Jump to content

Expansion Draft


Guest Stogey24
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Stogey24

Dog days of summer...

Who would you boys throw to the wolves if there was an expansion team added to the current NHL. Teams can protect either 1 goaltender, 5 defensemen and 9 forwards, or they could keep 2 goalies, 3 defenders and 7 forwards. Any player having just completed their first or second year of professional hockey are ineligible to be taken in the expansion draft. s. You can only lose tops, two guys to the draft. In a regular season you would have to give up least one forward or one Dman who has played at least 40 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume no so

1 goalie - price

5 defenseman

- Subban

- Markov

- Emelin

- Gorges

- Diaz?

- Pacioretty

- Eller

- Plekanec

- Bourque

- Prust

- Desharnais

- Gionta

- Briere

(Entire top 9 is still intact with the galy's )

Last forward maybe White. Honestly maybe Parros for what he brings

I feel like a lot of those choice were no brainers

Edited by Meller93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the rules from the last one:

- For teams protecting 2 goalies, each one must have played in 10 NHL games in the most recent season or 25 games in the past two years combined (minimum of 31 minutes per game).

- At least one defenceman left unprotected had to have played in 40 NHL games in the most recent season or 70 in the past two years combined.

- At least two forwards left unprotected must have met the above requirements.

- First and second year pros were automatically exempt.

- Prospects were also exempt unless they were international selections that remained unsigned from four drafts prior (so presently, Russian/Swiss prospects whose rights are held indefinitely due to them not being signatories to the new transfer agreement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24

Here are the rules from the last one:

- For teams protecting 2 goalies, each one must have played in 10 NHL games in the most recent season or 25 games in the past two years combined (minimum of 31 minutes per game).

- At least one defenceman left unprotected had to have played in 40 NHL games in the most recent season or 70 in the past two years combined.

- At least two forwards left unprotected must have met the above requirements.

- First and second year pros were automatically exempt.

- Prospects were also exempt unless they were international selections that remained unsigned from four drafts prior (so presently, Russian/Swiss prospects whose rights are held indefinitely due to them not being signatories to the new transfer agreement).

Thumbs up to you knowing that last regulation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when Serge Savard kept making Vlaidslav Tretiak available in the expansion draft? :)

I don't think that would have been his choice. Going with the rules from above, an unsigned international prospect (although he was far from a prospect obviously) would automatically be exposed. If there was an expansion draft now, the Habs would have two retired Russians left unprotected - they stay property of the team that long. It's not a GM's choice to leave old players that are never coming over unprotected - as long as they're on the reserve list, they have to. It's a formality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are any prospects able to be taken? Like say Fucale who hasn't played any pro games?

Players who are in their first two years of pro hockey are Ineligible.... so no, Fucale will not be eligible as hes not even in pro hockey yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what my list would be, I think I got everyone. I'm also assuming that players with an NTC/NMC would require protection (otherwise it'd be a way around the clause).

Goalies:

Protected (1): Carey Price

Unprotected (3): Peter Budaj, Robert Mayer, Dustin Tokarski

Exempt (3): Mike Condon, Peter Delmas, Zach Fucale

Defence:

Protected (5): Raphael Diaz, Alexei Emelin, Josh Gorges, Andrei Markov, P.K. Subban

Unprotected (4): Francis Bouillon, Davis Drewiske, Konstantin Korneev, Andrei Kruchinin

Exempt (10): Nathan Beaulieu, Mac Bennett, Josiah Didier, Darren Dietz, Morgan Ellis, Magnus Nygren, Greg Pateryn, Colin Sullivan, Dalton Thrower, Jarred Tinordi

Forwards:

Protected (9): Rene Bourque, Daniel Briere, David Desharnais, Lars Eller, Brian Gionta, Travis Moen (NTC), Max Pacioretty, Tomas Plekanec, Brandon Prust

