Confirmed with Link: [TBL/VGK] Gusev, 2017 2nd, 2018 4th to select Garrison in 2017 Vegas Expansion Draft

[tjs*]

Meh don't think the NHL is going to mess with the NMC. Players fought hard to get those and thinking of their families with job security. Would be really ****ed up if they ignore the NMC.

On the other hand teams made decisions regarding NMCs with no idea that they would later be forced to lose the future of their respective franchises in an expansion draft because of them. It's one thing for teams to lose players because the cap drops or stays stagnant - that was a reasonably foreseen potential outcome. But an expansion draft with such a limited number of players protected combined with forced protection for NMCs is not something that GMs should reasonably have seen coming and should therefore be punished by.

Personally I think the fairest solution to all concerned is to allow players with NMCs to be unprotected and to compensate them if they're drafted. Either a fixed monetary value or a percentage of the player's remaining contract, immediately payable to the player but not counting against the cap. A potential owner who can afford a half-billion dollar expansion fee can afford to give a player with an NMC a few million extra to make up for him having to move.

 

[tjs*]

I think the NHL is being way too generous to the expansion teams.
Leaving almost half of every team unprotected is lame.

I agree. The expansion team should be reasonably competitive, but it shouldn't be allowed to raid the best young talent and prospects from every NHL team and quickly jump to the top of the league. Players still on their ELC should be exempt and those with NMCs should be allowed to be exposed. Then I'm fine with a limited number of protected players: teams aren't going to lose their future, but there will still be enough veteran top 4 defenders or second line forwards available that combined with free agency should produce a reasonable NHL roster. It wouldn't be particularly strong at the top, but it would have a lot of quality depth. And teams that have two good goalies should be allowed to protect them both if they want to - make protecting a second goalie cost you two skaters. That's fair.

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

If you look at the protection speculation thread on the trade board, the pool of available players to an expansion team is pretty ugly right now.

 

[Leonardo87]

 

[Lord Stan 2020]

now when know drouin stamkos decisions we can have an ideal of who to protect

 

[tjs*]

now when know drouin stamkos decisions we can have an ideal of who to protect

Except we still don't know how impending UFAs will be handled or how the 25% salary exposure rule will work (or if it's even still part of the plan). Those will both have a HUGE effect on who gets protected and who is forced to be exposed.

If we're forced to protect Bishop that will not only require us to expose Vasy, but it would also add a lot of salary to our protected list. Even if we don't resign Stamkos protecting Callahan, Kucherov, Hedman, Bishop, and Johnson/Palat/Drouin/Killorn/etc. could quite easily put us over 75%. So not only could Cally's and Bishop's NMCs hurt us by taking up valuable protection spots, they could additionally hurt us by forcing us to expose a high-value player who we'd otherwise have room to protect, just to meet the 25% requirement. So if there are two teams drafting we would lose not one but two key players.

If this is the case then depending on how the rules shake out we might actually have to keep Carle around another year just to have the salary to expose in the draft. If we buy him out then that dead salary would not be exposable, so even if we wanted to give a large one-year contract to his replacement in order to then be able to expose that salary it wouldn't total as much as Carle's salary would.

Basically I don't see any way we can keep Stamkos if the 25% rule is still in effect. His cap hit would have been difficult enough to work around, but the 25% rule makes it pretty much impossible to clear out our declining high-cap players and devote that money to resigning our core.

 

[HoseEmDown]

Except we still don't know how impending UFAs will be handled or how the 25% salary exposure rule will work (or if it's even still part of the plan). Those will both have a HUGE effect on who gets protected and who is forced to be exposed.

If we're forced to protect Bishop that will not only require us to expose Vasy, but it would also add a lot of salary to our protected list. Even if we don't resign Stamkos protecting Callahan, Kucherov, Hedman, Bishop, and Johnson/Palat/Drouin/Killorn/etc. could quite easily put us over 75%. So not only could Cally's and Bishop's NMCs hurt us by taking up valuable protection spots, they could additionally hurt us by forcing us to expose a high-value player who we'd otherwise have room to protect, just to meet the 25% requirement. So if there are two teams drafting we would lose not one but two key players.

