HF Habs: Expansion Draft 2021

[Vachon23]

so much thing can change honestly that it’s to early for me to prononce. For exemple last expansion draft, only 8 players are still here (Carey Price, Jordie Benn, Jeff Petry, Shea Weber, Paul Byron, Phillip Danault, Brandon Gallagher and Andrew Shaw)

 

[26Mats]

That doesn't negate Steve Shutt's point. The reason they could make those demands was that they were not already signed up.



Which teams did not protect important players who played the whole year for them (not rentals) and who were scheduled to become free agents that they then signed in the next few days? I went looking for a list.

There were 6 UFAs signed between the draft and July 1st for a cap hit of $2.0M or more. Out of the six, four were rentals who decided to stay with the team after all (Michael Stone, TJ Oshie, Brendan Smith, Patrick Eaves). Only Oshie was a coveted free agent, and Washington paid through the nose to keep him at the last minute before the opening bell for free agency. This was not a planned gentleman's agreement!

That leaves two guys to check:

• Mike Condon, who it turns out HAD to be left exposed so that a goaltender was exposed by Ottawa.
• Kris Russell in Edmonton, who had to be exposed as well, since Edmonton was obviously going to protect Klefbom and Larsson, and was forced to protect Sekera due to his NMC

So actually, there was not a single team that did a gentleman's agreement to avoid losing a key player.

They didn't have to resign before July 1. The negotiations for the amount could take them past July 1. Do you have a list of all players that re-signed with their teams after the expansion draft?

Also, a team only needs assurances they won't sign with Vegas if left unprotected.

I highly doubt Bergevin leaves Markov and Radulov unprotected without such assurances, and similar for other GM's and their UFA's.

I'd have to go through a list of teams's unprotected lists and their pending UFA's to see.

 

[BaseballCoach]

They didn't have to resign before July 1. The negotiations for the amount could take them past July 1. Do you have a list of all players that re-signed with their teams after the expansion draft?

If they only re-signed with the same team after July 1st, it was probably NOT a gentleman's agreement, but just the usual free agency competition that occasionally ends with the player re-signing wtih his former team.

So, Joe Thornton re-signed on July 2nd but it's well known he was on the market for a couple of days, but SJ made the best offer. SJ did the same with Marleau and lost Marleau.

There was no one else signed above $2.0M in the first three days of free agency that re-signed with their old team. NONE.

 

[26Mats]

If they only re-signed with the same team after July 1st, it was probably NOT a gentleman's agreement, but just the usual free agency competition that occasionally ends with the player re-signing wtih his former team.

So, Joe Thornton re-signed on July 2nd but it's well known he was on the market for a couple of days, but SJ made the best offer. SJ did the same with Marleau and lost Marleau.

There was no one else signed above $2.0M in the first three days of free agency that re-signed with their old team. NONE.

The term gentleman's agreement was used by someone else earlier in the discussion and I went with it.

The only UFA players we have to protect are those we think might re-sign with the expansion team doing the picking. In the last expansion draft we didn't protect Markov and Radulov because MB didn't think they would sign with Vegas. And it was the same for many other UFA's, imo including Joe Thornton. Remember, at the time most players dreaded the thought of being picked by a lowly expansion team that would likely suck for years to come.

Now, given the Vegas experience, many potential UFA's may want to sign with Seattle if picked. So, it is a different scenario. And in that sense MB will have to have a strong read on Gallagher, Petry, and Danault if he's going to leave them unsigned and unprotecte because he thinks they won't sign with Seattle.

 

[LaP]

Is that a bad thing?

Sure. He's still a very good dman and while his contract is bad he still hold value to a team willing to win now.

 

[LaP]

I know people have been kicking dirt over his grave since he got here, but he's still a top 10 D in the league. It would be crazy to expose him.

