Thoughts on getting paid to take a specific player?

[CodeE]

Hey Vegas fans, congrats on the team being official! Got a question for you guys on a topic that I see a lot of "let's discuss this within the fanbase" talk on, which IMO usually leads to an echo chamber when you don't have the other side.

There are teams who will be exposing hot garbage to you guys, but a bunch of others (like my Islanders!) who want to keep more players than expansion rules allow. Protect this guy, leave another guy exposed, etc etc.

The echo chamber solution is to pay Vegas to avoid certain exposed players, or take someone specifically. So for example, the Islanders would pay a 2nd for you guys to take Nelson, or Michael Dal Colle to take Hickey, leaving guys like Dehaan, Pulock, Strome, who we badly want to keep with our organization.

To me, it seems like far too simple of a solution to a complicated problem. Although it's always nice for an expansion team to pile up assets like future 2nd rounders and prospects like MDC, it's tough to turn down the best players available when literally building your team from scratch. So unless Vegas is close between two players and getting paid to select one over the other, or the other team overpays to avoid a player it seems like a no-brainer for McPhee to go "sorry, but I gotta build my team, if you like your player so much you gotta protect them".

But then the other philosophy is that Vegas will stumble out of the gate, not rebuilding but simply building, so sacrificing on-ice quality for next season could potentially pay off years later - I mean the Islanders drafted players in the 1972 expansion draft, by 78-79 we had the best record in the NHL, and a year later our first of four cups. Shouldn't really consider that the standard, but with solid drafting and development it's not crazy to suggest Vegas is at least playoff contenders in 4-6 years or so, and the more futures you're able to acquire the more likely you are to acquire those core players.

So please - what are your thoughts on this issue? "Thanks but I'm gonna take the best player you leave exposed", "I'm willing to listen but it's not gonna be cheap", "the more future assets to build a better team years from now, the better", or something else entirely?

Click to read more...

 

[BattleBorn]

I've come around to the theory that we should take as few "real" players in the expansion draft as possible. We have to hit our numbers with regard to the cap, but we shouldn't go over the 60% at all. Taking less than optimal players in return for draft picks should definitely be a major facet in the expansion draft.

The theory comes down to this: When you're forced to take a player from every team and it has to come from a certain pool of players (exposed players in this case) you'll always get worse players than if you have an entire pool of players from which to choose whether that's prospects or free agents. Meaning that if you've got a 2nd round pick, while they're still a 2nd round pick they're going to be (what the hockey staff thinks) is the best available second round player at that position in a much larger pool of prospects. There are (let's say for ease of math) 31 prospects rated to be selected in the 2nd round, that's a larger pool than the six or seven exposed players put up by a team. That seems like a better deal than picking the better of two players from a smaller pool of exposed players in the expansion draft, let's say the 8th best forward from the Islanders versus the 9th best forward on the Islanders. Meaning we could take the 9th best forward and get the choice of the best 2nd rounder at the draft position we got from the Isles instead of just the 8th best forward from the Islanders.

There's a difference, but there's not a huge gulf between the 8th and 9th best forwards and we get to pick the best available player at the entry draft in that draft position in addition. It's a good deal just from a value standpoint.

 

[airbus220]

The solution is to pay Vegas to avoid certain exposed players, or take someone specifically. So for example, the Islanders would pay a 2nd for you guys to take Nelson, or Michael Dal Colle to take Hickey, leaving guys like Dehaan, Pulock, Strome, who we badly want to keep with our organization.

Foley doesn't like smurfs and guys without grit. Not a chance we draft Nelson or Hickey.
We shouldn't be interested in quantity. We draft quality.

 

[KnishOfTheCrease]

I don't want Hickey or Nelson on the Isles or Golden Knights. I'll stake Stroke (Strome for us GK fans) if MDC and Ho-Sang step up for the Isles.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

What would you view as an appropriate enticement to draft Lehtera from the Blues?

 

[VanIslander]

I've come around to the theory that we should take as few "real" players in the expansion draft as possible.

Take it to the TANK thread

Most fans of the game of hockey want a competitive team ASAP.

We want to at least have a 50/50 chance of winning game before we fork over the cash and spend the time to watch an entire game!

SUCK for a few years and get high draft picks is a recipe for losing many of us.

