Expansion Draft Discussion

[major major]

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.

I think this is incorrect (looks like "reasoning from failure"). The Jackets have very good middle scorers relative to the rest of the league. I'm talking about the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th guys on the forward depth chart. There's no elite forward. Who do you think gets poached in an expansion draft? The middle forwards or the top guys on the chart?

Couple that with the NMC issue and the Jackets could lose badly in an expansion draft.

 

[KlichkoBro*]

But the Jackets didn't give the NTC to Clarkson or Hartnell, they shouldn't be suffering because of that. They obviously should buy out Tyutin's contract, so we wouldn't lose a youngster because of him.

 

[Mayor Bee]

But the Jackets didn't give the NTC to Clarkson or Hartnell, they shouldn't be suffering because of that.

This reminds me of the time that one of my friends wanted to date a girl that was...well, let's say she was more than a bit unstable. He thought that it was because of her previous boyfriend, and that everything would be great. He got a lesson otherwise when she slashed his tires after thinking (wrongly) that he was cheating on her.

It doesn't matter whose fault it is that initially created a disadvantageous situation; it very much becomes your problem when you decide to take it on.

 

[CBJSlash]

We would buy out Clarkson for the minimal savings before we exposed one of the young players.

I'm still not convinced that his NMC is intact because he waived it to come here. We'd have to consent to honoring it and I can't imagine us doing that. Probably a good question for Portzline in his next chat.


On the other hand, I would consider packaging one of our young players with Clarkson just to move him.


They clearly want Vegas to be competitive quicker. Teams are able to protect FAR fewer players than when both us and Minny came into the league.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I think this is incorrect (looks like "reasoning from failure"). The Jackets have very good middle scorers relative to the rest of the league. I'm talking about the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th guys on the forward depth chart. There's no elite forward. Who do you think gets poached in an expansion draft? The middle forwards or the top guys on the chart?

Couple that with the NMC issue and the Jackets could lose badly in an expansion draft.

I don't know who gets poached. In past wasn't guys because the rules set up weren't aligned to give teams a chance and they didn't have a salary floor.
But now if it's a shorter window and if there is a salary floor teams may take on a few bigger contracts along the way.

The guys we are talking about potentially losing are likely all guys who at some point this year we considered moving - Guys like Cam Atkinson or Jack Johnson. Good players, nice contributors (especially Cam) but would it kill the franchise to lose one (just using him as an example). What does it do take us from 25th to 27th?

We're going to protect the young guys who are producing with reasonable contracts. We'll protect guys that we are forced to (NMC guys). Then you just see how many spots are left - and likely there will be pieces that could get taken. You also need to look around the league to see what other teams are doing and understand the rules (with us and Minny there was rules that if a goalie was taken that it protected your other d-men, so teams like Colorado got us to draft Denis to protect some other assets). But again I'm not certain our situation is any different than any other franchise? Every franchise overly-covets their own players.

Finally think about if the league goes from 30 to 32 teams. The talent on each team gets watered down. You're going to lose some talent from each team and going forward you're get less talented players just do to more teams drafting.

 

[Viqsi]

We would buy out Clarkson for the minimal savings before we exposed one of the young players.

Would we? Would we, really?

I mean, that's the prudent course of action, all other things being equal, but recall that we picked him up because ownership didn't want to be spending so much money on dead space. How much would that affect planning for this sort of thing?

I'd love to assume that, given how Clarkson looks like he'll manage to finish the season still under the games-played-as-a-Jacket count that Horton has, that ownership will be willing to shrug and say "well, that didn't work out despite best intentions, let's just move on", but I dunno how likely that is.


EDIT: For the record...

Clarkson has, out of 91 possible Blue Jackets games (21 in 2014-2015*, 70 counting tonight in 2015-2016) played 26 games (3 in 2014-2015, 23 in 2015-2016) and missed 65 (18 in 2014-2015, 47 counting tonight in 2015-2016).

