Mock Expansion Draft: Christmas Edition

[Larry Fisher]

This is my second (and hopefully much improved) attempt at a mock expansion draft for the Vegas Golden Knights. I actually like the look of this roster. Your thoughts? http://thehockeywriters.com/golden-knights-mock-expansion-draft-christmas-edition/

Click to read more...

 

[Larry Fisher]

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of comments and discussion on this mock so far. Do you all love it or hate it? Would you be happy with that team? Which picks do you like or loathe?

 

[BattleBorn]

Slow day on the board, but a busy day in real life.

You went pretty deep on this one, I've got to get a little time to go through everything.

 

[Larry Fisher]

Fair enough haha it is a LONG read but hopefully a good one when you get around to it. Enjoy!

 

[KnishOfTheCrease]

Good analysis on the Islanders. They are a tough team to read. I'd love for them to protect Pulock at the expense of DeHaan. As a Knights fan, I want Pulock . I think Strome is playing himself out of Brooklyn. He's got all the talent in the world but the work ethic just isn't there.

I wonder if Snow and McPhee have a handshake agreement on who to take since Snow threw McPhee a bone and gave him a job for a couple of years. Although, if this mess of a season keeps up in Brooklyn, I don't see Snow surviving much longer. Especially with all the speculation.

You put together a nice lineup. I'd be happy to watch that group.

 

[Puckrobber]

As a Kings fan first, and also looking forward to rooting for L.V. as well, it's not a bad line-up. Two things I might see happening though:

1. I don't see Gaborik being chosen, because of his age and injury history. Don't know if the Knights would want to be stuck with his contract for that long. I'm thinking they might have a "side deal", where Vegas chooses him, then trades him back for picks or prospects. (If that's possible?) Don't think Gabby would want to play there, either.

2. I think the Wild pick might be a toss-up between Granlund, Zucker and Scandella. Granlund is the "sexier" name, but, I think Zucker could be a steal. He seems to be under-utilized by the Wild. On Scandella, I think he's a solid D-man. Could be a better pick than a 36 year-old Paul Martin.

As always, just my .02. Thanks!

 

[BattleBorn]

I expect this draft to be 100% professional where the team will pick the best player for what they think they want to do right away and in the long term. They'll pick every player based on that.

Except for Minnesota. If he's available and there's a "better" player available, I expect them to pick Zucker every single time.

 

[Ginormousthumbs]

Man, it's going to be a rough couple of years with that lineup. Nice to see Kane not on that list. I also think if Yak is left unprotected, he'll go home.

 

[Mike Jones]

1. II'm thinking they might have a "side deal", where Vegas chooses him, then trades him back for picks or prospects. (If that's possible?)

I don't think a return like this is allowed. Isn't there a one year waiting period on players being traded back to the teams from which they've been chosen?

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Sorry but it's a laughable notion that the Ducks would leave Silfverberg unprotected, not happening.

It's in Bieksa's best interest to waive his NMC for expansion. He's obviously not what Vegas will be looking for, so waiving is just a formality. He pushed for the NMC because he wants to try and win a Cup in Anaheim and doesn't want to move his family. If threatened with a buyout, he'll likely waive.

Can you provide examples of Fowler's name coming up in any trade rumors since the summer? I'm pretty sure the only reports that have come out during the season suggest that he's no longer available, likely due to the fact that he's been the Ducks best player this year on an overall basis.

It's becoming more apparent that the Ducks best course is to keep both Fowler and Lindholm to anchor the top two pairings at least until someone else proves they can carry those type of minutes. Manson has shown he is an ideal fit playing alongside either of those two, plus he's extremely affordable at least in the short term, and doesn't really have a peer in our system in terms of playing style. That makes him the next most logical dman to protect.

That leaves Vatanen as the odd man out, which is actually ideal because his role is the easiest to replace based on what the Ducks have internally (Theodore/Montour).

Moving Vatanen for a forward between now and expansion protection is the Ducks best course of action. This allows them to protect their entire core without giving Vegas a true impact player.

Protected

F - Getzlaf, Kesler, Perry, Silfverberg, Rakell, Cogliano, Trade acquisition*

D - Lindholm, Fowler, Manson

G- Gibson

Unprotected

F - Vermette, Wagner, Shaw, Boll, Cramarossa* (would be protected in the event that the Vatanen trade brought back exempt piece(s)

D - Stoner, Bieksa

G - Tokarski/Hackett (suspect you'll see one of these guys signed to a one year extension in order to fulfill goalie requirement)

It should be pretty clear to see that this is the way the Ducks should go, as it leaves them losing only a depth player vs a vital core player as you've listed in the article. I'd suspect if the circumstances I've outlined were to unfold, Vegas might be best inclined to enter negotiations with UFA Jon Bernier during their exclusive window.

