Expansion Draft Discussion

[CBJfan4evr]

Expansion rules don't favor Jackets as they are one of the youngest in the league with talent that will likely fall in the 3+ year category. Numerous NMC's will hurt forcing us to leave good young talent unprotected. Additionally, someone could end up getting a very good goalie from us.

Guessing league will expand by 2 and we'll lose 2

How as it done when we entered the league? seemed like we got alot of journeymen type players back then.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Expansion rules don't favor Jackets as they are one of the youngest in the league with talent that will likely fall in the 3+ year category. Numerous NMC's will hurt forcing us to leave good young talent unprotected. Additionally, someone could end up getting a very good goalie from us.

There's some bad luck involved to be sure, but the asset management is a killer. The possibility of either keeping Clarkson at the expense of a damned good forward or having to move someone like Hartnell and get very little in return is unappealing at best

How as it done when we entered the league? seemed like we got alot of journeymen type players back then.

Teams could protect either one goalie, four defensemen, and nine forwards; OR two goalies, three defensemen, and seven forwards. First- and second-year pros were exempt, and unsigned European prospects going back almost a decade were also available to be picked from.

There wasn't really a ton to choose from in the last cycle. Nashville did better than could reasonably expected out of an expansion draft and still finished their first year with just 63 points and didn't make the playoffs for six years.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I'm interpreting the NMC issue the second way, which is that players with NMCs will be required to be protected.

If that's the case, it means that of the seven forward spots, four would be taken up by Dubinsky, Foligno, Hartnell, and Clarkson. It also means leaving unprotected two of Saad, Jenner, Wennberg, Atkinson, and Rychel.

I fully expect this interpretation to be the one that holds up, because GMs that have done a more shrewd approach toward NMCs will absolutely blow up if they're only able to protect seven forwards while ones that gave out NMCs like Halloween candy get to protect seven plus additional.

Bob MacKenzie was on Montreal radio saying exactly this. He said the League office has always frowned on no movement clauses and is likely unwilling to use the expansion draft to bail teams out. MacKenzie opined players with NMCs would be required to be protected.

If he's right, then Clarkson, Dubinsky, Foligno and Hartnell must be protected and Tyutin would have to be one of the three protected dmen.

The Jackets are going to lose some high end guys due to these NMCs. The league doesn't want a repeat of the Jackets and Thrashers/Jets expansion franchises. Those two franchises are still struggling after all these years.

 

[Nanabijou]

There's no way that there will be two expansion teams this round. CBJ stand to lose a good player or prospect, but only one. It may hurt, but won't be insurmountable with the good prospect depth.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Bob MacKenzie was on Montreal radio saying exactly this. He said the League office has always frowned on no movement clauses and is likely unwilling to use the expansion draft to bail teams out. MacKenzie opined players with NMCs would be required to be protected.

If he's right, then Clarkson, Dubinsky, Foligno and Hartnell must be protected and Tyutin would have to be one of the three protected dmen.

The Jackets are going to lose some high end guys due to these NMCs. The league doesn't want a repeat of the Jackets and Thrashers/Jets expansion franchises. Those two franchises are still struggling after all these years.

And if Clarkson has to be protected, then it means having to expose at least one of Atkinson, Jenner, Saad, or Wennberg.

Now, what's the cost to either trade Clarkson or to convince an expansion team to otherwise pick someone else in lieu of one of those four forwards? Because this is exactly what I was thinking of months ago when I said "multiple 1st-rounders to unload Clarkson".

 

[TaketheCannoli]

And if Clarkson has to be protected, then it means having to expose at least one of Atkinson, Jenner, Saad, or Wennberg.

Now, what's the cost to either trade Clarkson or to convince an expansion team to otherwise pick someone else in lieu of one of those four forwards? Because this is exactly what I was thinking of months ago when I said "multiple 1st-rounders to unload Clarkson".

This expansion draft significantly raises the cost to be rid if his contract. The Clarkson deal just keeps getting better and better

I doubt he gets unloaded at all because the cost will be too high. Jarmo's only hope is permanent LTIR.