Horton, out of 141 possible Blue Jackets games (82 in 2013-2014, 59 in 2014-2015*) played 35 games (all in 2013-2014) and missed 106 (47 in 2013-2014, 59 in 2014-2015).

*: The reason why these add up to 80 and not 82 is because the trade took place on a game day and Clarkson couldn't play that night (no work visa), so both were unavailable to us for one game out of the 82 that season (game 60).

 

[JacketsDavid]

We would buy out Clarkson for the minimal savings before we exposed one of the young players.

I'm still not convinced that his NMC is intact because he waived it to come here. We'd have to consent to honoring it and I can't imagine us doing that. Probably a good question for Portzline in his next chat.

That is a valid point about buying him out - it won't save money but if it does save us an asset? That could happen.

I thought someone confirmed thru media he waived his NMC to come here but it's still intact. I could be wrong but I would doubt if it went away.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I don't know that a buyout is even that prudent, relatively speaking. It would involve carrying a large dead cap hit for the remaining years anyway, and still mean shelling out an enormous amount of actual cash ($13 million) in order to possibly protect a single asset or two.

Of course, a player being bought out has to clear waivers first...and his NMC prevents him from being put on waivers.

 

[Viqsi]

New "breathe a bit easier" discovery: per CapFriendly, what Clarkson has is a modified NTC, not a NMC. The NMCs are Dubi, Foligno, Hartnell, and Tyutin.

That might not make a difference in the end, depending on the final ruling, but it's an important distinction while we're still speculating. It's certainly a significant load off my mind.

EDIT: Sources conflict on that, as one might expect. I see several that say just a M-NTC, and a few that say NMC.

 

[blahblah]

New "breathe a bit easier" discovery: per CapFriendly, what Clarkson has is a modified NTC, not a NMC. The NMCs are Dubi, Foligno, Hartnell, and Tyutin.

Yeah, I thought that too and, if I remember correctly, someone showed me that Capfriendly is incorrect. I'm sure whoever it was will provide the evidence again - it might be in the Clarkson thread.

I mean wouldn't it be novel if someone we knew in the media actually asked the front office for clarification?

 

[EspenK]

I don't know that a buyout is even that prudent, relatively speaking. It would involve carrying a large dead cap hit for the remaining years anyway, and still mean shelling out an enormous amount of actual cash ($13 million) in order to possibly protect a single asset or two.

Of course, a player being bought out has to clear waivers first...and his NMC prevents him from being put on waivers.

I don't think it prevents him from being put on waivers- he just can't be moved as a result. I don't think the CBA says you can't buy a guy out if he has a NMC. I'm too lazy to look but I'm guessing you will.

 

[EspenK]

There is always this

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-getting-closer-expansion-answers/

The league has hinted Article 11.8, Section (c) of the CBA gives it reason to believe an NMC does not protect anyone from being selected by a potential Las Vegas or Quebec City franchise. That paragraph reads, “A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim.†There’s nothing about expansion.

 

[blahblah]

There is always this

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-getting-closer-expansion-answers/

Yep, if that is wording the CBA wouldn't protect them. There isn't any ambiguity there even though the Players Union would probably try and create some.

The real question would be how the contracts themselves read.

Based on the wording above, it doesn't sound like MB's point is valid. It's not that the player can't be placed on waivers (from the language in the CBA); it that no one can claim them and the team can't assign them to the AHL or loan them to someone. It would be just another paper transaction.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I don't think it prevents him from being put on waivers- he just can't be moved as a result. I don't think the CBA says you can't buy a guy out if he has a NMC. I'm too lazy to look but I'm guessing you will.

There is always this

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-getting-closer-expansion-answers/

Yep, if that is wording the CBA wouldn't protect them. There isn't any ambiguity there even though the Players Union would probably try and create some.

The real question would be how the contracts themselves read.

