scenery will allow him to grow into the player he was projected as leading into the 2015 draft.

There are rumors that the Senators and Connor Brown are working on a long term contract. I am skeptical about the Senators re-signing a UFA, but for the sake of this exercise, I will assume they get it done. Which means, Brown will certainly take up a protection spot.

Drake Batherson is a borderline blue chip prospect. He has started slow, but become a star in every league he has played in. I'm fairly confident that even if he doesn't peak next season, it will be a no brainer to protect him.

I'm also assuming that we acquire a good young or star player at the draft in a similar deal to the one we made for Bobby Ryan back in 2013.

Brady Tkachuk is self explanatory.

Assuming Colin White makes the list, I would put our for sure list up front at:
-Brady Tkachuk
-Colin White
-Drake Batherson
-Connor Brown
-Unnamed Star Player

That would leave two more spots to be divided between:
-Logan Brown
-Rudolfs Balcers
-Vitali Abramov
-Anthony Duclair
-Filip Chlapik

I don't think we will use a spot on Duclair. He will only have 1 year of team control remaining, and I do not think we're going long term with him.

Tierney will be gone before then. Either traded this summer, at the deadline, or allowed to walk as a UFA.

Meaning, I think we protect the two most promising young players out of Brown, Balcers, Abramov, and Chlapik.

Assuming Brown is protected, up front, Seattle will have their choice of a good young B prospect, or Anthony Duclair.



nikita-zaitsev.jpg

DEFENSE

On defense, I think we protect Chabot, Wolanin, and Zaitsev.

Jaros and Lajoie would be the two notable unprotected names. Jaros was barely used by DJ Smith this past season. Lajoie projects to maybe be a bottom pairing guy in the NHL.

Protecting Zaitsev will raise a few eyebrows, but it is pretty clear that this organization sees him as a player. Otherwise, they wouldn't have acquired his long term contract. It's Cody Ceci all over again in terms of having a defender who is used in the role of a difference maker by the coaching staff, praised by the GM, but dogged by fans and advanced stats guys. I think the Senators protect him. If he goes unprotected, I think Seattle would consider taking him. He would only have three years remaining on his contract, so he wouldn't have the same suffocating term that he had when Toronto tried to deal him and we were the only serious taker.

Mark Borowiecki would be another notable unprotected defenseman. If Seattle takes Borowiecki, I'd imagine it would be highly motivated by his strong leadership and work ethic. On paper, we'd have more valuable young players unprotected.

Brannstrom and Zub are both exempt from selection. This will be huge for the Senators, because in a best case scenario those two players are going to be pivotal parts of the top 6 defense of the team as soon as this season.



marcus-hogberg.jpg

GOALTENDING
It's way too early to figure this out. So much is going to change in one year. The goalie exposure requirements are easier to meet than with other positions, because the goalie we expose can be an RFA. They do not have to have outstanding term, or NHL experience.

Unless we go out and acquire a long term solution in net this summer, we simply protect the most promising of Hogberg, Daccord, or Gustavsson.



hkn-sabres-senators-20190326.jpg

CONCLUSION
Seattle might select Anthony Duclair. He will only have 1 year of team control remaining, but Seattle will be in a good position to extend him to a mid-term contract. This will give them a young top 6 forward who the Senators at that point refused to commit to. In the short term, this could be a huge win for Seattle. They'd add an exciting goal scorer who is in his prime who is undervalued based on the up and downs he had early on in his career.

Alternatively, Seattle might get a strong goalie prospect if two of the Senators three young goalies take steps forward. The Senators can only protect one, and there isn't much purpose in trading one to hedge against the draft, which will just result in the Senators losing more than one piece.

I think it is less likely that Seattle take one of our exposed young forward prospects or defensemen. Unless the Senators inexplicably expose Logan Brown, they won't be the best options. The only way Seattle takes one is if they don't want to extend Duclair long term, and if there are better goalie options from multiple other teams.

Duc’s Production last year had him comparable to $7-10 million dollar players. White was replacement level. I get you are assuming White rebounds but I wonder what the chances are that Duclair is less valuable than White by the end of 2021. Duc was effective on the PP, PK, 5v5 etc.

It would take Duc falling back to sub 15G type pace and a career year from White.
 

dumbdick

Galactic Defender
May 31, 2008
11,292
3,700
We are in such a good spot for the expansion draft. We need to leverage this somehow.

Rather than letting seattle make all these deals to protect players, we should be doing the same thing. Weaponize our protectable spots.

Wouldn't it be funny if the whole league traded stars to us as "loaners" that we trade back to them for a small fee after the expansion draft? Seattle can only take one of them....
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
We are in such a good spot for the expansion draft. We need to leverage this somehow.

Rather than letting seattle make all these deals to protect players, we should be doing the same thing. Weaponize our protectable spots.

Wouldn't it be funny if the whole league traded stars to us as "loaners" that we trade back to them for a small fee after the expansion draft? Seattle can only take one of them....

The NHL isn't going to let teams do stuff like that. They've already warned Vegas about that because Vegas is entirely exempt from having players selected by Seattle.

Because we can only lose one player, if we see Abramov, Balcers, Chlapik, etc as all being of similar value, we might be in a position to add another two forwards this season or next. That's assuming we're not protecting Duclair. If we want to protect Duclair, we only have an open spot if we're not protecting White, which as of now would be a bit of a radical move.

