HF Habs: Expansion Draft 2021

[BaseballCoach]

It might make a huge difference on if we have to protect him or not! With the expansion draft and how Weber will be 36 the year after, we will have to make a difficult decision on the format we choose to take (1G, 7F, 3D) or (1G, 4F, 4D). Who are we leaving out between Weber, Petry, Mete, Juulsen, Fleury? We might go 4D, 4F. Lets say we do...

Price
Weber, Petry, Mete, Juulsen
Kotkaniemi, Domi, Drouin, and one of the following... Gallagher, Tatar, Lehkonen, Byron, Armia.

If Poehling has to be protected, it makes it much worse IMO. I'm sure things will change but it don't look good at the moment. We stand to lose one really good player. Much better than Emelin, that is for sure.

Much ado about nothing.

If Weber has slowed down by then, you leave him unprotected because he likely won't be taken given his cap hit.

If Petry has not signed his extension, he would be left unprotected and if he signs last minute before July 1st, we were able to protect someone else.

If we have to lose one of our 4th best defenceman (6th best if Brook and Romanov are in our top 4), or our 8th best forward (10th best if Suzuki and Poehling are in our top 8), or our backup goalie, so be it, because so will everyone else.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Much ado about nothing.

If Weber has slowed down by then, you leave him unprotected because he likely won't be taken given his cap hit.

If Petry has not signed his extension, he would be left unprotected and if he signs last minute before July 1st, we were able to protect someone else.

If we have to lose one of our 4th best defenceman (6th best if Brook and Romanov are in our top 4), or our 8th best forward (10th best if Suzuki and Poehling are in our top 8), or our backup goalie, so be it, because so will everyone else.

What "if" Weber does not slow down and we extend Petry in the summer of 20. It's not much ado about nothing anymore is it?

I don't know about you, but I rather lose another Emelin type asset vs Lehkonen or Juulsen.

 

[Runner77]

...If Poehling has to be protected, it makes it much worse IMO. I'm sure things will change but it don't look good at the moment. We stand to lose one really good player. Much better than Emelin, that is for sure.

Good news is that there is still time to move about assets between now and then. I'm going with the notion that Poehling doesn't have to be protected.

Since the team has been improving vs. the last expansion draft, certainly we'll lose better than Emelin however, we still won't be hurt that much when compared to stacked teams like Tampa.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Good news is that there is still time to move about assets between now and then. I'm going with the notion that Poehling doesn't have to be protected.

Since the team has been improving vs. the last expansion draft, certainly we'll lose better than Emelin however, we still won't be hurt that much when compared to stacked teams like Tampa.

Based on what I gathered, I think he is exempt. But we will see.

Hard to predict how the next 2.5 years will go but I rather not loose either of Lehkonen or Juulsen to be honest. As it stands now, it's tracking that way

 

[BaseballCoach]

What "if" Weber does not slow down and we extend Petry in the summer of 20. It's not much ado about nothing anymore is it?

I don't know about you, but I rather lose another Emelin type asset vs Lehkonen or Juulsen.

Losing your 6th most promising defenceman should not be a big problem. If we lose Juulsen we will still have Fleury as well as Brook for young LD. And if we don't want to lose Mete, we can protect him.

The only way to lose a weaker asset is to have a weaker team. Not sure you want that.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Losing your 6th most promising defenceman should not be a big problem. If we lose Juulsen we will still have Fleury as well as Brook for young LD. And if we don't want to lose Mete, we can protect him.

The only way to lose a weaker asset is to have a weaker team. Not sure you want that.

Not really. If Poehling has to be protected, it's one more thing to factor in. I'm not OK as being the GM and saying yeah... I'm OK with losing one good asset. You can try to manage it to avoid that problem... like Yzerman did when he flipped Drouin for a automatically protected Sergachev.

You are trying to make it sound like it's not a problem and you do nothing about it. Sorry, I disagree with your narrative. Accepting that you will lose a very good young player is not OK with me.

And how do you figure it's the 6th most promising Defenseman? It's either the 5th or the 4th best depending the form of protection option we choose.

Pretty sure the Ducks were not OK with losing Theodore for nothing and the BJ were not ok with losing Karlsson for nothing. The issue is they waited till last moment to try to make a move to get something and it was too late. Every single GM is trying to do the same thing.

Told you before... waiting and doing nothing is not smart.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Based on what I gathered, I think he is exempt. But we will see.

Hard to predict how the next 2.5 years will go but I rather not loose either of Lehkonen or Juulsen to be honest. As it stands now, it's tracking that way

Drouin
Danault
Gallagher
Domi
Shaw
Kotakniemi
Armia
Lehkonen
Byron
Tatar
**Suzuki
**Poehling

That's the 12 top forwards if we don't get a good UFA.

We would leave three unprotected and lose ONE, or a D-man or the backup goalie.