 

[BattleBorn]

Take it to the TANK thread

Most fans of the game of hockey want a competitive team ASAP.

We want to at least have a 50/50 chance of winning game before we fork over the cash and spend the time to watch an entire game!

SUCK for a few years and get high draft picks is a recipe for losing many of us.

It's not a tank theory. It's a get the best value you can theory.

The difference between the 8th best forward on the Islanders versus the 9th best and a draft pick is not tanking.

Further, I'll be sitting up in section 205 for all the home games and I think I've got a pretty good pulse on what I'd like to see out of the draft.

 

[derriko]

What would you view as an appropriate enticement to draft Lehtera from the Blues?

Hmm. Lehtera is not bad, albeit overpaid...but its only two years. He's no Dustin Brown.

The Blues don't really have much to offer though. It would be between one of their bottom pairing defenders and somebody like Jaskin. If I were McPhee, a 2nd probably convinces me to take him if they didn't take more than a few other bad contracts.

If they start getting closer to the cap, I would just take Jaskin and not think back.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Depends on the player but in general I think it's a great idea. Taking on Bobby Ryan or Dustin Brown I think I would need a lot. Basically any contract over 4 more years, $4 Million AAV you need more than a 1st round pick to justify it.

 

[TaLoN]

There's speculation in Minnesota that Fletcher has already worked out a deal with Vegas to take a specific player at the expansion draft. Russo tweeted the thought a couple weeks ago when McPhee was in St.Paul scouting the Wild - he talked with both Fletcher and McPhee and got the "impression" a deal was in place already.

Many fans in Minnesota are thinking it's something like Haula and/or a pick for Vegas to take Scandella.

But... that's speculation based on speculation, so ultimately who knows.

 

[Bazeek]

There's speculation in Minnesota that Fletcher has already worked out a deal with Vegas to take a specific player at the expansion draft. Russo tweeted the thought a couple weeks ago when McPhee was in St.Paul scouting the Wild - he talked with both Fletcher and McPhee and got the "impression" a deal was in place already.

Many fans in Minnesota are thinking it's something like Haula and/or a pick for Vegas to take Scandella.

But... that's speculation based on speculation, so ultimately who knows.

I am praying that there's even an ounce of truth to this rumor, but I worry that it's mostly Russo speculating based on nebulous comments or reactions from Wild management. The only way I could see it holding water is if:

1.) McPhee likes Haula better than most of his likely center options. I could see him doing alright as a second line center, especially if he could perform as well on the power play as he did for the Gophers. But that'd require a leap of faith on McPhee's part that I'm not sure Haula has really earned.
2.) Scandella's down year this season doesn't weigh too heavily on his valuation.
3.) Our 2018 first is in play and Vegas likes the way that draft is looking (even this far out).

Otherwise, we're talking about Vegas taking 2 (maybe 3) good/very good assets instead of a great one. Just reeks of false hope.

 

[Fonzerelli]

I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Vegas took anyone but Pulock from the Islanders. The McCrimmon-Pulock bond is as close to father-son as it gets in hockey without being father-son. They will take Pulock and they will play the **** out of him

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Hmm. Lehtera is not bad, albeit overpaid...but its only two years. He's no Dustin Brown.

The Blues don't really have much to offer though. It would be between one of their bottom pairing defenders and somebody like Jaskin. If I were McPhee, a 2nd probably convinces me to take him if they didn't take more than a few other bad contracts.

If they start getting closer to the cap, I would just take Jaskin and not think back.

I think that could conceivably happen. I wouldn't mind keeping Jaskin to see if he every puts it together, but he's looking more likely to be a 4th line player for the Blues next year.

 

[airbus220]

I think that could conceivably happen. I wouldn't mind keeping Jaskin to see if he every puts it together, but he's looking more likely to be a 4th line player for the Blues next year.

If STL won't expose some quality, Hutton could be possible, he's not bad as a backup and we have to draft 3. It just depends what kind of direction McPhee wants to go, if he mainly wants to use the draft as an auction to get assets then Hutton wouldn't be bad for 1 year.

 

[LeafChief]

I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Vegas took anyone but Pulock from the Islanders. The McCrimmon-Pulock bond is as close to father-son as it gets in hockey without being father-son. They will take Pulock and they will play the **** out of him

He would be a solid pick.