Who Would We Protect in an Expansion Draft?

[The Rage Kage]

I am under the impression that players with NTC/NMC would be required to be protected by the team first.

Which means Lecavalier is protected.... ****

Maybe hextall could convince him to waive and be left unprotected

 

[flyersfan018]

Yeah, I did. I said I'm not interested in building a core out of average players. Striking water from a rock comment. Pretty big finger twirl at losing Schenn. I think the blow to the team, while a blow, is less than you'd think. I think our expectations for the Schenn brothers should be tempered.

It is a bad / crazy move, but my hyperbole is to prove a point: Team is constructed poorly. The argument now isn't Schenn is good, but that logistically we don't have a solid replacement. Notice the theme: Team constructed poorly. No suitable replacements by your own opinion, and then a criticism of the bodies behind him.

We may not make the playoffs this season and honestly, there isn't as much worth protecting as you think.

Even the arguments for protecting Schenn aren't the most flattering:

1) He's an asset and you don't want to lose assets for free. (Sure, contingent on if the asset has value)
2) He has value because X, Y, and Z are bad. That's like saying the Denny's waitress is pretty because the only other creatures are a roach, a dog, and the cook. Sure, okay! But still a little weak.

He needs to take big steps this year or I could care less where he lands. After this season and next, it is very likely you will never see a better version of Schenn and the one now isn't good enough. He isn't strong enough defensively, sucks on faceoffs, is average in a lot of key areas. He may actually be better suited for the wing. Perhaps putting him on the wing would up his stock.

So now you're saying Schenn doesn't even have value? Unreal

 

[Flyotes]

So now you're saying Schenn doesn't even have value? Unreal

No. Do you know what contingent means? You even bolded it.

 

[flyershockey]

Yeah, I did. I said I'm not interested in building a core out of average players. Striking water from a rock comment. Pretty big finger twirl at losing Schenn. I think the blow to the team, while a blow, is less than you'd think. I think our expectations for the Schenn brothers should be tempered.

It is a bad / crazy move, but my hyperbole is to prove a point: Team is constructed poorly. The argument now isn't Schenn is good, but that logistically we don't have a solid replacement. Notice the theme: Team constructed poorly. No suitable replacements by your own opinion, and then a criticism of the bodies behind him.

We may not make the playoffs this season and honestly, there isn't as much worth protecting as you think.

Even the arguments for protecting Schenn aren't the most flattering:

1) He's an asset and you don't want to lose assets for free. (Sure, contingent on if the asset has value)
2) He has value because X, Y, and Z are bad. That's like saying the Denny's waitress is pretty because the only other creatures are a roach, a dog, and the cook. Sure, okay! But still a little weak.He needs to take big steps this year or I could care less where he lands. After this season and next, it is very likely you will never see a better version of Schenn and the one now isn't good enough. He isn't strong enough defensively, sucks on faceoffs, is average in a lot of key areas. He may actually be better suited for the wing. Perhaps putting him on the wing would up his stock.

Those are just the arguments you made up. The real argument for protecting Schenn is that he's a young player with a ton of upside. He's a cost-controlled, top six winger who's good for 20 goals a season as he currently stands, and he's got the upside to become a 30-30 player or better. There's literally no reason to leave him unprotected. You're either just trying to be edgy and go against the grain, or you need to seriously temper your expectations of 22 year olds in the NHL.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Those are just the arguments you made up. The real argument for protecting Schenn is that he's a young player with a ton of upside. He's a cost-controlled, top six winger who's good for 20 goals a season as he currently stands, and he's got the upside to become a 30-30 player or better. There's literally no reason to leave him unprotected. You're either just trying to be edgy and go against the grain, or you need to seriously temper your expectations of 22 year olds in the NHL.

Dude when JvR was 22 he scored 21 goals and 40 points. Sure...Brayden Schenn had more points and one less goal, but can't you see that he just has no chance to improve. I mean, JvR looked great at 22 when he scored less points that Schenn who has looked like a total bust. I mean, hockey IQ, right? That's what Meltzer said once in a blog, isn't it?

 

[FlyersFan61290]

No. Do you know what contingent means? You even bolded it.

I'm sure he does. Your statement implied that you believe he doesn't hold value, otherwise why make it at all.

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous but you're entitled to your opinion regardless of how absurd it is.

