OT: Seattle team

[aspin3]

No we wouldn't have to protect him. I've had a hard time finding the specific literature on it, but last draft any player with an expiring NMC on June 30 didn't need protection. Since Russells full contract expires June 30, he wouldn't need to be protected.

The best I could find was these.

https://thehockeywriters.com/expansion-draft-rules-gain-clarity/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ess-about-the-nhls-las-vegas-expansion-draft/
https://nypost.com/2016/06/07/nhl-teams-dont-have-to-protect-2017-free-agents-in-expansion-draft/

That is not what this says. That is good if what you have is true.

The Curious Role Of UFAs In The Expansion Draft - SinBin.vegas

 

[bone]

That is not what this says. That is good if what you have is true.

The Curious Role Of UFAs In The Expansion Draft - SinBin.vegas

I don't see anything in there saying they have to protect someone with a NMC that is expiring, just that a team has the option to protect someone on an expiring contract. The other articles were also posted later on, so I believe them to be closer to reality as they'd have the benefit of further clarification of the rules by the league and team executives.

* All players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

Expansion Draft: Full Rules

I think the key word on the official rules posted on the NHL site is "continuing". Continuing must have been clarified to mean continuing into the next season at some point. Whereas "effective" is in the wording to ensure that players with NMCs that are not yet valid wouldn't need protection.

I just can't find anything official. I think Dennis Wideman last time was an example like Russell where he didn't need to be protected despite having an NMC as it was expiring prior to the next contract year.

At the end of the day, even if the rule was so stupid to make teams protect expiring NMCs, most players wouldn't force the matter anyways as they know their chances of being picked as a UFA are non-existent. Particularly as the rules also require that the drafting team selects at least 20 players that are under contract meaning at most 9 selected players could not have contracts the following year.

They aren't going to burn one of those spots for bottom pairing UFA dman, they are saving those for quality RFAs that may go unprotected as there's likely a goldmine of players on their first expiring contract that you could go after here that could be close to emerging. Knowing this, a player would only enforce it to be a jerk to his team as he'd have no reason to actually even talk to Seattle if he didn't want to. I don't get the impression Russell would do that.

 

[The Hound]

Pacific punching bag.

 

[SwedishFire]

I'm sure if anyone had been asking pre-Vegas expansion draft about the Pacific getting two expansion teams within a four year span, most of the other divisions would have been upset for the opposite reason the OP is mentioning here.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if Seattle was as strong out of the gate as Vegas. Vegas had the advantage where most of the NHL hadn't experienced an expansion so you had too many executive panic and over think things leading to pre-expansion draft trades which is really what has helped Vegas establish roots rather than the expansion draft itself. Well that and a cap strapped Penguins team just having completed a cup run with a rookie goalie willingly giving up a true number 1 goalie.

I'm sure there will be less panic this time resulting in teams like Florida giving up mulitple top 6 forwards just to protect Petrovic who isn't even in the NHL anymore. Couple that with the fact that teams have known this is coming for a longer time than with the Vegas expansion draft allowing teams a longer time to get their roster planned to minimize the impact.

I dont think Seattle is going to have the same succces as Vegas had, but they will scoop up good players through the draft anyway. It is just to small chance that all teams could match up against the draft rules, there will be teams with to much depth.

Yeah, the rules doesnt just make Seattle pick a goodplayer, it also prevent other teams depth. I think Oilers, Boston, Arizona, Chicago (with all their NMCs, Buffalo and Florida once again is going to have a rough draft.

 

[syz]

They can call themselves whatever they want as long as they get Arizona out of the division. The thought of 2-3 fewer paint driers against the Coyotes every year is great.

 

[Faelko]

I have been thinking about this for a while yet no one brings it up so am I missing something. If we do not trade Russell before the expansion draft we will have to protect him as one of our four defencemen (assuming we go 8 players instead of 7 and 3). We have Nurse, Jones, Bear, and Klefbom to report. Why would anyone take him on and have to protect him so we lose one of those 4.

I certainly wouldn’t bet my life on it but I don’t think he needs to be protected. That NTC/NMC is confusing to sort out .

 

[Jumptheshark]

I think Gary is keeping the rules the same I heard/read so the team is hopefully competitive right out of the gate, like Vegas has been.

Phoenix has already been confirmed to be moving to the Central, thank God. I hate playing them five times a year.

Coyotes to move from Pacific to Central Division

what made them competitive was all the silly trades other teams made leading up to the expansion draft and the players teams gave up to keep other players

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Kraken? I thought that was a joke. What on Earth?

From a marketing perspective just name the team the Seattle Metropolitans and see that you've already won a Stanley Cup, over a century ago..

Meanwhile Vancouver should rename their club Vancouver Millionaires which fits even more now considering you have to be to buy a house there, and that team also won a Stanley Cup and its looking like the only one..

At least the Vancouver Millionaires could put up some legit banners in the rafters instead of participation ribbons.

Agreed with having Metropolitans as the team name. There's quite a history with that team. Winning the cup pre-NHL and one final against Montreal had to be cancelled because several players died of the flu. Embrace and honour your history. Better than Krakokaine as one poster on the mains put it...lol

 

[Gordy Elbows]

Seattle is a pretty diverse market...suggest calling the team, The Grunge Lattes......the usual copyright fees apply here.

 

[BigFuzzyDice]

Seattle is a pretty diverse market...suggest calling the team, The Grunge Lattes......the usual copyright fees apply here.

They could really cash in , sell out on the naming rights and call em the seattle starbucks.

 

[Tyrolean]

Totems all the way .. WHL roots in which Edmonton was a member (Flyers).

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Seattle Kraken is ridiculous IMO but the fans being called Krakheads is perfectly fitting for Seattle. The rum company will be a major sponsor anyway.