Based on the wording above, it doesn't sound like MB's point is valid. It's not that the player can't be placed on waivers (from the language in the CBA); it that no one can claim them and the team can't assign them to the AHL or loan them to someone. It would be just another paper transaction.

I don't know that I agree with this. There definitely is ambiguity, despite the fact that expansion is not mentioned. Being taken in an expansion draft is certainly "involuntary relocation", and it's certainly possible that the word "expansion" was not included during the last CBA negotiations because it would have led into a rabbit hole of creating a new issue of whether expansion fees are considered HRR or not.

The first rule of contract law, outside of the "what is a contract?", is that ambiguity will be decided against the party that drafted the contract in the event that it's challenged.

I do know that if I were an expansion GM and I looked at a protected list that included simply the seven best forwards on a given team who didn't have NMCs, and that I couldn't select from numerous unprotected players, I'd go absolutely ballistic. And I would also expect other GMs who haven't been throwing around NMCs like candy to go ballistic as well, particularly since they could lose valuable players as a consequence of their prudence while the irresponsible get to protect a bunch of valuable players.

 

[cslebn]

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.

I think the bolded is the most interesting part as a fan of hockey on a whole. There are going to be interesting trades this summer (if announced for 2017 summer) and then through the Trade deadline and into the draft.

There are lots of quality players that will be exposed, not just us by any means, so the deals that could be added will be interesting to watch.

Add in the other consideration of during the last draft you could only lose certain types of players per round if I recall correctly. So there was gamesmanship there as well to deny the other team players. Have to find Bee's post about the last draft round by round for picks.

 

[Crede777]

There is always this

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-getting-closer-expansion-answers/

The word "whether" in that clause is interesting.

Usually you see "whether" in a clause like that when the list is NOT intended to be exhaustive (or, in other words, it is intended to be open-ended). However, in these cases, there usually is an open-ended generality at the end of the list. Such as ". . . whether by Trade, Loan, Waiver claim, or any other form of movement." So if that's what the writers intended, why didn't they include that last part?

Usually, when a list IS intended to be exhaustive (or, in other words, only applicable to items explicitly stated), then there is no need for the "whether." Such as ". . . by Trade, Loan, or Waiver claim." So if that's what the writers intended, why didn't they keep it simple and just state the three ways involuntary movement is not allowed under an NMC?

Instead, the clause is ambiguous because the "whether" was included. One would think that the writers of the clause were smart enough to consider an expansion draft at the time the clause was written, but I'm not so sure about that. It seems like they forgot about that possibility.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Being taken in an expansion draft is certainly "involuntary relocation",

I do know that if I were an expansion GM and I looked at a protected list that included simply the seven best forwards on a given team who didn't have NMCs, and that I couldn't select from numerous unprotected players, I'd go absolutely ballistic. And I would also expect other GMs who haven't been throwing around NMCs like candy to go ballistic as well, particularly since they could lose valuable players as a consequence of their prudence while the irresponsible get to protect a bunch of valuable players.

I don't pretend to have a guess as to how it will play out, but these resonate with me.

The idea of not having to protect players with various contract clauses but them not being eligible to be taken just doesn't jibe, much as I like it from a CBJ perspective.

 

[blahblah]

I don't know that I agree with this. There definitely is ambiguity, despite the fact that expansion is not mentioned. Being taken in an expansion draft is certainly "involuntary relocation", and it's certainly possible that the word "expansion" was not included during the last CBA negotiations because it would have led into a rabbit hole of creating a new issue of whether expansion fees are considered HRR or not.

There is no ambiguity. Those are the three methods covered by "involuntary relocation". You can try and argue it and try and create ambiguity, however "Uhh I didn't think of that" isn't a defense. The Players Union knew those were the only things covered and what was defined as "involuntary relocation" at the time the agreement was signed. That was added by the league by legal to eliminate ambiguity.

