2021 Seattle Expansion Draft (Seattle selects D. Gavin Bayruether)

[pled]

It's not, though. Gavrikov is a 10.2(c) RFA, meaning based on his signing age (23), the league/CBA views him with one year of professional experience right now, not two. So the '20-'21 season would be his 2nd year of professional experience.

the cba and the expension rules aren't related. professional experience doesn't have the same meaning. I did have few exemple when the team signed gav but I forgot most could look them up but there was some player in the same situation at vegas. not gonna go throught all that today but anyway I'm pretty sure he need protection. but I'm not betman or the gms ive never actually seen the real expansion rule since they aren't public.

just wanna say that people her did have a similar argument when gav signed and concluded that if he plays he would have to be protected.

 

[majormajor]

It's not, though. Gavrikov is a 10.2(c) RFA, meaning based on his signing age (23), the league/CBA views him with one year of professional experience right now, not two. So the '20-'21 season would be his 2nd year of professional experience.

It's a little ridiculous that the league hasn't made the rules public. I remember Viqsi made a whole draft elibility flow chart using CBA language and then it turns out that the expansion draft doesn't use CBA language at all. But apparently capfriendly is in constant contact with the league to sort players, and they have Gavrikov as needing protection, while Texier does not.

If the expansion draft was using the CBA language, then the fact that Texier played 10+ games for the Jackets in 2018-19 would mean that he is now in year 3. And Gavrikov only played 2 games that Spring so he'd be in year 2 now. But apparently if a 20+ year old player plays a single NHL game it is a pro season for the purposes of the expansion draft. Gavrikov was 20+, Texier was 19. So for expansion purposes Texier is entering year 2 and Gavrikov entering year 3.

This was a big topic when Cale Makar joined the Avs playoffs that year, and there was consternation about him playing 10 games. Then some heavyweight reporters in contact with the league office (one being Bob Mckenzie) said that he'd already picked up a pro year just by playing his first game.

 

[pled]

It's a little ridiculous that the league hasn't made the rules public. I remember Viqsi made a whole draft elibility flow chart using CBA language and then it turns out that the expansion draft doesn't use CBA language at all. But apparently capfriendly is in constant contact with the league to sort players, and they have Gavrikov as needing protection, while Texier does not.

If the expansion draft was using the CBA language, then the fact that Texier played 10+ games for the Jackets in 2018-19 would mean that he is now in year 3. And Gavrikov only played 2 games that Spring so he'd be in year 2 now. But apparently if a 20+ year old player plays a single NHL game it is a pro season for the purposes of the expansion draft. Gavrikov was 20+, Texier was 19. So for expansion purposes Texier is entering year 2 and Gavrikov entering year 3.

This was a big topic when Cale Makar joined the Avs playoffs that year, and there was consternation about him playing 10 games. Then some heavyweight reporters in contact with the league office (one being Bob Mckenzie) said that he'd already picked up a pro year just by playing his first game.

I'd be ok if they just said the rules arent public but they aren't the same as cba just so people stop using cba as a exemple. and it's honestly just weird that they aren't using the same language like are they 2 different league ? why professional season isn't the same for both that's so confusing for many.

 

[majormajor]

I'd be ok if they just said the rules arent public but they aren't the same as cba just so people stop using cba as a exemple. and it's honestly just weird that they aren't using the same language like are they 2 different league ? why professional season isn't the same for both that's so confusing for many.

I have no problem with making separate rules for the expansion draft, they can tailor them however they like. I just don't understand why they would try to keep the rules secret. I can't think of a reason for that other than a desire to maintain arbitrary power.

 

[pled]

I have no problem with making separate rules for the expansion draft, they can tailor them however they like. I just don't understand why they would try to keep the rules secret. I can't think of a reason for that other than a desire to maintain arbitrary power.

anyway it's beyond the understatement of lil guys on forum like us. I'll let Jarmo deal with it

 

[DarkandStormy]

Here's a fun one - why is Grigorenko exempt (at least he's listed as such on the CapFriendly page)? He could, theoretically, play the required # of games and sign a contract for beyond 2021.

 

[pled]

Here's a fun one - why is Grigorenko exempt (at least he's listed as such on the CapFriendly page)? He could, theoretically, play the required # of games and sign a contract for beyond 2021.

he's ufa and I think they just dont care and didn't look at it

 

[Long Live Lyle]

It's a little ridiculous that the league hasn't made the rules public. I remember Viqsi made a whole draft elibility flow chart using CBA language and then it turns out that the expansion draft doesn't use CBA language at all. But apparently capfriendly is in constant contact with the league to sort players, and they have Gavrikov as needing protection, while Texier does not.