 

[Nanabijou]

And if Clarkson has to be protected, then it means having to expose at least one of Atkinson, Jenner, Saad, or Wennberg.

Now, what's the cost to either trade Clarkson or to convince an expansion team to otherwise pick someone else in lieu of one of those four forwards? Because this is exactly what I was thinking of months ago when I said "multiple 1st-rounders to unload Clarkson".

And again you are going off the deep end with this. Even if the jackets can't unload Tyutin this year, and the rules are what we are interpreting today, the jackets would be forced to protect:

Dubi
Foligno
Clarkson
Tyutin
Hartnell

And they would likely protect:
Jenner
Saad
Wennberg
Jones
Murray

So, they could lose someone like Savard, Jack or Cam, maybe someone like Rychel. Don't see why you still think giving up multiple firsts to prevent ONE of these players from leaving would be considered good business.

And that's likely worst case scenario as they could buy out Tyutin if they were that worried about savard.

 

[Mayor Bee]

And again you are going off the deep end with this. Even if the jackets can't unload Tyutin this year, and the rules are what we are interpreting today, the jackets would be forced to protect:

Dubi
Foligno
Clarkson
Tyutin
Hartnell

And they would likely protect:
Jenner
Saad
Wennberg
Jones
Murray

So, they could lose someone like Savard, Jack or Cam, maybe someone like Rychel. Don't see why you still think giving up multiple firsts to prevent ONE of these players from leaving would be considered good business.

And that's likely worst case scenario as they could buy out Tyutin if they were that worried about savard.

Because it's not about preventing one of those players from being lost; it's about finding a way to both clear a roster spot and salary to keep productive players around. Right now there's over $59 million committed for the 2017-18 season on just 13 roster players, not including prospects. That's without including whatever Jones re-signs for, doesn't include whatever Wennberg re-signs for (since his contract ends in June 2017), and doesn't include whatever Atkinson will be looking for.

 

[Nanabijou]

We all know it's not an ideal situation. No one is expecting Clarkson to be a top 6 player. But I don't see a situation where trading multiple first rounders for someone to take him makes any sense.

The other thing about the proposed entry draft rules today that hasn't been talked about is the potential rule that unprotected players for a team have to make up 25% of their salary cap. The Jackets have about $68 million in salary on the team right now. So, the unprotected players would have to total $17 million in salary. So, there's going to be some good players exposed no matter what happens.

I see a guy like Cam being the type of guy that the NHL wants to see taken in the draft. They want the team to be filled with solid 2nd and 3rd liners so that Vegas is competitive. It would suck losing Cam, but a guy like Bjork (assuming he is exempt) may be able to step in by then and help fill the gap.

 

[blahblah]

lol, taking on that Clarkson contract looks even more dumb every day. On a side note, I could end up seeing Savard leave - silver lining for me. I'll be honest, I'd consider leaving Bob exposed. Not going to debate it any further so no sense telling my how far off base I am.

lol, I wonder how many players would suddenly get a NMC in, at least, the first year of their next deal with upcoming RFA's/UFA's.

 

[major major]

lol, taking on that Clarkson contract looks even more dumb every day. On a side note, I could end up seeing Savard leave - silver lining for me. I'll be honest, I'd consider leaving Bob exposed. Not going to debate it any further so no sense telling my how far off base I am.

lol, I wonder how many players would suddenly get a NMC in, at least, the first year of their next deal with upcoming RFA's/UFA's.

I believe Horton also had a NMC.

 

[blahblah]

I believe Horton also had a NMC.

Doesn't make the move any less ignorant.

 

[major major]

Bettman is going to make the expansion draft much kinder to the Las Vegas team (/ harsher to the Jackets) to make sure the new product makes a good impression in a shaky market. I hope the GMs take this as another reason to shut down this whole expansion.

It's fine to make it easier for new teams, but to make it easier because you doubt the new team would survive without an easier start, is a sign that you shouldn't bother. Las Vegas really doesn't make sense when you consider that Quebec City would sell out every game regardless of team record.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I believe Horton also had a NMC.

