Mock Expansion Draft: Christmas Edition

[ChilliBilly]

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....


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

Right. I know that. How the hell did I get the number wrong. My bad.

 

[White Shadow]

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.

What's the plan if the buyout window doesn't open in time?

 

[WhatTheDuck]

What's the plan if the buyout window doesn't open in time?

I haven't seen any indication of that being the case.

 

[White Shadow]

I haven't seen any indication of that being the case.

Buyout window opens June 15th or 48 hours after final playoff game, whichever comes later. Protection lists are due June 17th 5:00 PM. If 2016 went to 7 games it would have been played June 15 and finished later than 5:00. 2015 final ended June 15th in only 6 games. 2014 final ended June 13th but in only 5 games.

Definite possibility.

 

[Headshot77]

Eric Fehr is the absolute last Penguin I would pick in the expansion draft. If the Pens go 7/3 you take Schultz, if the Penguins go 4/4 you take one of Hagelin or Rust.

 

[LadyStanley]

Buyout window opens 6/15 or 48 hours after final, but ends like June 30.

So if a player is not selected in expansion draft, he could still be bought out.

 

[White Shadow]

Buyout window opens 6/15 or 48 hours after final, but ends like June 30.

So if a player is not selected in expansion draft, he could still be bought out.

True, but if they do not buy Bieksa out before June 17, they will be forced to use a protection slot on him. Seems a lot to risk on the chance the finals go 6 or 7 games.

 

[RandV]

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 the sensible thing for Anaheim but I don't think it will be so simple. Teams are going to feel the biggest squeeze on defensemen this expansion draft, which limits the number of trade partners Anaheim will have.

When you have limited trade options and are dealing from a position of weakness there may not be a favourable deal to be had. For many fans it's a tragedy to lose a good player for nothing, but GM's in a playoff position with UFA's that could walk have to make this decision all the time. For Anaheim the return on Vatanen may have a similar effect here, where for their playoff chances it's simply not worth it to move him now and they'll just have to keep him and risk losing him to Vegas if Bieksa won't waive.

 

[Not So Mighty]

My problem with your mock and honestly every other mock I see, is that you think Bieksa is going to be protected. I understand he has an NMC but there are ways around it. He is smart enough to know that it's in his best interest to waive his clause. If not, the Ducks are smart enough to buy him out.

I'm not saying it's your agenda, but I believe a lot of people making these mocks are ignoring the Ducks options with the intent to make their mock up roster look better.

 

[White Shadow]

My problem with your mock and honestly every other mock I see, is that you think Bieksa is going to be protected. I understand he has an NMC but there are ways around it. He is smart enough to know that it's in his best interest to waive his clause. If not, the Ducks are smart enough to buy him out.

I'm not saying it's your agenda, but I believe a lot of people making these mocks are ignoring the Ducks options with the intent to make their mock up roster look better.

I really don't see how it is in Bieksa's best interest to waive his NMC, certainly not for the purpose of the expansion draft. There are just too many negative possibilities that result from him waving that right.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I really don't see how it is in Bieksa's best interest to waive his NMC, certainly not for the purpose of the expansion draft. There are just too many negative possibilities that result from him waving that right.

It would be more of a doing a solid for his team's management thing so as to avoid getting bought out. The only possible negative of him waiving his NMC for the expansion draft is that Vegas could potentially select him. I very much doubt that would be the case but that's the limit of waiving the NMC for the draft. Also, just because he waives the NMC for the draft doesn't mean that it is waived for everything else for the rest of his contract. They will still have to go through that NMC if they try to trade him.

 

[White Shadow]

It would be more of a doing a solid for his team's management thing so as to avoid getting bought out. The only possible negative of him waiving his NMC for the expansion draft is that Vegas could potentially select him. I very much doubt that would be the case but that's the limit of waiving the NMC for the draft. Also, just because he waives the NMC for the draft doesn't mean that it is waived for everything else for the rest of his contract. They will still have to go through that NMC if they try to trade him.

