Vegas during Seattle Expansion draft

[Seattle Totems]

Vegas picked their team 4 years prior to Seattle. it is absolutely ridiculous that get an exemption. Borderline corruption.

 

[HanSolo]

Vegas GM: Yeah give us Matthews we promise we will trade him back in 7 days...

I'd be okay with this. I would totally abandon my morals for this.

 

[HanSolo]

Still very very annoyed Vegas is exempt.

Were you annoyed when every other expansion team was exempt from the next expansion draft?

 

[HanSolo]

I think it's worth taking a look at the price tag of some of their long term contracts and keep in mind that if Glass and Brannstrom enter the NHL next year (which is a very likely possibility) their next contracts will be very close to the Seattle expansion draft, and presuming they're only tickling their upside at the time of the next expansion draft they'll probably be fetching 4-5 m each.

With that situation in mind it's hard to imagine it will be some insane buyers market in which Vegas will dummy the league by building a top contender on gold for scraps deals. I think at most they take on the contracts of a couple tertiary pieces for their bottom 6, bottom pair, or backup goalie.

 

[jetsv2]

Vegas picked their team 4 years prior to Seattle. it is absolutely ridiculous that get an exemption. Borderline corruption.

Vegas doesn't lose a player because Vegas doesn't get any of the expansion money from Seattle. That was a decision the other 30 owners made, they dont want to share the money with Vegas. It isn't corruption, it's greed by the other 30 owners.

 

[Jumptheshark]

The player can absolutely be traded back to his original team at any time. He just can't PLAY for them for a year from the original trade.

he can not appear on their roster which includes their reserve list

 

[895]

A rule was out in place way back when we had the waiver wire draft and it is still place. Jets/flyers the pete peters/Keith Acton trade. For the Vegas expansion draft it was further worded that a traded player traded before an expansion draft can not reappear on the original teams roster for one calender year unless trade back from the expansion team

I think we are actually in 100% agreement, just arguing semantics.

The waiver draft rule doesn't exist anymore because waiver drafts don't exist anymore and the new CBA reflects that.

However, like you said, during the Vegas expansion draft, teams were warned not to do anything like this.

 

[Johnny HFBOARDS]

Vegas picked their team 4 years prior to Seattle. it is absolutely ridiculous that get an exemption. Borderline corruption.

NHL is a crooked place.
If there was another NA league at the top level, I would be supporting that, easy!

 

[FerrisRox]

Since Vegas is exempt from the Seattle expansion draft would it be possible for teams to make a handshake deal with them to trade them a player for say 1 week during the expansion process so that said players would not need to be protected.

Vegas could undercut the price Seattle is asking teams in order to not draft certain players. Take a 3rd round pick to hold said player whereas Seattle was asking for a 2nd not to draft them, etc

Thoughts?

This was done many years ago by the Philadelphia Flyers for the waiver draft rather than the Expansion Draft.

The Flyers traded veteran forward Keith Acton and goaltender Pete Peeters to the Winnipeg Jets for Future Considerations. Five days later, the Jets traded both players back to the Flyers for... Future Considerations.

The Flyers were then able to protect both Ron Hextall and Ken Wregget in the waiver draft and didn't run the risk of losing Peeters. Hextall, at the time, was without a contract meaning the Flyers would be going with Wregget and Peeters as their tandem until a contract was signed with Hextall.

At the time of the deal, Bobby Clarke, the Flyers GM, said there was "no return deal worked out" that would see both players come back to Philadelphia but said something had to be done to avoid losing them "for nothing." This is funny because in the trade, the Flyers received... nothing.

Five days after the original deal, the Jets traded both players back to the Flyers and in exchange for Future Considerations (that actually cancelled out previously agreed upon considerations for the Jets acquisition of Shawn Cronin earlier on) and a Sixth Round Pick in 1991 for their troubles.

After announcing the deal, then NHL President John Ziegler launched an investigation to see if any rules or bylaws were broken with the deals. Clarke, to his credit, was able to maintain a straight face while claiming: ''Nothing`s illegal. The first trade was not contingent on the other.'' However, his own player, Keith Acton admitted that after the trade, Jets GM Mike Smith told him not to report to Winnipeg and advised him to "lay low, stay put."

While no wrong-doing was proven, Ziegler fined both clubs $10,000 for violating a by-law about "lending" players to another team and the league ultimately changed their rules around the waiver drafted to ensure this kind of thing no longer happened.

 

[Channelcat]

Its a complete joke, but as long as Bettman and his BOG get their 600M......alls good.

 

[Fig]

I think OP's suggestion might be too obvious, but what if two teams could get a legit trade done, but are worried about draft consequences due to excess players needing to be protected? Both teams trade the players to VGK for whatever kind of like a trust account, then after the draft, the players are sent to the teams with a minor brokerage fee tacked on.

ie:

Vegas receives player A for a 1st from org A
Vegas receives player B for a 1st from org B


Vegas trades player A to org B for a 1st + 3rd
Vegas trades player B to org A for a 1st + 3rd

Still too obvious?

 

[crackdown44]

I think OP's suggestion might be too obvious, but what if two teams could get a legit trade done, but are worried about draft consequences due to excess players needing to be protected? Both teams trade the players to VGK for whatever kind of like a trust account, then after the draft, the players are sent to the teams with a minor brokerage fee tacked on.

ie:

Vegas receives player A for a 1st from org A
Vegas receives player B for a 1st from org B


Vegas trades player A to org B for a 1st + 3rd
Vegas trades player B to org A for a 1st + 3rd

Still too obvious?

A third team involved. I like it, trading similar value players so that both at least get something for losing the guy they want to protect. It would be tough for the league to prove mal intent here, even if it clearly exists. If everyone claimed they were separate trades I’m not sure what legal footing they’d have to penalize the teams involved