I'd have to believe that there will be some way that Horton, Marc Savard, Pronger, and other such players aren't even involved in the expansion draft. Probably just a simple matter of "under contract, less than X games played in X period of time leading up to draft".

Bettman is going to make the expansion draft much kinder to the Las Vegas team (/ harsher to the Jackets) to make sure the new product makes a good impression in a shaky market. I hope the GMs take this as another reason to shut down this whole expansion.

It's fine to make it easier for new teams, but to make it easier because you doubt the new team would survive without an easier start, is a sign that you shouldn't bother. Las Vegas really doesn't make sense when you consider that Quebec City would sell out every game regardless of team record.

I don't think that's it at all, and I don't think that's sound reasoning.

San Jose had 39 points their first year (17-58-5) and 24 their second (11-71-2); that's 101 games under .500 in two seasons. They didn't have a record over .500 until their 9th season.

Ottawa had 24 points their first year (10-70-4), 37 their second (14-61-9), 23 their third (9-34-5), 41 their fourth (18-59-5). Somehow they were over .500 in their 6th season.

Tampa Bay missed the playoffs 9 of their first 10 years, and half of those seasons saw them finish with below 60 points.

Of the more recent group...
Nashville didn't hit .500 until their sixth season, and that's a team that couldn't have done any better in their expansion draft.

Atlanta made the playoffs once in eleven seasons, that being the only year that they cracked the "new .500" (since they started during the OT point era).

Minnesota apparently sold their souls to the devil to get Jacques Lemaire as their first coach, which is about the only way they had any success early on.

And we all know what's happened here.

The problem has been that the league has traditionally looked at expansion teams as a chance to provide the greatest benefit to the existing teams (by splitting up expansion fees) while providing nothing to the new teams (by making sure they get nothing of value). It's damaging logic, and I don't think for a second that what's been talked about is some favor to Vegas. That goes double because if another team comes along in short order or at the same time, they'll have the same draft parameters to contend with.

Frankly, I'm glad as hell that the days of a new team having the honor of putting a bad team's 7th defenseman as their #1, and filling out a first line with a bunch of guys who are either well past their primes or never had one, appear to be over.

 

[major major]

I don't disagree, MB, that you need a more generous start than was given in the past. It's the right thing to do. But I don't discount the idea that the change in approach has a lot to do with the obvious vulnerabilities of Las Vegas as a hockey market.

 

[punk_o_holic]

I'd leave Cam and Kerby unprotected but I'd try to cut a deal with the expansion team so that they would agree not to take Cam. I believe there is a rule for that

Even if they can't come up with a deal, losing Cam would hurt but might not be as bad as what everyone is thinking. He would have 1 more year left before becoming a UFA. So essentially Columbus could lose him the following Summer. If feelings aren't hurt, go after him when he is a UFA. With him being a UFA in 1 year, would a expansion team choose him? Might be a wasted pick if they only have him for a season. Although they could trade him at the deadline. Might be smarter to pick Rychel which would also suck.

As for others, if Bob is injured again next year, I would leave him unprotected. Can't see a team choosing an injury prone goalie making lots of money. I could see better goalie options available.

 

[blahblah]

I don't disagree, MB, that you need a more generous start than was given in the past. It's the right thing to do. But I don't discount the idea that the change in approach has a lot to do with the obvious vulnerabilities of Las Vegas as a hockey market.

Nah, I doubt it was "a lot". Even with these new changes I don't really expect the new franchise(s) to be all the competitive. However, it will help them to not be a door mat and maybe get together a competitive team sooner.

The expansion fee is huge; I think they should be able to get better talent from the existing teams.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I don't disagree, MB, that you need a more generous start than was given in the past. It's the right thing to do. But I don't discount the idea that the change in approach has a lot to do with the obvious vulnerabilities of Las Vegas as a hockey market.

They've had two passionately-followed teams, both of which folded only after they were unceremoniously dumped by their shortsighted landlord (UNLV with the Thunder, The Orleans with the Wranglers).