Getting bought out may actually be the preferred option for Bieksa.

Interesting take on the NMC clause. I have not read anywhere that he could waive and yet still retain the full benefits of the clause post-expansion draft. Can you post a link to this information?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Getting bought out may actually be the preferred option for Bieksa.

Interesting take on the NMC clause. I have not read anywhere that he could waive and yet still retain the full benefits of the clause post-expansion draft. Can you post a link to this information?

It may be but going from 4 mil to 2.6 over two years plus whatever he may get on the open market at this point (which isn't much) might be more than what he wants to deal with right now. Either way, it's going to happen.

As for the NMC, people have mistook what waiving actually means. Waiving the NMC only means consenting to the trade or loan or waivers when asked. It doesn't mean the loss of the clause entirely. The only time the clause goes away entirely is when a team acquires a player that has a clause in their contract that is not yet active. An example would be P.K. Subban or Mike Richards. When a player is still of RFA age, they can't have one but they may have enough term on their contracts to go to the UFA stage in which they may have negotiated a clause. If they are traded before that clause is active, the acquiring team has the option to honor it or not.

 

[White Shadow]

It may be but going from 4 mil to 2.6 over two years plus whatever he may get on the open market at this point (which isn't much) might be more than what he wants to deal with right now. Either way, it's going to happen.

As for the NMC, people have mistook what waiving actually means. Waiving the NMC only means consenting to the trade or loan or waivers when asked. It doesn't mean the loss of the clause entirely. The only time the clause goes away entirely is when a team acquires a player that has a clause in their contract that is not yet active. An example would be P.K. Subban or Mike Richards. When a player is still of RFA age, they can't have one but they may have enough term on their contracts to go to the UFA stage in which they may have negotiated a clause. If they are traded before that clause is active, the acquiring team has the option to honor it or not.

There are two issues with Bieksa that Anaheim needs to be concerned with. Firstly, the timing of the buyout...will the window open in time or will they buy him out after the expansion draft and thus be forced to protect him? Secondly, your interpretation of the NMC is new to me. Are you able to cite a source that confirms this?

 

[mouser]

There are two issues with Bieksa that Anaheim needs to be concerned with. Firstly, the timing of the buyout...will the window open in time or will they buy him out after the expansion draft and thus be forced to protect him? Secondly, your interpretation of the NMC is new to me. Are you able to cite a source that confirms this?

There's no mention in the CBA because it would be redundant to explicitly say so. Looking at real world examples have told us NMC's remain in effect after players waive them. A recent example being Vinny Lecavalier. I have yet to see anyone come up with a single example of a player that lost their NMC/NTC after waiving it.

It's one of the most common misunderstandings that is often repeated on HFB. Right up there with waivers eligibility/2-way contracts; and waiver priority to reclaim a player.

 

[Rebels57]

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/

Great work all-around.

As others have mentioned, I am sure Anaheim will do whatever they can do protect Silfverberg. I personally think that should trade Fowler or Vatanen for JVR, but we shall see.

I can definitely see Read being the pick from Philadelphia. He is a strong possesion player and can PK and play either wing anywhere in the middle six. Not an exciting player but versatile.

 

[Not So Mighty]

I really don't see how it is in Bieksa's best interest to waive his NMC, certainly not for the purpose of the expansion draft. There are just too many negative possibilities that result from him waving that right.

It's in his best interest because he wants to play in Anaheim and he wants to be on a good hockey team. If Bieksa chooses not to waive, he is actively making his own team worse by forcing a good young defenseman to go to Vegas. Vegas is not going to draft an exposed Kevin Bieksa. He's a bad player on a bad contract. He's at no risk if he waives. He can waive so that Anaheim can keep another good defenseman on the roster. That is how he benefits. What exactly are the negative possibilities that you see? Literally every other exposed Anaheim player would be a better choice for Vegas.

