Kraken protection list

[Mangosteen]

• The protection list can either be 1) seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie or 2) eight total skaters and one goalie.
• Players whose contracts include a no-movement clause must be protected.

I do not know who has no movement clause for the Yotes. (thinking Keller, OEL and Phill) but who would you protect with how the team has been playing? Will Hayton need protecting?

Forward: Garland, Keller, Dvorak, Schmaltz, Hayton Plus Kessel and open spot
Defence: OEL, Chychrun and Hammer?
Goalie Kuemper

We kinda have two open spots, which could be beneficial for a possible trade. What are your thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Jamieh]

I think only OEL and Kessel with NMC.

 

[Name Nameless]

• The protection list can either be 1) seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie or 2) eight total skaters and one goalie.
• Players whose contracts include a no-movement clause must be protected.

I do not know who has no movement clause for the Yotes. (thinking Keller, OEL and Phill) but who would you protect with how the team has been playing? Will Hayton need protecting?

Forward: Garland, Keller, Dvorak, Schmaltz, Hayton Plus Kessel and open spot
Defence: OEL, Chychrun and Hammer?
Goalie Kuemper

We kinda have two open spots, which could be beneficial for a possible trade. What are your thoughts?

Keller don't need protection, his NMC hasn't started yet. But he will of course be protected. Hammer has an expiring contract, and don't need protection. It does mean a deal to offer him a new contract must be done after the expansion though.

Actually, I think it would be the best to not help Seattle at all, let them do all the work.

 

[hbk]

• The protection list can either be 1) seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie or 2) eight total skaters and one goalie.
• Players whose contracts include a no-movement clause must be protected.

I do not know who has no movement clause for the Yotes. (thinking Keller, OEL and Phill) but who would you protect with how the team has been playing? Will Hayton need protecting?

Forward: Garland, Keller, Dvorak, Schmaltz, Hayton Plus Kessel and open spot
Defence: OEL, Chychrun and Hammer?
Goalie Kuemper

We kinda have two open spots, which could be beneficial for a possible trade. What are your thoughts?

Hayton is exempt. Hammer is UfA. You re-sign him post expansion draft to protect another body. Crouse would also be protected. We need to re-sign one of Oesterle or Lybushkin to meet our D exposure obligations.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

It would be hard to top the job we did with Vegas. Teemu Pulkkinen. We really miss him.

 

[lanky]

Kessel
Garland
Schmaltz
Keller
Dvorak
Crouse
Fischer

OEL
Chychrun
Oesterle (assuming extension)

Kuemper

 

[hbk]

Kessel
Garland
Schmaltz
Keller
Dvorak
Crouse
Fischer

OEL
Chychrun
Oesterle (assuming extension)

Kuemper

Would you consider Pitlick over Fischer?

we certainly can add a couple of bodies and expose more of these names with little worry.

 

[lanky]

Would you consider Pitlick over Fischer?

we certainly can add a couple of bodies and expose more of these names with little worry.

I'm not married to Crouse or Fischer. The advantage they have over Pitlick is RFA status on their next contracts.

There's lots of room for Bill to make some upgrades. Especially on D.

 

[Heldig]

A few teams that are doing badly ALSO have protection issues.

Minnesota - Matt Dumba
Buffalo - Miller, McCabe
Nashville - rumored to be blowing it up
Rangers - might make some changes after a very disappointing start

 

[BUX7PHX]

I think maybe we acquire a D at the deadline who is non-exempt and protect them.

Hayton does not need to be protected, so to me, it is between Fischer, Larsson, and Pitlick. Which is probably the order that BA would have it in today. In seven days, it will probably be Pitlick, Larsson, Fischer.

Then Larsson, Pitlick, Fischer.
Then Fischer, Pitlick, Larsson.
Then Pitlick, Fischer, Larsson.
Then Larsson, Fischer, Pitlick.

Lather, rinse, repeat...

