Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dlbalr

Expansion Draft Discussion, Emelin to Vegas

Recommended Posts

dlbalr    676

0422-vgk17-expdraft.png

 

We're now less than three weeks from finding out who the Habs will lose in expansion (and if they'll lose anything/anyone else if they strike a deal with Vegas).  The picks will be announced during the NHL Awards in a desperate attempt to make people actually watch the award show that seems to get worse by the year.

 

Each team can protect seven forwards, three defencemen, and one goalie or eight skaters (of any positional combination) and one goalie.  Players with no-move clauses must be protected (unless they agree to waive it) and the Habs quietly confirmed yesterday that they won't ask Price or Petry to waive.

 

We're in the middle running a series of articles on HW going over some of the decisions Montreal has to make.  Here's what we have so far:

 

Benn over Beaulieu

Why the Habs should protect an unsigned Radulov

 

The hope is to have a few more of these over the next couple of weeks.  Our projected protection list will be revealed closer to the June 17th deadline.

 

For more reading on Montreal's situation, I have a piece up on PHR going over who needs to be protected and breaking down some of the decisions Bergevin will need to make.

 

Who should the Habs protect?  What would you be okay with giving up as an enticement for Vegas to either take a specific player or not take a notable one that's unprotected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Radulov is here because he wants to be. I would hope that MB and him have had contract discussions with the understanding that they can't sign him to July 1 because of the expansion draft. It is a risk and to loose him to a massive Vegas offer would be horrible but I think in this case it is an acceptable risk.

 

I don't think that we need to protect Shaw. Vegas can have that contract.

 

Benn vs. Beaulieu...This one is really tough. I think that they either trade Beaulieu or drop a forward (already dropped Shaw) and go with protecting 8 players instead of the 7 forwards and 3 defense. I sure as hell don't want to loose either one for nothing. Perhaps dropping Byron and Shaw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I think that Radulov is here because he wants to be. I would hope that MB and him have had contract discussions with the understanding that they can't sign him to July 1 because of the expansion draft. It is a risk and to loose him to a massive Vegas offer would be horrible but I think in this case it is an acceptable risk.

 

I don't think that we need to protect Shaw. Vegas can have that contract.

 

Benn vs. Beaulieu...This one is really tough. I think that they either trade Beaulieu or drop a forward (already dropped Shaw) and go with protecting 8 players instead of the 7 forwards and 3 defense. I sure as hell don't want to loose either one for nothing. Perhaps dropping Byron and Shaw?

 

I'd hate to lose Byron, but I'm with you on Shaw. Nothing against the guy, but in retrospect that signing is an indirect indictment of the Habs' failure to develop talent. Third liners like him should be pumped out of the farm system cheaply, as a matter of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    146
39 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I'd hate to lose Byron, but I'm with you on Shaw. Nothing against the guy, but in retrospect that signing is an indirect indictment of the Habs' failure to develop talent. Third liners like him should be pumped out of the farm system cheaply, as a matter of course.

I'm not defending Shaw as a player necessarily but it's tough to develop a past cup champion through the farm. We've had players like Moen and Gill before for the same reason and I think during our run in 2010, we had plenty of cup experience whice I believe helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
habs rule    392

Isn't that interesting. It was not that long ago that I started a thread saying that Shaw had to go. I got crucified. Wait for the playoffs they said. ok how did that work out? he is a good player but he will look better on a different team.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    169
3 minutes ago, habs rule said:

Isn't that interesting. It was not that long ago that I started a thread saying that Shaw had to go. I got crucified. Wait for the playoffs they said. ok how did that work out? he is a good player but he will look better on a different team.

100% agree.  If he was making $2M, i don't mind him, but it was stupid to trade for a guy that we'd have to overpay and give stupid term.  There is no way i'd protect him in the expansion draft and frankly, i'm not sure if Las Vegas would even take him.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trizzak    450

Almost assuredly losing one of Hudon or De La Rose, unless Beaulieu is made available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, habs rule said:

Isn't that interesting. It was not that long ago that I started a thread saying that Shaw had to go. I got crucified. Wait for the playoffs they said. ok how did that work out? he is a good player but he will look better on a different team.