They've got something like 15,000 season ticket commitments, with the upper bowl and lower sides completely spoken for. That's without any assurance that a team is even on the way, and also goes beyond what Hamilton (illegally) did when it looked like Jim Balsillie was going to steal a team to put there.

The potential of Vegas in terms of importance to hockey is staggering. I've said for three years that an NHL team going there has the potential to be one of the three most important moves in American hockey history, trailing only the Miracle on Ice and the Gretzky trade to Los Angeles.

Back on the main topic though. I think that the fact that we'll be least 17 years clear of the last expansion draft and have had a ton of time to assess and re-assess the advantages and failings of it has more to do with any possible changes than anything. There are also big changes that have taken place; the CBA looks completely different than it once did, certain contractual things that once were legal are now outlawed, an entire class of free agency (Group V) no longer exists, and everything from retention of drafted player rights to who is eligible for the entry draft has changed dramatically. I think it's a simple function of a shifted landscape that's driving the changes, not an effort to prop up a potentially vulnerable market.

 

[blahblah]

The potential of Vegas in terms of importance to hockey is staggering. I've said for three years that an NHL team going there has the potential to be one of the three most important moves in American hockey history, trailing only the Miracle on Ice and the Gretzky trade to Los Angeles.

I love your enthusiasm, but I'd have to put that in the category of hyperbole.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Thing I keep hearing is since the franchise fee is so high that they want to make them more competitive early on.
But yeah the NMC things would hurt the Jackets. But let's be honest there is a lot more quality NHL players (right now) on a lot of other franchises than the CBJ. Now if we're rolling 4 forward lines in 2 seasons and suddenly we can only protect 6 then yes we'll lose a quality player - but right now most of our depth is potential, and honestly over our franchises existence there has always been more potential than execution on the NHL level.

 

[We Want Ten]

So we have the potential to lose a valuable asset and keep Clarkson? Yay!

 

[The Jones Zone]

One thing you have to keep in mind

All 30 teams are going to face the same tough choices that the Jackets are

If Bob goes on IR just 1 time next year, then I don't see any team, expansion or not wanting him and his 7 Mill salary.

 

[EspenK]

One thing you have to keep in mind

All 30 teams are going to face the same tough choices that the Jackets are

If Bob goes on IR just 1 time next year, then I don't see any team, expansion or not wanting him and his 7 Mill salary.

It would only be for one year and would help them get to the floor. That being said you're probably right if there is a younger, healthier,reasonably good goalie available.

 

[Viqsi]

Bob MacKenzie was on Montreal radio saying exactly this. He said the League office has always frowned on no movement clauses and is likely unwilling to use the expansion draft to bail teams out. MacKenzie opined players with NMCs would be required to be protected.

If he's right, then Clarkson, Dubinsky, Foligno and Hartnell must be protected and Tyutin would have to be one of the three protected dmen.

The Jackets are going to lose some high end guys due to these NMCs. The league doesn't want a repeat of the Jackets and Thrashers/Jets expansion franchises. Those two franchises are still struggling after all these years.

If we have to lose a top youngster directly because of David ****ing Clarkson I am going to scream.

 

[Mayor Bee]

One thing you have to keep in mind

All 30 teams are going to face the same tough choices that the Jackets are

If Bob goes on IR just 1 time next year, then I don't see any team, expansion or not wanting him and his 7 Mill salary.

I think some teams, as of now, would have a pretty easy decision on who to protect.

Carolina protects Lack (one goalie), Faulk, Murphy, Skinner, Lindholm, Jordan Staal...they still have three more to protect (or one more defenseman and four forwards). Hanifin, Slavin, and several players would be exempt.

Winnipeg protects a goalie, plus Enstrom, Myers, Byfuglien, Trouba, Wheeler, Little, Dano, and Scheifele. The rest is either depth or exempt.

Plus, every team is going to have a prospect that they're done with who can be dangled to ensure a player they don't want to lose doesn't get taken if he's unprotected. All it cost to buy off Columbus in 2000 was Jan Caloun and a 9th to not take Evgeni Nabokov.