 

[White Shadow]

It's in his best interest because he wants to play in Anaheim and he wants to be on a good hockey team. If Bieksa chooses not to waive, he is actively making his own team worse by forcing a good young defenseman to go to Vegas. Vegas is not going to draft an exposed Kevin Bieksa. He's a bad player on a bad contract. He's at no risk if he waives. He can waive so that Anaheim can keep another good defenseman on the roster. That is how he benefits. What exactly are the negative possibilities that you see? Literally every other exposed Anaheim player would be a better choice for Vegas.

Not having the benefit of seeing Bieksa's contract, how can anyone be certain that waiving his NMC doesn't open himself up to being sent to the AHL?

 

[White Shadow]

There's no mention in the CBA because it would be redundant to explicitly say so. Looking at real world examples have told us NMC's remain in effect after players waive them. A recent example being Vinny Lecavalier. I have yet to see anyone come up with a single example of a player that lost their NMC/NTC after waiving it.

It's one of the most common misunderstandings that is often repeated on HFB. Right up there with waivers eligibility/2-way contracts; and waiver priority to reclaim a player.

Do we know that Vinny blocked a move after he waived?

 

[mouser]

Do we know that Vinny blocked a move after he waived?

He did not, however it was reported by multiple media sources that his NMC was intact with LA and he could have done so if he chose to. If you want an example of a player who waived and then didn't waive, Scott Hartnell would be a good one. He waived his NMC to be traded from Philly to Columbus. In the past year he suggested he might be willing to waive again to be traded away from Columbus, but has since changed his mind and says he wants to remain with the Blue Jackets.

The common description of "waiving" an NMC probably contributes to the confusion. Players don't truly "waive" the clause to be traded/waived/loaned. They agree to allow the singular transaction that requires their permission under the NTC/NMC. The next time the new (or same) club holding the player's contract wants to do something else they have to ask permission from the player again.

 

[White Shadow]

He did not, however it was reported by multiple media sources that his NMC was intact with LA and he could have done so if he chose to. If you want an example of a player who waived and then didn't waive, Scott Hartnell would be a good one. He waived his NMC to be traded from Philly to Columbus. In the past year he suggested he might be willing to waive again to be traded away from Columbus, but has since changed his mind and says he wants to remain with the Blue Jackets.

The common description of "waiving" an NMC probably contributes to the confusion. Players don't truly "waive" the clause to be traded/waived/loaned. They agree to allow the singular transaction that requires their permission under the NTC/NMC. The next time the new (or same) club holding the player's contract wants to do something else they have to ask permission from the player again.

I'm sold, appreciate you taking the time to walk me through it.

 

[LadyStanley]

There are two issues with Bieksa that Anaheim needs to be concerned with. Firstly, the timing of the buyout...will the window open in time or will they buy him out after the expansion draft and thus be forced to protect him? Secondly, your interpretation of the NMC is new to me. Are you able to cite a source that confirms this?

Buy out window is June 15 (or 48 hours after Stanley Cup is awarded, whichever is later) until June 30.

So, there's more than a week after the results of the expansion draft do do a buyout, if needed.

 

[White Shadow]

Buy out window is June 15 (or 48 hours after Stanley Cup is awarded, whichever is later) until June 30.

So, there's more than a week after the results of the expansion draft do do a buyout, if needed.

What I am hearing is if Bieksa doesn't waive his NMC the club will buy him out. But they will need to buy him out before June 17th or he will need to be protected. Looking at the past 3 seasons, there is no guarantee the buyout window opens in time for this to be accomplished before protection lists are due.

I have no doubt they can buy him out June 20th as an example. But that wouldn't help them protect Silfverberg or Rakell or whoever it is they are trying to protect by buying out Bieksa to avoid having to waste a protection spot on him.

 

[Not So Mighty]

Not having the benefit of seeing Bieksa's contract, how can anyone be certain that waiving his NMC doesn't open himself up to being sent to the AHL?

If necessary, I'm sure that would be a verbal agreement between he and the manager.

 

[LAKings88]

Please take Gaborik, that is all.