If this is the case then depending on how the rules shake out we might actually have to keep Carle around another year just to have the salary to expose in the draft. If we buy him out then that dead salary would not be exposable, so even if we wanted to give a large one-year contract to his replacement in order to then be able to expose that salary it wouldn't total as much as Carle's salary would.

Basically I don't see any way we can keep Stamkos if the 25% rule is still in effect. His cap hit would have been difficult enough to work around, but the 25% rule makes it pretty much impossible to clear out our declining high-cap players and devote that money to resigning our core.

Filpulla, Garrison and Coburn make 13.3 that's a lot of the 25% right there. Add in your 3/4th liners and bottom pair defenseman and we should be fine.

 

[tjs*]

Filpulla, Garrison and Coburn make 13.3 that's a lot of the 25% right there. Add in your 3/4th liners and bottom pair defenseman and we should be fine.

Garrison and Coburn definitely help, but I'm not so sure about Filppula. For starters if we do resign Stamkos then either Filppula or Carle has to go this offseason to pay for Kucherov's raise. If Filppula doesn't end up requiring a protection spot then we buy out Carle and everything's golden, but if not we probably have to move Filppula to free up a spot, in which case we're stuck with Carle for another year just so we can expose his salary. If we move Filppula AND buy out Carle then I'm not sure we've got enough exposable salary left over. So at best we're forced to weaken our team for a year in order to avoid losing even bigger in expansion.

If we don't resign Stamkos then things are a bit easier as his salary pays for Kuch's raise and there's one fewer forward we have to protect. If Filppula would require protection we can trade him for a player in a similar position on another team - we don't clear any cap space this way but at least we don't weaken our roster. And we could afford to buy out Carle since whoever we traded Filppula for would be exposable, so we would at least have the option of picking up a short term free agent if we wanted to.

 

[HoseEmDown]

Garrison and Coburn definitely help, but I'm not so sure about Filppula. For starters if we do resign Stamkos then either Filppula or Carle has to go this offseason to pay for Kucherov's raise. If Filppula doesn't end up requiring a protection spot then we buy out Carle and everything's golden, but if not we probably have to move Filppula to free up a spot, in which case we're stuck with Carle for another year just so we can expose his salary. If we move Filppula AND buy out Carle then I'm not sure we've got enough exposable salary left over. So at best we're forced to weaken our team for a year in order to avoid losing even bigger in expansion.

If we don't resign Stamkos then things are a bit easier as his salary pays for Kuch's raise and there's one fewer forward we have to protect. If Filppula would require protection we can trade him for a player in a similar position on another team - we don't clear any cap space this way but at least we don't weaken our roster. And we could afford to buy out Carle since whoever we traded Filppula for would be exposable, so we would at least have the option of picking up a short term free agent if we wanted to.

Filpulla's contract becomes a limited NTC I believe this offseason so not worried about having to protect him. Carle will be gone before the expansion draft and he has a NTC not a NMC so he can be exposed if needed.

Filpulla, Garrison, Coburn, Boyle, Sustr, Condra, Paquette, Brown and Nesterov is roughly 20mil. We are ok with the 25% part.

 

[Todd1a]

Callahan has a no movement clause is he our only guy that has one ?

 

[HoseEmDown]

Callahan has a no movement clause is he our only guy that has one ?

Bishop

 

[LTIR Trickery]

They won't take Callahan anyway with that contract and his age by then

Not necessarily true. Think of it this way - teams are obviously going to protect great players, expensive players. They'll expose the cheaper expendables or guys on bad contracts.

Vegas, expansion or not, will still have to get to the salary cap floor. Flipper isn't a bad player, and frankly, he'd likely still get 4-5 million on the open market. I have a feeling he'd get snatched right up.

 

[LTIR Trickery]

If you look at the protection speculation thread on the trade board, the pool of available players to an expansion team is pretty ugly right now.

This is generally how it is during any pro sports expansion.

 

[TheDaysOf 04]

Callahan has a no movement clause is he our only guy that has one ?

Bishop

Filppula too, although his has a modified NTC. I'm not sure what the details are, but it could be a NMC until the final year of his contract and then it becomes a NTC.

 

[These Are The Days]

Protected list

Stamkos
Drouin
Killorn
Kucherov
Palat
Johnson
Namestnikov

Hedman
Stralman
Garrison

Hopefully Koekkoek is technically protected.

