Jump to content

Who would the Habs protect in an expansion draft?


BlueKross

Recommended Posts

Going back a bit-- I believe the last expansion draft you could protect 18?--- Some are worried about losing Tinordi when we protect 23--- who else are you going to give up if indeed goes back to 18?--- unless somebody has said something to the contrary, they could do this draft as early as next summer--- not sure when these new teams expect to start--16/17 or 17/18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back a bit-- I believe the last expansion draft you could protect 18?--- Some are worried about losing Tinordi when we protect 23--- who else are you going to give up if indeed goes back to 18?--- unless somebody has said something to the contrary, they could do this draft as early as next summer--- not sure when these new teams expect to start--16/17 or 17/18

These were the rules in 2000:

26 of the 28 teams existing in the league at the time of the draft were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively.

For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals.

At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasonscombined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements.

52 players were chosen in the draft, two from each participating franchise. Only one goaltender or one defenseman could be selected from each franchise. Both the Blue Jackets and the Wild were to use their first 24 selections on three goaltenders, eight defensemen, and thirteen forwards. The final two picks for each team could be any position.

They will likely change a bit, but if the draft was now we'd need not worry about any of our young D. By 2017 (likely when expansion happens), Markov will be a UFA or retired and we'll have a good idea who our five D are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These were the rules in 2000:

They will likely change a bit, but if the draft was now we'd need not worry about any of our young D. By 2017 (likely when expansion happens), Markov will be a UFA or retired and we'll have a good idea who our five D are.

Good for you. Sometimes my memory doesn't serve me all that well. Was the roster size 18 at the time? Absolutely, the numbers will change to reflect the times. Also those in-betweener's will be harder to pass through waivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when we kept making a retired Mats Naslund available in waiver drafts? :halm: That's some good GMing right there.

Then there was the hullaballoo when the expansion Senators made Sylvain Turgeon their #1 pick in the expansion draft. 'HOW COULD THE HABS GIVE HIM UP IF HE'S THAT GOOD???' :bonk: Some things never change...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure we'll see Bournival in a Nordiques jersey. And that he will be a pain in our behinds every time we play him, no matter how good or bad he is the rest of the time. (Because, see, that's how these rivalries with garbage franchises work; those teams are dispropotionately stoked to play us, out of their minds with intensity and energy - we're their white whale - while our guys, having bigger fish to fry, can't match their psychosis; and so we lose more to them more often than we should).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when we kept making a retired Mats Naslund available in waiver drafts? :halm: That's some good GMing right there.

Then there was the hullaballoo when the expansion Senators made Sylvain Turgeon their #1 pick in the expansion draft. 'HOW COULD THE HABS GIVE HIM UP IF HE'S THAT GOOD???' :bonk: Some things never change...

Best players we've lost in expansion drafts since 1967 have been Tomas Vokoun to the Predators and Dave Balon to the North Stars. We've done pretty good.

Meanwhile the LA Kings gave up Kimmo Timonen and Jan Vopat to the Predators so they wouldn't select Garry Galley. A super young Filip Kuba was made available by the Florida Panthers in 2000, letting the Minnesota Wild pick him up. Solid top four D for most of his career.

The 67 draft was interesting because the Habs should have had Serge Savard and Jacques Lemaire up for grabs but Pollock made deals with all of the expansion clubs not to draft him. Meanwhile the Bruins treated the expansion teams like pariahs so they raided the Bruins draft picks like JP Parise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be fun if someone could come up with the list of players that would need to be protected in the summer of 2016. (looking in your direction Cypress Hill, heu, I mean Brian ;) )

I know that games played would be a factor, so maybe it would have to be based on some projections for the next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be fun if someone could come up with the list of players that would need to be protected in the summer of 2016. (looking in your direction Cypress Hill, heu, I mean Brian ;) )

I know that games played would be a factor, so maybe it would have to be based on some projections for the next season.

It's probably one year early (expansion is pegged for 17-18 from the sounds of things) but players that would be eligible for protection or selection next summer would be:

G: Price, Tokarski (RFA)

D: Markov, Subban, Emelin, Petry, Beaulieu, Tinordi (RFA), Pateryn, Barberio (RFA), Gilbert (UFA)

F: Pacioretty, Desharnais, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Plekanec (UFA), Kassian (RFA), Eller, Smith-Pelly (RFA), Weise (UFA), Mitchell, Flynn, Bournival (RFA), Dumont (2+ years past ELC - RFA), maybe Thomas (RFA) as well, and the Russian brigade*

All ELC players are exempted as far as I can tell plus any first or second year NHL'er not on an ELC. That's not carved in stone though as the rules are rather old and written quite vaguely. I just can't find an ELC player selected looking at old picks. * Any 4+ year international pick still on the reserve list would be eligible. This would only apply to Russians.