 

I was probably one of those 'wait for the playoffs' guys. And yeah, we waited, and Shaw was fine, but nothing that could not be internally developed by an organization that knew what it was doing. That acquisition is an offshoot of MB's asinine diagnosis that the team lacked Leadership because it missed the playoffs when it had an entire season of the worst netminding in hockey.

 

I do agree that Cup experience matters, but that's what rentals are for. Don't overpay long-term for a third liner because he has a ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DON    27
7 hours ago, Trizzak said:

Almost assuredly losing one of Hudon or De La Rose, unless Beaulieu is made available. 

Seems best bets and if not dealt I would assume Beaulieu draws the short straw between he and Benn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeLassister    276

The emergence of Ryan Ellis 6 years after his draft year  is why I want to protect Beaulieu over Benn.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about Vegas taking on contracts..

 

If I'm MB.. I'm offering a 2nd round pick to force the selection of Pleks or Emelin.. or a prospect like DeLaRose

 

Maybe DLR and a 2nd for Vegas' 4th round pick and they take Pleks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stogey24    254
1 hour ago, TheDriveFor25 said:

All this talk about Vegas taking on contracts..

 

If I'm MB.. I'm offering a 2nd round pick to force the selection of Pleks or Emelin.. or a prospect like DeLaRose

 

Maybe DLR and a 2nd for Vegas' 4th round pick and they take Pleks

Ya, I like that idea 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DON    27
7 minutes ago, Stogey24 said:

Ya, I like that idea 

Those who complain about farm systemédrafting weakness, wont like that. Cant deal away picks and build through draft at same time. It was a big issue in past regimes, dealing away 2nd round picks...which is where ol #76 and Weber were selected, doesn't help prospect pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DON    27
1 hour ago, JoeLassister said:

The emergence of Ryan Ellis 6 years after his draft year  is why I want to protect Beaulieu over Benn.

Ellis likely has the brain smarts that Nate the Great is missing...but you could be correct and Ellis does have 130 more games played. But, I can still see going via trade or not being protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stogey24    254
5 minutes ago, DON said:

Those who complain about farm systemédrafting weakness, wont like that. Cant deal away picks and build through draft at same time. It was a big issue in past regimes, dealing away 2nd round picks...which is where ol #76 and Weber were selected, doesn't help prospect pool.

If you can trade away a second to gain 6 mill in cap, you do it 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    609

Especially in this year's draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeLassister    276

M-A Fleury just waived his NMC.


Smells like Vegas to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JoeLassister said:

M-A Fleury just waived his NMC.


Smells like Vegas to me...

 

He actually waived it for ONLY Vegas from what I read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    609

And he did it in February, its just being reported today. 

 

 

Going to Vegas is great for Fleury's career.  He can't choke in the playoffs if he doesn't make the playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
habs rule    392
1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

He actually waived it for ONLY Vegas from what I read.

can he waive his NMC for one team only? I thought as far as these clauses go you either waive or don't. Wouldn't that still be a no movement clause? I mean lots of guys have a certain number of teams they can say no to written in their contract,and for the purposes of the expansion draft still have to be protected unless they waive the whole clause. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stogey24    254
2 hours ago, Commandant said:

And he did it in February, its just being reported today. 

 

 

Going to Vegas is great for Fleury's career.  He can't choke in the playoffs if he doesn't make the playoffs. 

Ya, I'm pretty sure he only waived it for one team then too

 

Dirty Dion was asked to waive his clause by sens too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    609
1 hour ago, habs rule said:

can he waive his NMC for one team only? I thought as far as these clauses go you either waive or don't. Wouldn't that still be a no movement clause? I mean lots of guys have a certain number of teams they can say no to written in their contract,and for the purposes of the expansion draft still have to be protected unless they waive the whole clause. No?

 

Yes, you can waive it for 1 team

 

Remember he already has 12 teams he can be traded to as well. 

 

He has a NTC for 18 teams, and a NMC that doesn't let him get sent to the minors 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
habs rule    392
4 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Yes, you can waive it for 1 team

 

Remember he already has 12 teams he can be traded to as well. 

 

He has a NTC for 18 teams, and a NMC that doesn't let him get sent to the minors 

ok you know better than I do.  thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×