Speculation: Looking ahead to the 2020 Seattle Expansion Draft (LONG post)

RABBIT

My Yearly Sponsorship has relocated to Houston
Oct 21, 2008
11,944
10,264
“Ted’s dead baby. TEDs Dead”
We can either protect 7 forwards, 3 defensemen and one goaltender.
or 8 skaters in total and one goaltender. The first option allows us to protect 2 more players

Any player on a NMC is obligated to be protected and will count against the official tally. First and second-year professionals are exempt. I'm assuming our recent ELC signees (POJ, Capo) will fall under the exempt status since they will most likely still be year one/year two professionals

@XX brought up a good point in the other thread. We have a LOT of kids that are going to need protecting in this expansion.

SAY WE WENT WITH THE 8 SKATERS STRATEGY:

All players we will want to have protected (or have to, and obviously, subject to change)

NO TOUCH LIST:
Keller
Chychrun
OEL
Hjalmarsson
Dvorak
Stepan
Fischer
Galchenyuk
Perlini
Strome

Total: 10

One goalie:
Raanta

So if we were to go into the expansion draft with the same roster we have now (highly unlikely but for conversation's sake) one player on the no touchy list, plus these following players would have to be exposed:

Archibald
Cousins
Dauphin
Kruger
Demers
Kuemper

Pretty much all this means is we leave one player that we don't want to lose exposed along with the others. Meaning we are most likely at moving at least one of the players on the "no touchy" list. Again, @XX brought up a great point in saying the time may be now if there is someone like ROR available and the fact that he's not on a NMC.

SAY WE WENT BY THE 7-3-1 STRATEGY:
If we go by the 7 forwards, 3 defensemen, and one goaltender rule, actually our "no touch" list would be fine...but, it would require that none of our prospects currently under contract go past 2 years of pro experience (or that we don't acquire anyone significant past 2 years experience) and NOT acquiring anybody with a NMC. Either way, this is all very...risky. I'm almost for biting the bullet and including one of our youngsters that we don't want to lose in order to acquire someone under a contract as long as ROR's with hopes of easing the pressure and ultimately, making the playoffs.
 
Last edited:

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
The AHL counts as pro so guys like Merkley, Capo, and Dineen would be exposed as well. Crouse of course, if he's still with the org. Steenbergen if he turns into something. Goalies like Hill. Having desirable players is a good problem to have and you can always pay the ransom fee to Seattle if you want to keep a particular guy (just don't pull a Florida).

Things are very crowded in Tucson right now. There's also extras at the NHL level right now. I fully expect a 3-for-1 trade here at some point. There's just too many guys under contract and not enough spots, even if you put guys like Mayo and Maletta in the ECHL.
 

RABBIT

My Yearly Sponsorship has relocated to Houston
Oct 21, 2008
11,944
10,264
“Ted’s dead baby. TEDs Dead”
The AHL counts as pro so guys like Merkley, Capo, and Dineen would be exposed as well. Crouse of course, if he's still with the org. Steenbergen if he turns into something. Goalies like Hill. Having desirable players is a good problem to have and you can always pay the ransom fee to Seattle if you want to keep a particular guy (just don't pull a Florida).

Things are very crowded in Tucson right now. There's also extras at the NHL level right now. I fully expect a 3-for-1 trade here at some point. There's just too many guys under contract and not enough spots, even if you put guys like Mayo and Maletta in the ECHL.

True. I forgot to list the AHL guys but I'm almost prematurely assuming we'd all be willing to expose them over the other players on our first list.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
True. I forgot to list the AHL guys but I'm almost prematurely assuming we'd all be willing to expose them over the other players on our first list.

In two years time they could be a very desirable asset. The key is to not put the organization in a position where they might lose them or pay a huge ransom. I see more than 7F worth protecting right now, so it makes sense to consolidate those guys. The Coyotes are mainly super fat on contracts - 16 guys signed (not counting Bolland) and will be at 46 contracts (POJ will slide) after RFAs. Compare that to Winnipeg which has 15 players signed to the NHL roster but only 25 contracts overall.

Something has to give this summer.
 

lanky

Feeling Spicy
Jun 23, 2007
9,029
6,281
Winnipeg
Dvorak
Fischer
Galchenyuk
Keller
Merkley
Perlini
Strome

Capobianco
Chychrun
Ekman-Larsson

Raanta

Top Exposed Players
Stepan (30 y.o.)
Crouse (23 y.o.)
Hjalmarson (33 y.o.)
Goligoski (35 y.o.)
Hill (24 y.o.)

So we'll lose either Stepan or Merkley, whichever Chayka chooses. Doesn't seem so bad. It could be much worse if we didn't have such an old blue line.
 

AZviaNJ

Setbacks, no Defeats
Mar 31, 2011
6,620
4,199
AZ
I don’t see Merkley as a long term player for us.

He gets injured next season I’m okay getting rid of him
I'm with you, Merkley gets a lot of publicity given he was a (late) 1st Rd pick.

Personally, I like Bunting better......plays hard, plays every game, continues to improve (23 goals last season) andis very "sticky". I think he gets a shot at a 3rd/4th line role at some point this season and may never give it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lilhoody

Mosby

<3 Uncle Gary
Feb 16, 2012
23,378
18,083
Toronto
In your example of protecting eight guys, your no touch list has nine guys but you say we need to expose two. Wouldn’t it just be one? Or am I missing something?
 