 

[ChilliBilly]

According to the draft protocol, the Knights will end up with 31 players after the expansion draft. I am assuming 30 + there first round pick.

they can only have 25 under contract.

What happens to the other 6? Their original team gets 1st crack at them, or they have to go through waivers or is there some special rule in place for this team this year?

 

[Soundgarden]

Teams can have 50 under contract, some will be sent to the AHL or traded before next year starts.

 

[Larry Fisher]

Appreciate all the insight and feedback. That does make a lot of sense from the Ducks' perspective, moving Vatanen for a forward. Those leftovers aren't nearly as attractive to Vegas. I'm guessing the Golden Knights would end up taking Vermette or possibly Bieksa, but both pale in comparison to the prospect of picking Silfverberg, Cogliano or Manson, which is probably a pipe-dream. Bob Murray is presumably as smart as heusy_79.

Another good point about Snow hiring McPhee as an advisor and that relationship perhaps resulting in a handshake deal on who Vegas will take or, more importantly, who Vegas won't take. I could see the Islanders trading an exciting (but enigmatic) prospect like Ho-Sang to Vegas in order for the Golden Knights to avoid taking Pulock if he is, in fact, exposed. Bailey and de Haan would still be good consolation prizes for Vegas. I had an all-New York defence pairing of de Haan-Klein in my original Golden Knights mock back in July and could still see that coming to fruition.

Zucker is definitely the feel-good pick, being a Vegas boy. I could totally see the Golden Knights picking him over Granlund, Niederreiter and Scandella. That said, I could also see Minnesota making a similar move to Anaheim, trading Dumba for a forward (Elliotte Friedman mentioned those rumours, possibly for Ryan Spooner, in his later 30 Thoughts). That would allow Minnesota to protect three more forwards such as Granlund, Niederreiter and either the forward acquired for Dumba (say Spooner), Staal or Zucker. In that case, one of Staal, Zucker, the forward from the Dumba deal (say Spooner) or Scandella would be the Golden Knights' best bet.

 

[airbus220]

I wonder if Snow and McPhee have a handshake agreement on who to take since Snow threw McPhee a bone and gave him a job for a couple of years.

If McPhee does Snow any favor he should be fired on the spot.

 

[Larry Fisher]

GMs in professional sports are always doing favours for each other. It's part of establishing and maintaining positive working relationships. I know they say "there are no friends in business" but the NHL is very much an old-boys club when it comes to management and McPhee has been a member of that fraternity for the last two decades. He'll do what's best for Vegas, but he'll do some favours in the process.

 

[HeadInjury]

1. I don't see Gaborik being chosen, because of his age and injury history. Don't know if the Knights would want to be stuck with his contract for that long.

Agreed. McNabb or Forbort would be more logical choices than Gaborik.

 

[Larry Fisher]

I just think Gaborik has some name value/star appeal and Vegas needs that too. As mentioned in the article, a name like Gaborik — a guy with almost 1,000 games played and probably more than 400 career goals and 800 career points by season's end —*could sell tickets and jerseys. Same idea with Yakupov. It is a business and winning will ultimately fill the seats and grow the fan base, but the first few seasons will be a work in progress and those "bigger" names will help bring in fans and generate excitement. That's my thinking there.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Teams can have 50 under contract, some will be sent to the AHL or traded before next year starts.

quite right. I know that. My point was that at least 6 will have to go through waivers. Do their previous teams have any right of first refusal?

i meant 50 contracts, 25 man playing roster (the rest need to be moved) 22 dressed per game.

 

[Larry Fisher]

What we could see is Vegas picking 5-8 players/prospects on two-way contracts who could still be sent to their AHL affiliate, possibly without waivers. Guys like Malcolm Subban, Ryan Pulock, Curtis Lazar, Derrick Pouliot and Ville Pokka would fit that bill from my roster. I probably should have drafted a handful more guys, specifically forwards, with that in mind because it will likely play out that way. And probably not bigger-name prospects like those guys, but second-tier types like a Sven Adrighetto or Brock McGinn, etc.

