How would the expansion draft work if a GM gave his entire roster NMCs?

[Cloned]

Who would be protected?

Click to read more...

 

[Goptor]

You cannot give NMCs to restricted free agents.

So you lose your best player under 27yr old

 

[Cloned]

You cannot give NMCs to restricted free agents.

So you lose your best player under 27yr old

What if all the RFAs are expansion draft exempt?

 

[TanguaySauce]

I think teams have a cap on the number of NMCs they're allowed no?

EDIT: This is incorrect, but I think the league would penalize the team with draft picks for every player that they are over as compensation to the expansion team.

 

[ref19]

He'd be out of a job for giving bottom pairing and bottom 6'ers NMC's

 

[Three On Zero]

Penalties are levied against an organization that is not expansion draft eligible, those penalties were never formally released during the Vegas expansion though.

 

[Cloned]

Penalties are levied against an organization that is not expansion draft eligible, those penalties were never formally released during the Vegas expansion though.

Honestly though if it's only a 2nd round pick or something I'd probably take the penalty if it means you can't lose anyone valuable in the draft.

 

[Three On Zero]

Honestly though if it's only a 2nd round pick or something I'd probably take the penalty if it means you can't lose anyone valuable in the draft.

I would assume the penalty would be much heftier...but this is the NHL we are talking about

 

[ref19]

It's shocking that Vancouver has 11 guys with NMC's or NTC's

 

[Cloned]

I think teams have a cap on the number of NMCs they're allowed no?

EDIT: This is incorrect, but I think the league would penalize the team with draft picks for every player that they are over as compensation to the expansion team.

Hmm. So let's say a team is only allowed to protect X number/combination of players, but a GM wants to keep X+1 number of players. It might be worth it...

 

[Hockeyfan2390]

I mean, that was almost the Ken Holland experience in Detroit for quite a while.

 

[Hockey Fanatik]

The penalty would be a 1st or more simply for being negligent in being ready

the NHL just fined Arizona a 1st+2nd for their GM getting workouts early; this would, IMO, be only slightly less severe

 

[Cloned]

The penalty would be a 1st or more simply for being negligent in being ready

the NHL just fined Arizona a 1st+2nd for their GM getting workouts early; this would, IMO, be only slightly less severe

Might be worth it depending on the team's situation.

 

[Hockey Fanatik]

Might be worth it depending on the team's situation.

I doubt any team would ever have it be their worst available player is more valuable than a 1st

that means they dont even have any AHL guys they can sign for one year 800k whos worth less than a 1st

idet thatd be possible in NHL 21

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Honestly though if it's only a 2nd round pick or something I'd probably take the penalty if it means you can't lose anyone valuable in the draft.

So you'd rather cripple your organization with NMC than give 1 player to Seattle?

 

[HBK27]

Honestly though if it's only a 2nd round pick or something I'd probably take the penalty if it means you can't lose anyone valuable in the draft.

Honestly if a team, with years of advanced notice, decided not to comply with the expansion draft rules the NHL would come down on them extremely hard. Probably multiple high picks given up to the expansion team along with massive fines.

 

[TanguaySauce]

Hmm. So let's say a team is only allowed to protect X number/combination of players, but a GM wants to keep X+1 number of players. It might be worth it...

I think that this is essentially what some teams did with Vegas, no? They made deals where if you pick from X pool of players, we'll give you Y number of draft picks as compensation. Idk, I could be remembering it wrong.

 

[Swervin81]

You need to have at least 2 forwards, a d-man, and a goalie exposed. Due to eligibility requirements (you can't just expose a Marty Marincin type that sporadically gets called up and plays a tiny handful of games even though he's been in your system forever) and the large number of ELC's and 1-year deals (especially now with the flat cap), a lot of teams are actually already operating very close to that line. Hell, we had to give Hutchinson a 2 year deal just to meet the goalie requirement, and I still think we have to re-sign one of our d-men before the expansion draft to have an eligible d-man (if we decide to protect 4).

Either way, I'd say multiple 1sts would go to the expansion team from you as penalties, as well as very heavy fines.

 

[Yarice]

Even without any penalities, that would definitly not be a good strategy, because I am pretty sure every team has at least one player with RFA status (Which mean no NMC) that they would like to keep (Guys like McDavid, Draisaitl, MackKinnon, Pastrnak, Matthews, etc.) Plus the fact that giving NMC to every players with UFA status is not good

 

[Cynick]

The penalty would be a 1st or more simply for being negligent in being ready

the NHL just fined Arizona a 1st+2nd for their GM getting workouts early; this would, IMO, be only slightly less severe

It'd be a cool twist on the expansion draft if, instead of teams choosing to protect players, they automatically chose to give their next available first round pick to Seattle. Few teams would choose this option, so Seattle would still end up with many NHL-ready players, but you'd think there might be a contender or two that has a player on the bubble that they want to keep and elect to give up a 1st rounder instead to keep him.

 

[Hockey Fanatik]

It'd be a cool twist on the expansion draft if, instead of teams choosing to protect players, they automatically chose to give their next available first round pick to Seattle. Few teams would choose this option, so Seattle would still end up with many NHL-ready players, but you'd think there might be a contender or two that has a player on the bubble that they want to keep and elect to give up a 1st rounder instead to keep him.

They do that via trades already for protection on exposed players

 

[Cynick]

They do that via trades already for protection on exposed players

Yeah, I guess you're right, that's pretty much the same concept.

 

[Seanaconda]

Honestly though if it's only a 2nd round pick or something I'd probably take the penalty if it means you can't lose anyone valuable in the draft.

They made the rules so every team would be able to be eligible for the Vegas one so I assume the penalties would be hefty if a team did that knowing Seattle was coming up and tried to circumvent the rules.

 

[Dache]

The expansion rules aren’t only about who you protect, there are rules about who is exposed. Teams have to meet that criteria as well so you be in violation and likely get some major penalties, draft picks taken away etc.

 

[WATTAGE4451]

I would assume the penalty would be much heftier...but this is the NHL we are talking about

But is that really worth it to avoid losing a 3rd liner, backup goalie, or 4th dman?

What if it's a first?