RABBIT

My Yearly Sponsorship has relocated to Houston
Oct 21, 2008
11,944
10,264
“Ted’s dead baby. TEDs Dead”
In your example of protecting eight guys, your no touch list has nine guys but you say we need to expose two. Wouldn’t it just be one? Or am I missing something?

Yep. I removed Goligoski because his NMC ends after next season (pointed out by @lanky earlier in the thread) which nullified the need to protect him. I just forgot to edit that following sentence. Nice catch will adjust it.

By removing Goligoski i also realized i needed to add another defender in order to qualify for the 7-3-1 protection, so i added Hjalmarsson which cushions the blow a bit. It was between he and Demers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mosby

Name Nameless

Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
Apr 12, 2017
6,548
3,004
Team will lose 1 player. It will hurt a little. Like most teams.

Yeah, I think one of the things so many teams did wrong in the Vegas-expantion, they just didn't accept they would lose one player.

Just deal with it when the date comes. It will be one player.

Edit: but avoid handing out NMCs then. As much as possible...
 
Last edited:

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
A very darkhorse candidate for us to give up would be Raanta. Think about it - he is only signed for 3 more years at a pretty decent price. At that point, we may know a little bit more about Adin Hill and his chances of being a long-term solution for us.

If it came down to a few options that are not protected like Goligoski or Demers, and we would like to keep them while feeling comfortable about where Hill is at, why not offer up a middle round pick for taking Raanta off of our hands and going into the year with Hill as our potential #1? If there are still some question marks on Hill being a 55-60 game starter, then we grab a reasonable alternative and try to split time as much as possible.

The potential UFA goalies in 2020 are: Holtby, Crawford, Anderson, Markstrom, Greiss, Condon, and Dell. Kuemper, Bachmann, Boyle, and Campbell are also available, so there could be some options to work with. If Hill shows enough, why not try to sign Anderson to a 1 year deal at age 39 and see if that can help with the transition for Hill?
 

lanky

Feeling Spicy
Jun 23, 2007
9,029
6,281
Winnipeg
A very darkhorse candidate for us to give up would be Raanta. Think about it - he is only signed for 3 more years at a pretty decent price. At that point, we may know a little bit more about Adin Hill and his chances of being a long-term solution for us.

If it came down to a few options that are not protected like Goligoski or Demers, and we would like to keep them while feeling comfortable about where Hill is at, why not offer up a middle round pick for taking Raanta off of our hands and going into the year with Hill as our potential #1? If there are still some question marks on Hill being a 55-60 game starter, then we grab a reasonable alternative and try to split time as much as possible.

The potential UFA goalies in 2020 are: Holtby, Crawford, Anderson, Markstrom, Greiss, Condon, and Dell. Kuemper, Bachmann, Boyle, and Campbell are also available, so there could be some options to work with. If Hill shows enough, why not try to sign Anderson to a 1 year deal at age 39 and see if that can help with the transition for Hill?

Giving them Raanta and a pick is pretty generous.
 

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
Giving them Raanta and a pick is pretty generous.

I don't disagree, but the question is what other players do we leave exposed that could be picked up, and what is the market for goalies who are exposed? I kind of would like to figure that if Raanta were to be left exposed, he may be one of 2-4 goalies that would fit well for Seattle.

I am trying to think of this last expansion draft. Fleury's contract was not so great, and it made sense for PIT to expose him. One thing to consider is that a lot of goalies are looking at longer term deals around the time of the expansion draft as UFAs and the other players like Vasilevsky, Murray, and others are actually still ending their RFA period. Not certain if Seattle risks taking a bunch of UFAs to settle the goaltending situation, b/c that could easily start the team on the wrong foot if they take a player like Crawford (UFA in 2020-21 season) coming off earning $6M per year and he will be 35. Raanta would be 31 at the time, with one more year at about 70% of what Crawford made. Raanta would still be in a prime situation athletically, and could parlay a good season into re-signing with Seattle. Would you rather sign a 31 year old goalie or a 35 year old goalie to a 3 year deal?

Maybe we wouldn't even need to add a pick, but that would be more insurance if we leave a key defender or forward exposed. Still not certain how that would all shake out.
 

lanky

Feeling Spicy
Jun 23, 2007
9,029
6,281
Winnipeg
With the Hjalmarsson NMC it seems we'll definitely be protecting

OEL
Hjalmarsson
Chychrun

and 7 forwards. I'm hoping Capobianco takes a leap forward but that could make him the expansion draft sacrifice.
 

_Del_

Registered User
Jul 4, 2003
15,425
6,736
Minnesota found George pretty willing to work a deal, and it didn't cost them much. Lots of teams made deals with Vegas.

Personally, I think it's something to keep in mind, but I wouldn't go out of my way to build my roster around it. Build a good roster. If we lose a guy, we lose a guy. It's not really a big deal. Make the deals when we need to. Guys like Perlini and Fischer might be looked at as chopped liver by then. Too far away to plan around, imo.
 

Name Nameless

Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
Apr 12, 2017
6,548
3,004
Only a full NMC through next season. Becomes a modified NMC afterwards.

There are too many NMCs around. I mean, not too many in the literal sense. Not yet. But too many. If this keeps up, the team will be locked and in deep trouble in the expansion-draft.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->