 

[Canis Latrans]

It's harder to say right now because so much of the defense comes off the books then. I think it's pretty solidly the following on F, D, & G:

Keller
Schmaltz
Garland
Dvorak
Crouse
Kessel (NMC*)

OEL
Chychrun
Oesterle/Lyubushkin**

Kuemper

That leaves an open slot for F and Kessel. I foresee the slimmest of possibilities that Kessel may waive as he's unlikely to get picked up. It's also putting the risk of him being moved entirely on himself rather than the team and how likely is a player to do that for a team. Maybe if Tocchet goes, he'd be open to it. There's also the issue of when the signing bonus gets paid - before or after the expansion draft. I don't know what the offseason schedule looks like this season, but the Coyotes were to pay it, he's not a high cost for what could be a good marketing tool.

I guess I'd protect Fischer as of now simply because of the age of Pitlick and Larsson, and Fischer is an RFA. I'm not really torn on it though, and this is a situation where I'd rather use players of that ilk to try and pry something out of a team that can't afford to protect some one of value. Offer them some pieces in exchange for some one they assuredly would lose, then they only end up losing one of the pieces you sent while still coming out of the expansion draft with something for the valuable piece. I was honestly surprised teams kept dealing directly with Las Vegas in the last expansion draft instead of the league playing musical chairs to minimize their losses, and I think Chayka had been playing on partaking in that, but it obviously didn't happen. I think a lot of teams handled it extremely awfully in that sense, so perhaps it'll be less of an issue this time.

Frankly it's ridiculous that the Coyotes lost a player of the caliber of Pulkkinen while some teams sent two assets to Las Vegas to ensure they took the second best exposed player they had. Teams failed to make moves to lower their loss while some teams like the Coyotes offered at best a zero value asset. Better to deal with the entire league to tighten up the variance in value across the league than to resort to only dealing with expansion team.

When it comes to defense, I think assuredly they'll protect OEL and Chychrun. Depending on contracts, I could see either one of Oesterle or Lyubushkin protected. Maybe one of them gets moved along with one of those eligible forwards and we end up with a better forward or defenseman to protect with the last slot, who knows.

You look at a team like Minnesota and see they have 3 defensemen with NMC, but not Dumba. Perhaps instead of just losing him in the draft, the wild and Coyotes can work out a deal to send some combination of Fischer, Pitlick, Larsson, Oesterle, and/or Lyubuskin plus whatever in picks/prospects. That way the Coyotes can protect him, while the Wild lose one of however many of those guys they acquire, but keep the remainder and picks/prospects.

Anyway, in conclusion, the team is sitting nicely and unless teams want to handle the expansion draft irrationally again, I am hoping we'll see moves made of this sort that the Coyotes are primed to take advantage of.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

Can we trade Tocchet to the Kraken for protection from drafting one of our poster? Asking for a friend.

 

[lanky]

Minnesota can protect 4 D and 4 F. Losing their best unprotected forward wouldn't be that painful.

 

[hbk]

Minnesota can protect 4 D and 4 F. Losing their best unprotected forward wouldn't be that painful.

Have you seen their NMC’s. Zero chance they go 4 and 4. Zero.

 

[lanky]

Have you seen their NMC’s. Zero chance they go 4 and 4. Zero.

Huh?

Parise
Zuccarello
Erikson Ek
Greenway

Spurgeon
Suter
Brodin
Dumba

Who would Seattle claim? Rask with 1 year to UFA? That's much easier than losing Dumba.

 

[Jamieh]

Have you seen their NMC’s. Zero chance they go 4 and 4. Zero.

I only see 3D and 2F with NMC

 

[Imaravencawcaw]

Garland is an RFA at the end of the year, does he need to be protected or is he the same as the UFAs if he isn't extended until after the expansion draft?

 

[Canis Latrans]

Huh?

Parise
Zuccarello
Erikson Ek
Greenway

Spurgeon
Suter
Brodin
Dumba

Who would Seattle claim? Rask with 1 year to UFA? That's much easier than losing Dumba.

Fiala. He led them in points last season (23-31-54) and isn't far behind this year with fewer games played.

 

[Canis Latrans]

Garland is an RFA at the end of the year, does he need to be protected or is he the same as the UFAs if he isn't extended until after the expansion draft?

He needs to be protected. You can see who is eligible and who is not via the Capfriendly expansion draft tool. There is an associated FAQ that goes over the required games played and rules on who can be protected. The archives on that site also has the results from Las Vegas' draft.