 

[flyersfan018]

No. Do you know what contingent means? You even bolded it.

I do actually. You said those arguments "aren't the most flattering" as in you disagree with them. If you agreed that Schenn had value, why would you be making this argument in the first place?

 

[Flukeshot]

I am under the impression that players with NTC/NMC would be required to be protected by the team first.

While we definitely don't have an absolute answer I think that a player with only a NTC could be left unprotected as an expansion draft is essentially a form of waivers. NTC players can be exposed to waivers and their contracts picked up by anyone.

NMC players cannot be waived and I would think would have to be protected.

 

[Flukeshot]

I would bet that Lecavalier and Umberger would be picked up in a heart beat if exposed as those teams would need to reach the cap floor and neither guy is a waste of money.

Heck even Pronger would be a great pick to burn cap space.

 

[Striiker]

I think this is about that point where the best course of action is to just admit you said something dumb and move on.

 

[flyersfan018]

I think this is about that point where the best course of action is to just admit you said something dumb and move on.

I think he did by not answering.

 

[Flyotes]

I think this is about that point where the best course of action is to just admit you said something dumb and move on.

Why? Because I disagree with HFboards? Won't be the last time. I'll remember this thread when the GDT is yelling to trade him for a 7th or he disappears in the playoffs. I don't think he's a good guy to build around going forward -- this is the same team that just extended Rinaldo, so apparently they'll build around anyone.

Experiment with him on wing this year. It may work, but he's slow to average. Let's see if he brings down the Giroux line. That would go a long way towards changing my mind. Let's count how many goals he gets as the trailer, because he isn't beating G or V into the zone. He certainly isn't winning board battles: He isn't good at that either.

He's not good enough for 2nd line center because he is inconsistent and isn't a great defender. Sucks at faceoffs.

He's not good enough defensively for a 3rd line center or 4th line center and he sucks at faceoffs.

 

[Flyotes]

I think he did by not answering.

I'm earning my second graduate degree. I work two jobs to support myself. Don't be a presumptive idiot. I have no problem eating crow if I'm wrong. That also won't be the last time.

 

[Random Forest]

Why? Because I disagree with HFboards? Won't be the last time. I'll remember this thread when the GDT is yelling to trade him for a 7th or he disappears in the playoffs. I don't think he's a good guy to build around going forward -- this is the same team that just extended Rinaldo, so apparently they'll build around anyone.

Experiment with him on wing this year. It may work, but he's slow to average. Let's see if he brings down the Giroux line. That would go a long way towards changing my mind. Let's count how many goals he gets as the trailer, because he isn't beating G or V into the zone. He certainly isn't winning board battles: He isn't good at that either.

He's not good enough for 2nd line center because he is inconsistent and isn't a great defender. Sucks at faceoffs.

He's not good enough defensively for a 3rd line center or 4th line center and he sucks at faceoffs.

None of this matters. Even if I were to agree with everything you just said, it doesn't make your initial post any less stupid. As long as Schenn holds trade value, it is downright idiotic to leave him unprotected and lose him for absolutely nothing.

I hope your second graduate degree isn't in economics or any business field because what you've suggested is a monumental waste of an asset. We're not telling you to like Schenn or even that we should keep him-- we're telling you that losing him for nothing isn't smart management when you could instead lose him for something, anything.

 

[flyersfan018]

I'm earning my second graduate degree. I work two jobs to support myself. Don't be a presumptive idiot. I have no problem eating crow if I'm wrong. That also won't be the last time.

Congrats...
But you're not eating crow. You're still arguing your absurd point even though everyone is against you.

 

[Striiker]

I'm earning my second graduate degree. I work two jobs to support myself. Don't be a presumptive idiot. I have no problem eating crow if I'm wrong. That also won't be the last time.

It seems like you do based on this thread.

 

[ponder719]

I'm earning my second graduate degree. I work two jobs to support myself. Don't be a presumptive idiot. I have no problem eating crow if I'm wrong. That also won't be the last time.

While the statements in bold are admirable, they have no bearing on whether or not you're wrong about Brayden Schenn, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

 

[FlyersFan61290]

While the statements in bold are admirable, they have no bearing on whether or not you're wrong about Brayden Schenn, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

He's saying he doesn't have time. It's in response to this:

I think this is about that point where the best course of action is to just admit you said something dumb and move on.