If Lehkonen gets to the next level, he will be protected for sure. If he does not, you can still opt to leave Tatar unsigned until end of June and not protect Armia and Shaw or Armia and Byron.

No doubt all good performers will stay.

 

[Captain97]

Drouin
Danault
Gallagher
Domi
Shaw
Kotakniemi
Armia
Lehkonen
Byron
Tatar
**Suzuki
**Poehling

That's the 12 top forwards if we don't get a good UFA.

We would leave three unprotected and lose ONE, or a D-man or the backup goalie.

I Lehkonen gets to the next level, he will be protected for sure. If he does not, you can still opt to leave Tatar unsigned until end of June and not protect Armia and Shaw or Armia and Byron.

No doubt all good performeres will stay.

Gallagher and Danault are both UFAs so we don't have to protect them we just need to have an extension signed after the draft. I'm not worried about either of them leaving either they are both Habs for life at this point in my mind.

Edit: Tatar is also a UFA. So Suzuki and Poehling are exempt, Tatar, Danault, and Gallagher are all UFA and if they are claimed we can just sign them on July first. Allowing us to protect Domi, Shaw, Kotka, Armia, Lehkonen, Byron, and Drouin. All without losing any of the other five mentioned.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Drouin
Danault
Gallagher
Domi
Shaw
Kotakniemi
Armia
Lehkonen
Byron
Tatar
**Suzuki
**Poehling

That's the 12 top forwards if we don't get a good UFA.

We would leave three unprotected and lose ONE, or a D-man or the backup goalie.

I Lehkonen gets to the next level, he will be protected for sure. If he does not, you can still opt to leave Tatar unsigned until end of June and not protect Armia and Shaw or Armia and Byron.

No doubt all good performeres will stay.

Option 1 (4D, 4F, 1G):
- Weber, Petry, Mete, Juulsen
- Kotkaniemi, Domi, Drouin, and for example purposes, lets say we protect Gallagher over Tatar, Lehkonen, Armia, Danault.
- Price

Exposed assets: Tatar, Lehkonen, Armia, Danault, Byron, Fleury, Lindgren, Evans.
* How does having to protect Poehling factor in? Well that means we have to expose Gallagher. Imagine that! Do you think this is nothing to worry about? Come on man.

Option 2 (3D, 7F, 1G)
- Weber, Petry, Mete
- Kotkaniemi, Domi, Drouin, Gallagher, Lehkonen, Tatar, and for example purposes, lets say we protect Danault over Armia and Byron
- Price

Exposed assets: Armia, Byron, Juulsen, Fleury, Lindgren, Evans.
* How does having to protect Poehling factor in? Well that means we have to expose Danault.

Even with Poehling being automatically protected... we still stand to lose either Lehkonen or Juulsen IMO. But hey, maybe we let Weber unprotected and Petry is traded? Hard to predict but doing nothing and waiting is not something I support. It's not smart.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Gallagher and Danault are both UFAs so we don't have to protect them we just need to have an extension signed after the draft. I'm not worried about either of them leaving either they are both Habs for life at this point in my mind.

Interesting option. So you plan on doing the same as we did with Markov and Radulov. If we apply the same situation to 2021... it's Petry, Gallagher, Tatar, and Danault. Maybe we don't protect any of them if they are still around.

Seattle then has an option to take them in the draft. But Vegas didn't take Radulov so we might be safe.

I think I agree with you on Danault but not with Gallagher. He will be looking to get paid just like Radulov. If we don't pay him, he will walk. And he is going to be 29+ in his next contract which we will have to seriously think about in 2021

 

[Captain97]

Interesting option. So you plan on doing the same as we did with Markov and Radulov. If we apply the same situation to 2021... it's Petry, Gallagher, Tatar, and Danault. Maybe we don't protect any of them if they are still around.

Seattle then has an option to take them in the draft. But Vegas didn't take Radulov so we might be safe.

I just edited my post, Tatar is also a UFA. Yeah we don't have to protect any of them and we can keep our entire top 12.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I just edited my post, Tatar is also a UFA. Yeah we don't have to protect any of them and we can keep our entire top 12.

It's an interesting option. I think Danault will want to re-sign at a fair price. However, I'm not sure about Tatar, Gallagher, and Petry. Especially with Gallagher who has been underpaid and is not coming back unless we pay him in both term and AAV. It will be another Radulov headache.. mark my words.

The other thing to watch out for is what does Weber look like when he is 35 in that 20/21 season. His contract is designed for him to retire at age 36 or 37. So even if he looks like he does today, we would be protecting him for 1 or 2 more years.

Something tells me we will do another re-set in the 2021 off season.

 

[Captain97]

It's an interesting option. I think Danault will want to re-sign at a fair price. However, I'm not sure about Tatar, Gallagher, and Petry. Especially with Gallagher who has been underpaid and is not coming back unless we pay him in both term and AAV. It will be another Radulov headache.. mark my words.