If the expansion draft was using the CBA language, then the fact that Texier played 10+ games for the Jackets in 2018-19 would mean that he is now in year 3. And Gavrikov only played 2 games that Spring so he'd be in year 2 now. But apparently if a 20+ year old player plays a single NHL game it is a pro season for the purposes of the expansion draft. Gavrikov was 20+, Texier was 19. So for expansion purposes Texier is entering year 2 and Gavrikov entering year 3.

This was a big topic when Cale Makar joined the Avs playoffs that year, and there was consternation about him playing 10 games. Then some heavyweight reporters in contact with the league office (one being Bob Mckenzie) said that he'd already picked up a pro year just by playing his first game.

What I had read i.e., Texier is that 10+ games burned a year of the ELC, BUT for expansion draft purposes, it needed to be MORE than 10 games. So because he played exactly 10, he burned a year of the ELC but could still be protected in the draft. If we forced a game 7 against the Bruins (and he played), we’d have to use a protection spot on him.

I don’t know if that’s true or not, but that’s what I read previously. Very strange.

 

[DarkandStormy]

he's ufa and I think they just dont care and didn't look at it

I mean Nash is a UFA and is in the other column lol

 

[domi28]

I mean Nash is a UFA and is in the other column lol

It has to be CapFriendly just hasn't gotten around to updating statuses with all the contracts they're working on getting updated.. There's no way a guy who played 5 seasons in the NHL before going to the KHL for a couple years is expansion draft exempt.

 

[domi28]

I thought the NHL announced during the summer the expansion draft rules would be the same as the Vegas draft?

 

[Viqsi]

I thought the NHL announced during the summer the expansion draft rules would be the same as the Vegas draft?

Yeah, but all the edge cases were resolved by saying "this guy's OK to pick, this guy's exempt" and so on, rather than actually clarifying what the rules are.

 

[pled]

I thought the NHL announced during the summer the expansion draft rules would be the same as the Vegas draft?

they are

 

[pled]

I mean Nash is a UFA and is in the other column lol

I didn't mean it was because he was ufa. I just pointed it out. It's a database error that no one corrected because no one care.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Seattle Kraken expansion mock draft 5.0: Who could the Blue Jackets lose?

 

[DarkandStormy]

AP and AL broke down the likely protected lists for the Blue Jackets.

G
Exempt: Elvis
Protected: Korpisalo
Exposed: Kivlenieks

D
Exempt: Peeke, Berni
Protected: Jones, Werenski, Gavrikov
Exposed: Kukan, Harrington, Carlsson
Likely to be left as UFA with possible new contract after the draft: Savard

F
Exempt: Texier, Bemstrom, Foudy
Protected: Dubois, Atkinson, Bjorkstrand, Nyquist, Domi, Jenner, Robinson
Exposed: Stenlund, Gerbe
Likely to be left as UFA with possible new contract after the draft: Foligno (and I suppose Nash, Koviu, Grigorenko)

They went with 7-3-1.

But my question is, what happens with the games played requirement for those being exposed? I assume the league will have to come up with some sort of prorated fix. But as is, the player needs to be under contract for the '20-'21 season *and* have played either 40 games in '20-'21 or 70 games in the '19-'20 and '20-'21 season.

That means, in the scenario above, Nathan Gerbe needs to play 38 more games and Kevin Stenlund needs to play 36 more games to meet the exposure requirements. Btw, the Jackets have similar issues on defense if they go 4-4-1 (Harrington would need to play 30 games to hit the requirement, as opposed to Kukan's 28).

I haven't been able to find anything on the league reducing/prorating the games played requirement. So that'll be something to watch. The above scenario/s assume Jarmo does not sign anyone to a new deal (e.g. Savard/Foligno) prior to the draft. The protected list could change if he does or if he makes a trade, of course.

EDIT - by prorating (if they go that route) the requirements become that teams must expose at least two forwards and one defenseman who:
-are under contract in '21-'22 AND
-played in 27 NHL games in '20'21 OR
-played in 59 NHL games in the last two seasons
(of course, Seattle can take anyone who's not protected.)