Bishop

If a contract can be negotiated, protect Bishop and trade Vasilevskiy for the best return you can get. If unable you trade him for a motherload and protect Vasilevskiy as the franchise goalie. You DO NOT accidentally stumble onto a gold mine and give it up. Take your chances and draft another young prospect.

I hate to say it but I'm starting to think we're gonna be forced to buyout Callahan by the time the expansion draft hits. For as much as I would hate to lose him, I can't justify protecting a player who is 31 years old and has only scored twice in 36 playoff games in a Lightning uniform JUST because he has an NMC. That predicament is as dangerous as tossing a match in a dynamite factory and I'll be damned if we're going to lose a guy like Killorn who always comes up big in big moments. Or Namestnikov who has not had his day yet and will be the best defensive center on the team. If Callahan didn't have an NMC we could've probably left him open (without him getting picked up) and protected one of our players in the process. I pray to God he proves me wrong.

 

[HoseEmDown]

Protected list

Stamkos
Drouin
Killorn
Kucherov
Palat
Johnson
Namestnikov

Hedman
Stralman
Garrison

Hopefully Koekkoek is technically protected.

Bishop

If a contract can be negotiated, protect Bishop and trade Vasilevskiy for the best return you can get. If unable you trade him for a motherload and protect Vasilevskiy as the franchise goalie. You DO NOT accidentally stumble onto a gold mine and give it up. Take your chances and draft another young prospect.

I hate to say it but I'm starting to think we're gonna be forced to buyout Callahan by the time the expansion draft hits. For as much as I would hate to lose him, I can't justify protecting a player who is 31 years old and has only scored twice in 36 playoff games in a Lightning uniform JUST because he has an NMC. That predicament is as dangerous as tossing a match in a dynamite factory and I'll be damned if we're going to lose a guy like Killorn who always comes up big in big moments. Or Namestnikov who has not had his day yet and will be the best defensive center on the team. If Callahan didn't have an NMC we could've probably left him open (without him getting picked up) and protected one of our players in the process. I pray to God he proves me wrong.

Koekkoek will need to be protected so swap him with Garrison who we'll need to expose to reach the 25% threshold.

The problem with a Callahan buyout is his salary drops in the last two years of his contract which makes his buyout tough as he has a nearly a 3mil hit in I believe 18-19 19-20. It's not buyout proof but with the way our contracts are shaping up even saving 3mil by buying him out will be tough, might need to get him to waive and trade with some retention.

 

[tjs*]

Koekkoek will need to be protected so swap him with Garrison who we'll need to expose to reach the 25% threshold.

The problem with a Callahan buyout is his salary drops in the last two years of his contract which makes his buyout tough as he has a nearly a 3mil hit in I believe 18-19 19-20. It's not buyout proof but with the way our contracts are shaping up even saving 3mil by buying him out will be tough, might need to get him to waive and trade with some retention.

This, plus I don't see any way we can afford to keep Stammer, the Triplets, Hedman, and Bishop, not to mention Killorn and Drouin - not unless the cap goes up significantly. Assuming it doesn't there's no sense wasting a protection spot on somebody you can't resign anyway. If Stammer stays then Killorn and either Johnson or Bishop are likely gone.

That being the case then I suspect we'd leave Killorn exposed. If I'm not mistaken he'll be a UFA that summer unless we extend him multiple years this offseason, so he's unlikely to be selected in the expansion draft anyway. And since we'll be in cap hell and he'll likely have at least one team willing to overpay for his services, we'll probably have to let him walk at that point.

 

[These Are The Days]

Koekkoek will need to be protected so swap him with Garrison who we'll need to expose to reach the 25% threshold.

The problem with a Callahan buyout is his salary drops in the last two years of his contract which makes his buyout tough as he has a nearly a 3mil hit in I believe 18-19 19-20. It's not buyout proof but with the way our contracts are shaping up even saving 3mil by buying him out will be tough, might need to get him to waive and trade with some retention.