The other thing to watch out for is what does Weber look like when he is 35 in that 20/21 season. His contract is designed for him to retire at age 36 or 37. So even if he looks like he does today, we would be protecting him for 1 or 2 more years.

Something tells me we will do another re-set in the 2021 off season.

I am not concerned about Gallagher he is a Hab for life its like Markov it would look wrong to see him in any other Jersey

 

[Habs Halifax]

I am not concerned about Gallagher he is a Hab for life its like Markov it would look wrong to see him in any other Jersey

I'm not on that bandwagon. Gallagher will be looking to get paid and he will have no problem at all walking if he gets a better contract from another team... Like Radulov did.

"if you want loyalty... go buy a dog" . It's true.

I would feel better if you had a conversation with Gallagher about re-signing and both sides had a pre-agreement but wanted to wait till after the expansion draft to sign the deal to take advantage.

 

[Sorinth]

Option 1 (4D, 4F, 1G):
- Weber, Petry, Mete, Juulsen
- Kotkaniemi, Domi, Drouin, and for example purposes, lets say we protect Gallagher over Tatar, Lehkonen, Armia, Danault.
- Price

Exposed assets: Tatar, Lehkonen, Armia, Danault, Byron, Fleury, Lindgren, Evans.
* How does having to protect Poehling factor in? Well that means we have to expose Gallagher. Imagine that! Do you think this is nothing to worry about? Come on man.

Option 2 (3D, 7F, 1G)
- Weber, Petry, Mete
- Kotkaniemi, Domi, Drouin, Gallagher, Lehkonen, Tatar, and for example purposes, lets say we protect Danault over Armia and Byron
- Price

Exposed assets: Armia, Byron, Juulsen, Fleury, Lindgren, Evans.
* How does having to protect Poehling factor in? Well that means we have to expose Danault.

Even with Poehling being automatically protected... we still stand to lose either Lehkonen or Juulsen IMO. But hey, maybe we let Weber unprotected and Petry is traded? Hard to predict but doing nothing and waiting is not something I support. It's not smart.

Look at how many teams traded picks to Vegas to select a certain player or not select a certain player.

The best protection against the expansion draft is having a bunch of good players so that even when you lose one you still have a good team.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Not really. If Poehling has to be protected, it's one more thing to factor in. I'm not OK as being the GM and saying yeah... I'm OK with losing one good asset. You can try to manage it to avoid that problem... like Yzerman did when he flipped Drouin for a automatically protected Sergachev.

You are trying to make it sound like it's not a problem and you do nothing about it. Sorry, I disagree with your narrative. Accepting that you will lose a very good young player is not OK with me.

And how do you figure it's the 6th most promising Defenseman? It's either the 5th or the 4th best depending the form of protection option we choose.

Pretty sure the Ducks were not OK with losing Theodore for nothing and the BJ were not ok with losing Karlsson for nothing. The issue is they waited till last moment to try to make a move to get something and it was too late. Every single GM is trying to do the same thing.

Told you before... waiting and doing nothing is not smart.

BJ should have protected Karlsson and Anaheim should have protected Theodore. Stupid GMs are stupid.

Even Yzerman didn't save himself from losing a player, he just lost a DIFFERENT player of every slightly lower calibre. At any rate, if you like what Yzerman did, you surely realize he did it a week ahead of the draft and not 2.5 years ahead.

Waiting IS SMARTER than making the decision prematurely and not picking the right guys to protect.

We will lose the sixth most promising D if Brook and Romanov remain strong prospects.

OR (but not AND) we will lose our 10th best forward if Suzuki and Poehling are in the top 9, and maybe the 11th best, if we just re-sign Tatar after the draft.

If Juulsen is better than Mete, he will be protected, and if Weber or Petry don't need to be, you can effectively protect (not lose) ALL of your top 6 D.

And if we can sign or develop a great backup Goalie, maybe he is the only guy we lose.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Look at how many teams traded picks to Vegas to select a certain player or not select a certain player.

The best protection against the expansion draft is having a bunch of good players so that even when you lose one you still have a good team.

The best protection you present to me today didn't work out for the BJ and Ducks. Pretty sure they would love to have Theodore and Karlsson back on their teams and I bet you they tried to send picks to get Vegas to take someone else and.... failed.

The best protection is what Yzerman did. Flip Drouin for Sergachev

 

[BaseballCoach]

Option 1 (4D, 4F, 1G):
- Weber, Petry, Mete, Juulsen
- Kotkaniemi, Domi, Drouin, and for example purposes, lets say we protect Gallagher over Tatar, Lehkonen, Armia, Danault.
- Price

Exposed assets: Tatar, Lehkonen, Armia, Danault, Byron, Fleury, Lindgren, Evans.
* How does having to protect Poehling factor in? Well that means we have to expose Gallagher. Imagine that! Do you think this is nothing to worry about? Come on man.