Jarmo will likely have to get creative to meet the exposure requirements, which is an upgrade from getting creative to protect Jack Johnson (LOL), Josh Anderson, and Joonas Korpisalo.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

AP and AL broke down the likely protected lists for the Blue Jackets.

G
Exempt: Elvis
Protected: Korpisalo
Exposed: Kivlenieks

D
Exempt: Peeke, Berni
Protected: Jones, Werenski, Gavrikov
Exposed: Kukan, Harrington, Carlsson
Likely to be left as UFA with possible new contract after the draft: Savard

F
Exempt: Texier, Bemstrom, Foudy
Protected: Dubois, Atkinson, Bjorkstrand, Nyquist, Domi, Jenner, Robinson
Exposed: Stenlund, Gerbe
Likely to be left as UFA with possible new contract after the draft: Foligno (and I suppose Nash, Koviu, Grigorenko)

They went with 7-3-1.

But my question is, what happens with the games played requirement for those being exposed? I assume the league will have to come up with some sort of prorated fix. But as is, the player needs to be under contract for the '20-'21 season *and* have played either 40 games in '20-'21 or 70 games in the '19-'20 and '20-'21 season.

That means, in the scenario above, Nathan Gerbe needs to play 38 more games and Kevin Stenlund needs to play 36 more games to meet the exposure requirements. Btw, the Jackets have similar issues on defense if they go 4-4-1 (Harrington would need to play 30 games to hit the requirement, as opposed to Kukan's 28).

I haven't been able to find anything on the league reducing/prorating the games played requirement. So that'll be something to watch. The above scenario/s assume Jarmo does not sign anyone to a new deal (e.g. Savard/Foligno) prior to the draft. The protected list could change if he does or if he makes a trade, of course.

I'm not that sure what it means for our forward group when Eric Robinson makes it onto a protected list.

 

[Kellen]

I'm not that sure what it means for our forward group when Eric Robinson makes it onto a protected list.

Lol I agree - yikes.

 

[Nanabijou]

Lol I agree - yikes.

I prefer to look at it as there is room to protect someone else after a trade with a cap-desperate team.

 

[DarkandStormy]

I'm not that sure what it means for our forward group when Eric Robinson makes it onto a protected list.

We have space to add via trade.

Also, Texier, Foudy, and Bemstrom are exempt. And we have more UFAs than in 2017.

 

[Viqsi]

I'm not that sure what it means for our forward group when Eric Robinson makes it onto a protected list.

That a significant amount of our talent is young enough that we have them protected automatically?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

And that the GM has done a such a good job there are protection slots available for some of the team's quality depth?

Also, isn't this just AP speculation? Haven't we decided he doesn't know anything?

 

[Viqsi]

And that the GM has done a such a good job there are protection slots available for some of the team's quality depth?

Also, isn't this just AP speculation? Haven't we decided he doesn't know anything?

I got the impression that Alison Lukan was also involved, which might help. Depends on how much statistical analysis went into the picks.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Also, isn't this just AP speculation? Haven't we decided he doesn't know anything?

The Expansion Draft rules are available to the public.

He's just putting two and two together.

I agree with his 7-3-1 list for now (things may change during the season with contract extensions or trades). He doesn't really address the team having to get creative to meet the exposure requirements, though.

If they want 4-4-1 it'd likely be:
-Korpisalo
-Jones, Werenski, Gavrikov, either Savard if they want to keep him around or Kukan (would really need to work to get Harrington or Carlsson to the games played requirement for exposure, though)
-Dubois, Bjorkstrand, Domi, and pick one of Atkinson/Jenner/Nyquist with the other two being exposed (you could treat it as a "cap dump" I suppose)

But again, a lot may change before the draft. So who knows.

 

[Xoggz22]

I'm not that sure what it means for our forward group when Eric Robinson makes it onto a protected list.

It means two things... 1) there are several players on this roster that do not require protection, which says something about roster management for this upcoming expansion and 2) there is room to add a forward to protect if things work out that way.

I get the premise of your question but Eric Robinson will be taken if exposed. No different than Dean Kukan. Both players are legit NHL players that are middle of the lineup guys. Do we want someone better to protect? Sure, however, both players pretty much make just about every roster (if not every) next year. You may not be selling this team short but it's been a playoff team for 4 straight years now. The roster is pretty good (not great, not cup worthy) and that's saying something about the roster construction, youth and future.

For me, Robinson is a breakout player and feels like a middle 6 type player. If his hands catch up, he's another 20+ goal guy...on the 4th line... I'll gladly take that type of depth.