Idk I'm not so sure that someone would be so fast to snatch up such an unproven player. But you're right about the 25%. As it comes to Callahan, I'll change my tune if he can prove me wrong. I just want see that happen before making such a commitment. It must be going on 20 games since his last goal. That's scaring me to death

 

[tjs*]

Idk I'm not so sure that someone would be so fast to snatch up such an unproven player. But you're right about the 25%. As it comes to Callahan, I'll change my tune if he can prove me wrong. I just want see that happen before making such a commitment. It must be going on 20 games since his last goal. That's scaring me to death

I'd love to see us get Callahan's contract off the books; I just don't see how we can do it. Buying him out won't save enough to make a difference in terms of resigning people in the short term, and we'll have dead money on the books for the following six seasons. If we also buy Carle out this summer as expected we'll have two seasons with almost $5M of dead money on the books. As much as I hate to say it I think we're stuck with Cally.

 

[HoseEmDown]

Idk I'm not so sure that someone would be so fast to snatch up such an unproven player. But you're right about the 25%. As it comes to Callahan, I'll change my tune if he can prove me wrong. I just want see that happen before making such a commitment. It must be going on 20 games since his last goal. That's scaring me to death

But an expansion team won't be competing right away, they can take a chance on someone like Koekkoek. They'll also need to stock thier prospect pool so I'm not too worried about losing someone of significance since we can persuade them with picks or prospects to take or leave certain players.

 

[Hoek]

This is generally how it is during any pro sports expansion.

At least the rules now are better than when we had our expansion draft. Teams could protect two goalies and could even expose guys that only played one NHL game in their career. There's a reason we and Ottawa were so god awful. Then they changed the rules a year later and the Panthers and Ducks were already so much better than us. Annoying.

 

[chasespace]

In regards to buying out Callahan instead of protecting him, can probably trade him to one of the expansion teams(I can see him doing it as he would be the Captain without a doubt and would help the team set an atmosphere in the locker room instantly). Would probably have to add a little something something but wouldn't need to be substantial.

 

[These Are The Days]

I'm sincerely doubtful Callahan's going to waive under any circumstance. If you believe the reports and rumors, it was the NMC was the deal breaker in his negotiations with the Rangers and thus why he was so readily traded and why he was not signed up until the trade deadline. The fact Yzerman signed him with an NMC only confirms this to me. It would've been a loss had we not re-signed him and I have no doubt that was a condition of him remaining here. I don't think he was coming back without one. Don't get me wrong, I have NOTHING against him but an expansion is an extraordinary circumstance that requires otherwise extraordinary measures. I'm not in favor of protecting a 31 year old who is likely playing on his last NHL contract unless he does cheap, short term deals after the age of 35 "just because" he has a NMC. You HAVE TO protect your youth.

 

[chasespace]

I'm sincerely doubtful Callahan's going to waive under any circumstance. If you believe the reports and rumors, it was the NMC was the deal breaker in his negotiations with the Rangers and thus why he was so readily traded and why he was not signed up until the trade deadline. The fact Yzerman signed him with an NMC only confirms this to me. It would've been a loss had we not re-signed him and I have no doubt that was a condition of him remaining here. I don't think he was coming back without one. Don't get me wrong, I have NOTHING against him but an expansion is an extraordinary circumstance that requires otherwise extraordinary measures. I'm not in favor of protecting a 31 year old who is likely playing on his last NHL contract unless he does cheap, short term deals after the age of 35 "just because" he has a NMC. You HAVE TO protect your youth.

I'm there as well but I would sell him hard on a trade before we drop his pink slip in his lap. I wouldn't threaten him with "either trade or buyout" but I would tell him that his time in Tampa is done because of the current systems in place and a trade would ensure he continues getting paid at his current rate instead of running the risk of only being offered cheaper deals that wouldn't match what he currently makes when added to the buyout.

 

[These Are The Days]

I'm there as well but I would sell him hard on a trade before we drop his pink slip in his lap. I wouldn't threaten him with "either trade or buyout" but I would tell him that his time in Tampa is done because of the current systems in place and a trade would ensure he continues getting paid at his current rate instead of running the risk of only being offered cheaper deals that wouldn't match what he currently makes when added to the buyout.

Absolutely. Same goes to Filppula, who has a limited NMC. I would get rid of him 5 times before Callahan. He lacks chemistry with too many players (something we can't say about Callahan) and it just makes too much sense for Namestnikov to be our full time 3rd line center instead of shuffling him around in purgatory like this every night.

Negotiations with Filppula under your measure will be much easier than with Callahan due to his NMC being limited. At least he can call his own shot if we ask him.