He's not top 10 anymore imo. With kids like Jones, Chabot, Dahlin and such acquiring more experience he'll be out of the top 15 sooner than later. 2-3 years from now he'll be an outstanding number 2 but a weak number 1 from a contending team perspective.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Mete
Weber
Petry
Juulsen
(Maybe acquired LD)

All would have be protected in expansion. So I think Juulsen may be a casualty of the expansion draft

 

[Runner77]

Mete
Weber
Petry
Juulsen
(Maybe acquired LD)

All would have be protected in expansion. So I think Juulsen may be a casualty of the expansion draft

They ought to look into moving Petry prior to the expansion draft. Would be a dumb move to expose Juulsen, esp. if he's 100% recovered.

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

Mete
Weber
Petry
Juulsen
(Maybe acquired LD)

All would have be protected in expansion. So I think Juulsen may be a casualty of the expansion draft

Unless re-signed before then, Petry would be a UFA.

 

[montreal]

Mete
Weber
Petry
Juulsen
(Maybe acquired LD)

All would have be protected in expansion. So I think Juulsen may be a casualty of the expansion draft

A lot can happen in 2 years so it's really too early to really say what will happen.

 

[Squats]

Weber could very well be exposed in 2 years

 

[Captain97]

Mete
Weber
Petry
Juulsen
(Maybe acquired LD)

All would have be protected in expansion. So I think Juulsen may be a casualty of the expansion draft

Petry is a UFA and doesn't need to be protected. If Vegas picks him and we want him back sign him on July 1st, We likely won't protect him.

 

[Lebowski]

Mete
Weber
Petry
Juulsen
(Maybe acquired LD)

All would have be protected in expansion. So I think Juulsen may be a casualty of the expansion draft

I'm thinking Petry gets moved before the draft.

 

[Rapala]

Weber could very well be exposed in 2 years

It should read "Will Be"

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

Mete
Weber
Petry
Juulsen
(Maybe acquired LD)

All would have be protected in expansion. So I think Juulsen may be a casualty of the expansion draft

Petry's contract ends in 2 years which is when the draft expansion happens, so he won't be protected.

Unless we acquire a top 4 D, the three defenseman we will protect is a pretty easy choice

 

[Rapala]

Petry's contract ends in 2 years which is when the draft expansion happens, so he won't be protected.

Unless we acquire a top 4 D, the three defenseman we will protect is a pretty easy choice

Petry will probably be extended by MB. If not he's moved...

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Petry will probably be extended by MB. If not he's moved...

you'd think he'd not do that so he doesn't have to protect him though no?

 

[Rapala]

you'd think he'd not do that so he doesn't have to protect him though no?

No. I don't think he can afford to sit on the fence with Petry.

 

[FormerLurker]

Weber could very well be exposed in 2 years

Only the delusional believe this.

 

[Rafafouille]

No. I don't think he can afford to sit on the fence with Petry.

Wouldn't need to sit on the fence. You agree to a contract but only sign it right after the expansion draft(which is before free agency)

 

[Rapala]

Wouldn't need to sit on the fence. You agree to a contract but only sign it right after the expansion draft(which is before free agency)

But don't you risk losing him for nothing at that point? We've done far too much of that in recent years for my liking.

 

[montreal]

But don't you risk losing him for nothing at that point? We've done far too much of that in recent years for my liking.

not likely, I don't see Seattle taking a UFA in the expansion draft, I don't recall Vegas taking any as they could just ask said player what their intentions are and if they say they want to stay or go UFA, then why waste a spot on them with just days to sign them? I don't think it's an issue.

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

Letting Weber exposed in 2 years is fine. If hes gone its just 7.5m~ in habs pocket.

 

[montreal]

Letting Weber exposed in 2 years is fine. If hes gone its just 7.5m~ in habs pocket.

that's why it's too early to say as much can change in 2 years, if his play drops off enough then for sure as long as guys like Brook, Juulsen and Fleury show they can be NHLers by then (not all 3 have to). But if he's playing at a high level and we are still trying to be a playoff team then they likely won't.

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

that's why it's too early to say as much can change in 2 years, if his play drops off enough then for sure as long as guys like Brook, Juulsen and Fleury show they can be NHLers by then (not all 3 have to). But if he's playing at a high level and we are still trying to be a playoff team then they likely won't.

By looking how he played for the last 2 months , its pretty fair that in 2 years he might done in a top 3