With the Habs really only having one goalie of note to protect, there's really only one way they'd go with a protection list - 1 G, 9 F, 5 D. This would be my list:

Protected:

G - Price

D - Markov, Subban, Petry, Beaulieu, one of Tinordi/Pateryn

F - Pacioretty, Desharnais, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Kassian, Eller, Smith-Pelly, Mitchell, one of Bournival/Flynn

Unprotected:

G - Tokarski

D - Emelin, Gilbert (UFA), Barberio, one of Tinordi/Pateryn

F - One of Bournival/Flynn, Plekanec (UFA), Weise (UFA), Dumont, maybe Thomas, Trunev, Korneev, Kruchinin, Sidyakin (4+ year unsigned international draft picks, the latter two being retired but still on the reserve list)

Since the expansion draft would be held just prior to the entry draft, there's little need to protect any pending UFA's. That also makes it easy to meet any GP requirements for the minimum number of required unprotectees (40 NHL GP in 15-16 or 70 between 14-15/15-16 combined).

Given that list, it'd be pretty easy to imagine that the defencemen would be raided. Emelin (it was him or Markov and I can't see them making Markov go to an expansion team to finish his career) would almost assuredly go to one team while the other expansion franchise would take whoever wasn't protected between Tinordi and Pateryn.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think i'd protect Markov after this coming season. Sorry folks, but that's just how I see it

If the draft is 17/18 it may not matter since he will probably be retired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up-- Brian's scenario is just a fun thing - a "what if"-- the draft will occur in the same year in the summer just before they start up---

My thoughts- I think they protect 18 or 20 players/ more in line with current roster size

- Markov and DD would be a considerations for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up-- Brian's scenario is just a fun thing - a "what if"-- the draft will occur in the same year in the summer just before they start up---

My thoughts- I think they protect 18 or 20 players/ more in line with current roster size

- Markov and DD would be a considerations for me

The 15 was pulled from past expansion drafts. You could either go 1 goalie, 9 forwards, and 5 d-men, or 2 goalies, 7 forwards, and 3 d-men. Teams won't be allowed to protect 18-20 players. If they could, there would be next to nothing left for the expansion team(s) to pick from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 15 was pulled from past expansion drafts. You could either go 1 goalie, 9 forwards, and 5 d-men, or 2 goalies, 7 forwards, and 3 d-men. Teams won't be allowed to protect 18-20 players. If they could, there would be next to nothing left for the expansion team(s) to pick from.

I am going to disagree. Teams have groomed their roster to 23. I can see them freeing up 3, which I believe is the traditional number, or maybe even 5: but I have my doubts whether they would free up 8 at the end of their rosters. Too much time and money spent to give up that much. We are going to see-- shortly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to disagree. Teams have groomed their roster to 23. I can see them freeing up 3, which I believe is the traditional number, or maybe even 5: but I have my doubts whether they would free up 8 at the end of their rosters. Too much time and money spent to give up that much. We are going to see-- shortly

Teams didn't choose to only protect 15, that was the max. Teams had two options, 1/5/9 or 2/3/7. They either had to pick option A or option B. They couldn't choose to protect more, they weren't allowed to. 23 was the max roster size in the last expansion draft too. Maybe the league allows for one more protectee but there have to be enough players exposed to allow the new team(s) to get some half-decent players instead of a bunch of 13th forwards and 7 d-men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams didn't choose to only protect 15, that was the max. Teams had two options, 1/5/9 or 2/3/7. They either had to pick option A or option B. They couldn't choose to protect more, they weren't allowed to. 23 was the max roster size in the last expansion draft too. Maybe the league allows for one more protectee but there have to be enough players exposed to allow the new team(s) to get some half-decent players instead of a bunch of 13th forwards and 7 d-men.

This will also be the first expansion/waiver draft with a salary cap. If teams are protecting 20 players, then teams will have rosters costing $10M with no way to hit salary cap floors in even a three year period without some ridiculous free agency offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams didn't choose to only protect 15, that was the max. Teams had two options, 1/5/9 or 2/3/7. They either had to pick option A or option B. They couldn't choose to protect more, they weren't allowed to. 23 was the max roster size in the last expansion draft too. Maybe the league allows for one more protectee but there have to be enough players exposed to allow the new team(s) to get some half-decent players instead of a bunch of 13th forwards and 7 d-men.

I get that. When they did that, the roster size was only 18 or 20. What i am saying is that they are going to expose the same amount at end of roster as they did before. I don't except the notion that they are any worse off than they were before. I would also suggest that in my scenario that the players released from the 21/22/23 slots today or whenever they do, will be better than the ones at 16/17/18 from the previous expansion draft. I believe that the two teams will pick one and two in their initial entry draft; and will be free to pick up any free agent. I just don't believe the established teams will be asked to free up 8 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that. When they did that, the roster size was only 18 or 20.

Teams have dressed 18 skaters and two goalies per game since the 1982-83 season when the game roster expanded to 20, well before these most recent expansion drafts. And in those days, they carried multiple spare players as well. 23 player rosters have been around for quite a while. They exposed eight then, they're not dropping to two or three now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...