 

[The Jones Zone]

Expansion Draft -------Blessing or Curse for CBJ


http://app.fanly.me/article/oS1JSoIiZR

 

[major major]

There is always this

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-getting-closer-expansion-answers/

It's clear from a legal perspective, but you still have to be willing to fight it out with the player's union, and the league might not be willing. Friedman suggests not.

 

[major major]

Did anyone catch if the league is indicating summer 2017? If it's 2018 we've got a problem with Bjorkstrand, Korpisalo, etc..

I don't know who gets poached. In past wasn't guys because the rules set up weren't aligned to give teams a chance and they didn't have a salary floor.
But now if it's a shorter window and if there is a salary floor teams may take on a few bigger contracts along the way.

The guys we are talking about potentially losing are likely all guys who at some point this year we considered moving - Guys like Cam Atkinson or Jack Johnson. Good players, nice contributors (especially Cam) but would it kill the franchise to lose one (just using him as an example). What does it do take us from 25th to 27th?

In a couple years Cam could be the difference between 15th and 20th or even worse - that is, if he continues to play as well as he has this year. So that's a big deal.

If the 4 nmc's are off the block, then Saad, Wennberg, and Jenner are the obvious guys to protect. So yes, Cam and Rychel would be ripe for the picking, and very tempting.

Look around the league, there's a lot of clubs who'll get passed over just because they don't have the talent after the top group of forwards. Wennberg ranks 7th on the Jackets with 29 pts. Just surveying our division, that 29 pts is still more than all but 5 Flyers, 5 Islanders, 5 Penguins, 4 Hurricanes, and 4 Devils (Caps and Rags with plenty).

 

[We Want Ten]

Expansion Draft -------Blessing or Curse for CBJ


http://app.fanly.me/article/oS1JSoIiZR

They can expose Tyutin and Clarkson, and both get selected

Sounds great, but that's not even possible is it? I thought I read it was a max of 1 player per team?

 

[We Want Ten]

Would we? Would we, really?

I mean, that's the prudent course of action, all other things being equal, but recall that we picked him up because ownership didn't want to be spending so much money on dead space. How much would that affect planning for this sort of thing?

I'd love to assume that, given how Clarkson looks like he'll manage to finish the season still under the games-played-as-a-Jacket count that Horton has, that ownership will be willing to shrug and say "well, that didn't work out despite best intentions, let's just move on", but I dunno how likely that is.


EDIT: For the record...

Clarkson has, out of 91 possible Blue Jackets games (21 in 2014-2015*, 70 counting tonight in 2015-2016) played 26 games (3 in 2014-2015, 23 in 2015-2016) and missed 65 (18 in 2014-2015, 47 counting tonight in 2015-2016).

Horton, out of 141 possible Blue Jackets games (82 in 2013-2014, 59 in 2014-2015*) played 35 games (all in 2013-2014) and missed 106 (47 in 2013-2014, 59 in 2014-2015).

*: The reason why these add up to 80 and not 82 is because the trade took place on a game day and Clarkson couldn't play that night (no work visa), so both were unavailable to us for one game out of the 82 that season (game 60).

Mmmm, yeah i'm gonna go ahead and say no ****ing way.

 

[major major]

Can someone explain this idea to me that Vegas would select Clarkson or Tyutin? I can't figure out why a team would ever do that.

Is it the salary floor? Even if the salary floor isn't waived, I'm sure they can find more cost effective ways to get there. Think "second liner paid like a first liner" not "fourth liner paid like a first liner" (Clarkson).

 

[Mayor Bee]

There is no ambiguity. Those are the three methods covered by "involuntary relocation". You can try and argue it and try and create ambiguity, however "Uhh I didn't think of that" isn't a defense. The Players Union knew those were the only things covered and what was defined as "involuntary relocation" at the time the agreement was signed. That was added by the league by legal to eliminate ambiguity.

Well, that'll be for the lawyers to decide.

Regardless, teams would be wise to not act like the possibility doesn't exist that players with NMCs will be required to be protected.