Edit: I should add, he ought to be protected. If he is not, Seattle is going to get a 2-day window, like Las Vegas did, to sign any free agents before regular free agency opens. If they were to sign him then, he counts as their selection from the Coyotes. They can only sign one player per team from the previous season that way. If they had signed Garland and wanted to also sign say Goligoski, they'd need to wait until regular free agency opens to sign Goligoski.

 

[Imaravencawcaw]

He needs to be protected. You can see who is eligible and who is not via the Capfriendly expansion draft tool. There is an associated FAQ that goes over the required games played and rules on who can be protected. The archives on that site also has the results from Las Vegas' draft.

That's what I was looking at and Garland's name isn't highlighted in green as one of the "players who meet or are projected to meet the exposure requirements".

 

[Canis Latrans]

That's what I was looking at and Garland's name isn't highlighted in green as one of the "players who meet or are projected to meet the exposure requirements".

I see what you mean. If you hover over the F & D Exposure Req part, it'll indicate that each team has to expose players with something like 70 games played over the past 2 seasons, basically a serviceable player, and those players must still be under contract. It just means that Garland won't have a contract so the Coyotes can't count him towards that requirement of 2 eligible forwards, though they'd obviously take him were he available and willing to sign in free agency, so he obviously needs to be protected. I guess they could play hardball and not protect him, thinking Seattle can't win him over and they can just re-sign him when full free agency opens, but wow that is risky.

 

[Canis Latrans]

Looks like we don't have any eligible defensemen to expose since every single contract ends except OEL and he's got a NMC. Unless we're giving up Chychrun, we may be acquiring some one to fulfill that. I'm under the impression you can't sign an extension during the season, but maybe that's incorrect. It's a potential solution to that problem. Another is to call Capobianco up, as he's the only eligible defenseman in the system who could be left unprotected, but he'll need to play 25 games this season.

 

[_Del_]

I guess they could play hardball and not protect him, thinking Seattle can't win him over and they can just re-sign him when full free agency opens, but wow that is risky.

Seattle would just acquire his rights as a RFA if the Coyotes left him exposed. Just like they could acquire the rights to one of our UFA's if they were so inclined. Once free agency hits the unsigned UFA-to-be turns into a UFA, and the unsigned RFA-to-be player turns into an RFA.

 

[Canis Latrans]

Seattle would just acquire his rights as a RFA if the Coyotes left him exposed. Just like they could acquire the rights to one of our UFA's if they were so inclined. Once free agency hits the unsigned UFA-to-be turns into a UFA, and the unsigned RFA-to-be player turns into an RFA.

Right, I blanked on that.

I haven't seen anything pertaining specifically to it, but I wonder if you could tender an offer to the RFA, then leave him unprotected. Would that nullify the qualifying offer or would Seattle just subsume it? Could you pull some shenanigan like make a qualifying offer at the max amount per year for max years, have the player reject it or just leave it on the table while leaving the player unprotected, and then once the expansion draft ends and the unprotected player has not used one of your protection slots, you both mutually go back to negotiating a more realistic deal. I can see the player having interests in line with the team in this example since RFAs are young and usually in a team's longer term plans, so they'd be more interested in helping their team skirt around the rules and free up an expansion draft slot. I can't find anything touching upon this, so I kind of doubt the league actually has addressed it in their internal expansion draft rules.

 

[Edenjung]

It's harder to say right now because so much of the defense comes off the books then. I think it's pretty solidly the following on F, D, & G:


You look at a team like Minnesota and see they have 3 defensemen with NMC, but not Dumba. Perhaps instead of just losing him in the draft, the wild and Coyotes can work out a deal to send some combination of Fischer, Pitlick, Larsson, Oesterle, and/or Lyubuskin plus whatever in picks/prospects. That way the Coyotes can protect him, while the Wild lose one of however many of those guys they acquire, but keep the remainder and picks/prospects.

Can't we make a deal like you send us dumba for protection before the draft. you get a 7th round pick. And we reverse the trade afterwards for the 7th round pick and a third round pick.
That way everybody wins.