On defense, we don't have any open spots. We could expose Zaitsev, which I think most posters here would welcome. I don't think that is realistic though. The team clearly values him. Which is why I don't think we have any protection spots to leverage.

We could acquire a goalie if the team views at least two of Hogberg/Gustavsson/Daccord as being of similar value. Again, we can only lose one player. So if we acquire a starting goalie, sure it means we have to expose all three of those other goalies, but if Gustavsson/Daccord are both of similar value at the time of the draft, we might have lost one anyways.
 

Cosmix

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 24, 2011
17,797
6,436
Ottawa
Phaneuf had a NMC, which meant we were obligated to protect him.

We wanted Phaneuf to waive his NMC so that we could expose him. This way, we could protect Methot. The idea was apparently sold to Phaneuf under the justification that while Phaneuf was an important part of the Senators lineup, Vegas was not going to select him because of his contract. So he would have nothing to lose by waiving. It would keep the team together. They could then make another run at the Stanley Cup.

Phaneuf refused to waive. The Senators then proceeded to shop Phaneuf at the 2017 NHL draft. If I recall, they were close to a deal, but the team was on Phaneuf's trade list.

The Vegas Golden Knights selected Marc Methot. They later flipped Methot to Dallas for a 2020 2nd, and a goalie who was just selected in the 7th round of the 2017 draft. This return was surprisingly soft considering how strong of a playoff Methot had. Some posters criticized the Senators for not just trading Methot, but it was unlikely that this return was on the table for Ottawa before the expansion draft, because any team that acquired Methot would have to then protect him and lose a player of their own. The Senators also may have then lost another player like Mark Borowiecki to Vegas.

I remember some #boardinsiders were making claims about what Vegas was asking Ottawa for to not pick Methot. I don't remember what exactly it was.

I wonder what the Senators plan would have been if Vegas did not select Methot because Ottawa had a 68M budget. They were gunning for Duchene that off season. He would increase the budget further. If we didn't lose Methot or Phaneuf, I would speculate that someone else with a similar cap hit would have had to get moved.

The entire thing ended up not mattering, because both Methot and Phaneuf declined in their level of play, and are out of the league now. Assuming Methot was insured, the end result would have been pretty similar to what happened when the Senators moved Phaneuf for Gaborik.

I am surprised that Phaneuf did not accept the proposal to be made available in the expansion draft as Vegas seems like a big improvement over Ottawa from a weather and tax perspective.
 

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,466
8,995
Protect: 7-3-1
1. Tkachuk - top two player on the team
2. Batherson - great potential to be an NHL star
3. L. Brown - top six potential
4. C. Brown - 2nd highest scorer on the team
5. Duclair - has enough value to keep to get a good return
6. White - needs another yr, but could also have trade value
7. Paul - can play a good bottom six role on the team
8. Chabot - top two player on the team
9. Wolanin - has potential to be a top 4 pairing D
10. Jaros - has enough value to keep to get a good return
11. Hogberg - has shown to be a potentially very good NHL goalie or backup. Could they keep two goalies (Daccord) & leave Jaros off the list?

Note:
- Zaitsev will probably be protected by the team but doesn't deserve to be. Ottawa would be wise to leave him unprotected & Seattle would be doing us a favour by taking him, or trade him before the expansion draft if anyone would take him?

- a few guys won't get re-signed & won't be available to Seattle like Peca, Boedker, Szwarz, Klimchuk, Hainsey, Labrie & I assume Anderson, Boro, Sabourin & maybe even Nilsson may already be gone or traded too before the expansion draft.

- I expect that Ottawa should trade Tierny, Anisimov, Hawryluk, Reilly & a number of other guys way before the expansion draft. Gustavsson is another guy who I'm not sure they should protect or trade before losing him for nothing. Duclair is another guy who could be traded before the expansion draft, lots can happen in one season. Might be a good idea to not have any prospects from this 2020 draft play the season in the NHL either, so we don't have to protect another guy. The team is going to suck anyway & getting another top 10 pick or two for the next draft should be a priority for this rebuild.
 
Last edited:

yogibear

Registered User
Mar 21, 2007
591
201
Ottawa/Gatineau
The wild have currently four players with NMC that are 30 years old or older (Parise, Zuccarello,Suter,Spurgeon). All of them earn $6M/year or more with long term contract that ends between 2024 and 2027.

Chicago have 4 contracts with NMC that (Keith, Seabrook,Kane,Toews). I doubt that Chicago would want to protect Seabrook at all. Keith, maybe. Most like, Kane and Toews.

Montreal will have to protect (NMC) Price and his very lucrative contract ($10.5M/year) until 2025.

Some teams are not in the driver's seat, at the moment...
 

Emerica

Registered User
May 29, 2010
10,857
6,062
Are we forced to protect players with modified NTC? Or do they get the option to approve or deny being included in draft if asked by the team. Zaitsev and Ryan both have modified NTC.
 

Korpse

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 5, 2010
20,723
9,568
Are we forced to protect players with modified NTC? Or do they get the option to approve or deny being included in draft if asked by the team. Zaitsev and Ryan both have modified NTC.

NTC don't matter, NMC do. Bobby Ryan has a NMC with a modified NTC but the language of the NMC doesn't protect him from expansion drafts. Neither player has to be protected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sens of Anarchy

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->