I think he did by not answering.

 

[FlyersFanz]

I am under the impression that players with NTC/NMC would be required to be protected by the team first.

I don't think that comes in play under expansion rules.
Teams are allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards according to NHL rules.

 

[RJ8812*]

Maybe the players still has to agree to go to the expansion team if they have a NTC/NMC?

 

[FlyersFanz]

Maybe the players still has to agree to go to the expansion team if they have a NTC/NMC?

There's no mention of NTC/NMC clauses in the CBA when it comes to expansion draft so they may be null and void who knows??
This is an interesting article I dug up... around mid-article it hints that Hexy might leave Vinny unprotected so he may be fair game with or without a NTC.
Could be a good way of dumping Grossmann as well...
http://thehockeywriters.com/who-would-the-flyers-protect-in-an-expansion-draft/

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

Wouldn't some of the players who are currently exempt lose that status by the time the hypothetical draft took place?

 

[Flyotes]

stupid. As long as Schenn holds trade value, it is downright idiotic to leave him unprotected and lose him for absolutely nothing.

I already explained I am being hyperbolic. I already said I'd rather trade him. Shrug.

I hope your second graduate degree isn't in economics or any business field because what you've suggested is a monumental waste of an asset. We're not telling you to like Schenn or even that we should keep him-- we're telling you that losing him for nothing isn't smart management when you could instead lose him for something, anything.

I'd wager I understand economics far better than yourself as I've studied it off and on a long time. A good starting point is Hazlitt. I also understand the long game. As an aside: I think you're overvaluing the asset. Because players are investments, this is really an apt analogy.

You're telling me the obvious answer. I think there is something to keeping him if you must, trading him if you can, and dumping him if you can't because I do not want to build the core around a bum wheel. Maybe he does well on the LW, etc etc. Going in circles, etc etc.

Congrats...
But you're not eating crow. You're still arguing your absurd point even though everyone is against you.

What you'll learn as you get older is that that is okay as long as you do it in the right way. Time will tell if I eat crow (so, obviously, right now I couldn't).

 

[Random Forest]

I already explained I am being hyperbolic. I already said I'd rather trade him. Shrug.

Is this your way of conceding that it would be foolish to leave Schenn unprotected in an expansion draft? Strange way of doing so, but I'll take it if it is.

I'd wager I understand economics far better than yourself as I've studied it off and on a long time. A good starting point is Hazlitt. I also understand the long game. As an aside: I think you're overvaluing the asset. Because players are investments, this is really an apt analogy.

You're telling me the obvious answer. I think there is something to keeping him if you must, trading him if you can, and dumping him if you can't because I do not want to build the core around a bum wheel. Maybe he does well on the LW, etc etc. Going in circles, etc etc.

Oh, you're just so full of wisdom, aren't you? I often find the ones who tout their own intelligence the most happen to have the least. Have fun with as many graduate degrees as you'd like; it won't make your original post any less absurd.

Again, I could think Schenn has next to no value, and it wouldn't change my stance that leaving him unprotected is utterly ridiculous.

Losing him for nothing would be a colossal waste considering he could return something in a trade regardless of whether or not he is worth building around moving forward. This is not about our thoughts on Schenn as a player-- this is our thoughts on what makes logical sense in the event of an expansion draft. Players are investments, and we've invested resources and time into Schenn, and you've suggested we consider those costs sunk and accept no return on our investment.

If you can not wrap your head around something so terribly simple, then I question the the institutions that thought you worthy of your degrees. Thankfully you have already conceded above (I think) by deflecting to "hyperbole". Not sure why you're choosing to double down with more empty words, though, if you agree that it would be foolish to lose Schenn for free.

 

[Striiker]

Even if what he said was meant to be hyperbolic, it's incredible to me that anyone could think so lowly of Schenn that they would say something like that, hyperbole or not. I don't know if it's that people had their expectations too high or if they're just determined to dislike him but there's nothing wrong with what he's done so far. Expecting more out of him is your fault, not his. Like I've said before, it's ridiculous how many people are so serious about being patient with prospects but as soon as they're not a prospect anymore they get zero leeway. I still have high hopes for Schenn and I see no reason why he can't seriously improve if given an actual opportunity.