 

[ChilliBilly]

What we could see is Vegas picking 5-8 players/prospects on two-way contracts who could still be sent to their AHL affiliate, possibly without waivers. Guys like Malcolm Subban, Ryan Pulock, Curtis Lazar, Derrick Pouliot and Ville Pokka would fit that bill from my roster. I probably should have drafted a handful more guys, specifically forwards, with that in mind because it will likely play out that way. And probably not bigger-name prospects like those guys, but second-tier types like a Sven Adrighetto or Brock McGinn, etc.

good point. So it wise to not leave waiver eligible players unprotected if you have a choice. Let them have an overvalued contract instead.

 

[Puckrobber]

Agreed. McNabb or Forbort would be more logical choices than Gaborik.

I could see either of those guys in a Knights sweater. Both could be solid 2nd or 3rd line D-men.

 

[Cherpak]

The Penguins are most definitely not going to waste a protected spot on Scott Wilson.

 

[HanSolo]

Sorry but it's a laughable notion that the Ducks would leave Silfverberg unprotected, not happening.

It's in Bieksa's best interest to waive his NMC for expansion. He's obviously not what Vegas will be looking for, so waiving is just a formality. He pushed for the NMC because he wants to try and win a Cup in Anaheim and doesn't want to move his family. If threatened with a buyout, he'll likely waive.

Can you provide examples of Fowler's name coming up in any trade rumors since the summer? I'm pretty sure the only reports that have come out during the season suggest that he's no longer available, likely due to the fact that he's been the Ducks best player this year on an overall basis.

It's becoming more apparent that the Ducks best course is to keep both Fowler and Lindholm to anchor the top two pairings at least until someone else proves they can carry those type of minutes. Manson has shown he is an ideal fit playing alongside either of those two, plus he's extremely affordable at least in the short term, and doesn't really have a peer in our system in terms of playing style. That makes him the next most logical dman to protect.

That leaves Vatanen as the odd man out, which is actually ideal because his role is the easiest to replace based on what the Ducks have internally (Theodore/Montour).

Moving Vatanen for a forward between now and expansion protection is the Ducks best course of action. This allows them to protect their entire core without giving Vegas a true impact player.

Protected

F - Getzlaf, Kesler, Perry, Silfverberg, Rakell, Cogliano, Trade acquisition*

D - Lindholm, Fowler, Manson

G- Gibson

Unprotected

F - Vermette, Wagner, Shaw, Boll, Cramarossa* (would be protected in the event that the Vatanen trade brought back exempt piece(s)

D - Stoner, Bieksa

G - Tokarski/Hackett (suspect you'll see one of these guys signed to a one year extension in order to fulfill goalie requirement)

It should be pretty clear to see that this is the way the Ducks should go, as it leaves them losing only a depth player vs a vital core player as you've listed in the article. I'd suspect if the circumstances I've outlined were to unfold, Vegas might be best inclined to enter negotiations with UFA Jon Bernier during their exclusive window.

That's ideal. It remains to be seen how it all goes.

 

[Larry Fisher]

For those interested, we spent almost a half hour rehashing my mock draft and debating what the Vegas Golden Knights' roster could look like come June in the latest episode of the Facing Off podcast. The Vegas talk starts at 52:50-1:17.20: http://thehockeywriters.com/facing-off-podcast-talking-trophies-analytics-and-golden-knights-galore/

 

[LadyStanley]

quite right. I know that. My point was that at least 6 will have to go through waivers. Do their previous teams have any right of first refusal?

i meant 50 contracts, 25 man playing roster (the rest need to be moved) 22 dressed per game.

NHL roster is 23. 20 are dressed/game. (There is no cap nor roster limit in AHL. But they do have a 5-vet max that can play in each game; vet is like 271+ pro games.)

That 50 contract limit is "active" NHL contracts (and do NOT include 18- and 19-year-olds playing in CHL under contract).

Many GMs try to max at around 45 NHL "active" deals so they have some flexibility WRT trades.


WRT Sharks....

PROTECTED (7 F, 3 D, 1 G): Joe Pavelski, Logan Couture, Tomas Hertl, Chris Tierney, Joel Ward, Mikkel Boedker, Melker Karlsson, Brent Burns, Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Justin Braun, Martin Jones

Boedker has not been playing well the past few weeks, so might end up on the exposed list. But I do realize that he's coming into an established system and is having to learn how things work and get chemistry with his teammates.

Your protected list does NOT allow for the required minimum exposed forwards from the Sharks. Nieto is the only forward that meets the experience and contractual requirements. Most of the exposed forwards are pending UFAs and/or post-ELS players with no/little NHL experience.

My notes:
http://tealpuck.com/expansiondraft2017.html