WE DON'T HAVE TO PROTECT POEHLING.

 

[Habs Halifax]

WE DON'T HAVE TO PROTECT POEHLING.

Agreed. So why did you reply to a post in the first place saying it's no big deal if we have to protect him? That's how you made it sound to me anyways. You can pretend that I'm the only stubborn one but I think you need to take a look in the mirror.

 

[BaseballCoach]

The best protection you present to me today didn't work out for the BJ and Ducks. Pretty sure they would love to have Theodore and Karlsson back on their teams and I bet you they tried to send picks to get Vegas to take someone else and.... failed.

The best protection is what Yzerman did. Flip Drouin for Sergachev

Which was done AFTER WAITING, and he still lost another player anyway (actually two more players because he paid off Vegas to take a certain guy).

Yzerman did not try to plan it out two years in advance. If he had done that, maybe he would have traded Point or Kucherov or make some other mistake due to not having enough time to evaluate everyone.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Agreed. So why did you reply to a post in the first place saying it's no big deal if we have to protect him? That's how you made it sound to me anyways. You can pretend that I'm the only stubborn one but I think you need to take a look in the mirror.

I said the draft was no big deal, since I know that we can protect everyone who needs to be protected. Even if we did have to protect Poehling, and he is the real deal, he would get protected and we would risk Armia, Shaw or Tatar.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Which was done AFTER WAITING, and he still lost another player anyway (actually two more players because he paid off Vegas to take a certain guy).

Yzerman did not try to plan it out two years in advance. If he had done that, maybe he would have traded Point or Kucherov or make some other mistake due to not having enough time to evaluate everyone.

There is no right "time formula". If you can make the Drouin for Sergachev type trade now, you do it. If you have to wait cause there is no deal you like, you wait. You have made several attempts to say waiting is the best plan. I don't agree with it. You think losing a asset like Lehkonen or Juulsen for nothing is OK. I don't think it's OK. I rather that player be Lindgren, Reilly, Kulak, Evans, etc.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I said the draft was no big deal, since I know that we can protect everyone who needs to be protected. Even if we did have to protect Poehling, and he is the real deal, he would get protected and we would risk Armia, Shaw or Tatar.

I know what you said and I disagree with it. It is a big deal... way more of a bigger deal than the Vegas draft cause we have more to lose. When I say more to lose, you will reply with "we will only lose one player". Yeah, it could be a Lehkonen or Juulsen type vs a Emelin type. And you think it's no big deal. Come on man. I'm not buying this narrative.

I choose to be proactive vs reactive and waiting till it might be too late.

If (remember what if means before you reply), Poehling has to be protected, it's more complicated than your 3 line player exposure than Tatar, Danault or Armia. What about the D? I'm assuming you are protecting 3 D so one of Mete or Juulsen will be exposed. Or are you not protecting Weber?

 

[BaseballCoach]

There is no right "time formula". If you can make the Drouin for Sergachev type trade now, you do it. If you have to wait cause there is no deal you like, you wait. You have made several attempts to say waiting is the best plan. I don't agree with it. You think losing a asset like Lehkonen or Juulsen for nothing is OK. I don't think it's OK. I rather that player be Lindgren, Reilly, Kulak, Evans, etc.

You can make a deal to make sure it is a player you want by trading additional players.

But if you really want to make sure you don't lose Juulsen or Lehkonen, you have to protect them. By the way, I protect Lehkonen in every scenario possible, and will take chances with higher salaried players who are not producing to their cap hit.

And I would only risk Juulsen if Weber and Petry were still studly, Fleury or Brook was ready to be the 3RD...... AND Mete were better than Juulsen. But if all that happens, the loss would be minimal anyway.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I know what you said and I disagree with it. It is a big deal... way more of a bigger deal than the Vegas draft cause we have more to lose. When I say more to lose, you will reply with "we will only lose one player". Yeah, it could be a Lehkonen or Juulsen type vs a Emelin type. And you think it's no big deal. Come on man. I'm not buying this narrative.

I choose to be proactive vs reactive and waiting till it might be too late.

If (remember what if means before you reply), Poehling has to be protected, it's more complicated than your 3 line player exposure than Tatar, Danault or Armia. What about the D? I'm assuming you are protecting 3 D so one of Mete or Juulsen will be exposed. Or are you not protecting Weber?

NO, NO, NO!!

I would protect Lehkonen in all scenarios unless his salary jumps enormously. And I would not risk Juulsen unless the loss were small because we have our pair of 47 minute RDs still on top of their game AND we have one of Brook or Fleury ready AND Mete were better than him. If all that happens, then losing Juulsen won't hurt us. If all that does not happen, I protect him.

You never have to lose a player you want to protect!