Unprotected (10): Michael Blunden, Alexander Buturlin, Gabriel Dumont, Andreas Engqvist, George Parros, Andrei Sidyakin, Martin St. Pierre, Nick Tarnasky, Maxim Trunev, Ryan White

Exempt (23): Sven Andrighetto, Michael Bournival, Tim Bozon, Mike Cichy, Sebastian Collberg, Connor Crisp, Jacob de la Rose, Stefan Fournier, Alex Galchenyuk, Brendan Gallagher, Jeremy Gregoire, Patrick Holland, Charles Hudon, Louis Leblanc, Artturi Lehkonen, Mark MacMillan, Mike McCarron, Joonas Nattinen, Erik Nystrom, Steve Quailer, Martin Reway, Christian Thomas, Brady Vail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So obviously expansion teams tend to have pretty empty cupboards when they start up. Maybe a few solid players available that's it. And maybe luck out on a few young guys who didn't reach their potential yet. Anybody know stats on how well expansion teams do in their first few years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a no cap system, it would be difficult, but I'd imagine an expansion team during the salary cap era would be able to throw big money at free agents. This in no way guarantees competitiveness as we know, but if managed well (big-money, short term contracts) they could grab a few decent FAs while they toil at the bottom of the standings for a few years and amass talent while keeping enough flexibility to build a core then build around that core intelligently. Definitely a 5-year build plan, if not more.

But immediate competitiveness would be difficult I would think. They'd need to grab as many underrated players as possible in the expansion draft, grab a handful of reliable free agents and have a few break out years from their roster. Not to mention have a decent coach. I think that could result in a playoff appearance in a first year. Would be super cool to see it happen (aherm, new Markham/Quebec/etc teams coming soon.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24

In a no cap system, it would be difficult, but I'd imagine an expansion team during the salary cap era would be able to throw big money at free agents. This in no way guarantees competitiveness as we know, but if managed well (big-money, short term contracts) they could grab a few decent FAs while they toil at the bottom of the standings for a few years and amass talent while keeping enough flexibility to build a core then build around that core intelligently. Definitely a 5-year build plan, if not more.

But immediate competitiveness would be difficult I would think. They'd need to grab as many underrated players as possible in the expansion draft, grab a handful of reliable free agents and have a few break out years from their roster. Not to mention have a decent coach. I think that could result in a playoff appearance in a first year. Would be super cool to see it happen (aherm, new Markham/Quebec/etc teams coming soon.)

I could definitely see some big names thrown around. Look at the Vinny situation. There is a possibility, a slim one, but a possibility none the less, that Tampa could have avoided using buy out. Lecavalier's contract was insane, but lets say the expansion team came to Quebec. Quebec would have been TRYING everything in their power to get Lecavalier. Highly unlikely that a player at his age would want to go to an organization in a ground up rebuild. I would love to see it though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could definitely see some big names thrown around. Look at the Vinny situation. There is a possibility, a slim one, but a possibility none the less, that Tampa could have avoided using buy out. Lecavalier's contract was insane, but lets say the expansion team came to Quebec. Quebec would have been TRYING everything in their power to get Lecavalier. Highly unlikely that a player at his age would want to go to an organization in a ground up rebuild. I would love to see it though.

It's not a rebuild if you've never built anything before. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24

It's not a rebuild if you've never built anything before. :)

Ground up build. Renewing the rivalry of Quebec and Montreal would be awesome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what my list would be, I think I got everyone. I'm also assuming that players with an NTC/NMC would require protection (otherwise it'd be a way around the clause).

This would be interesting for sure. Should a team have to protect a player with a NTC/NMC? It would depend on the clause. If it is limited NTC/NMC they should provide their list and make themselves available or unavailable to the drafting team, unless protected. If it were full NTC/NMC it should be up to the player, and not need to be protected by the team. If they are unprotected and refuse, then the team should be forced to protect them, forfeiting the protection of another player. Adding to this the drafting team can pick only 1 unprotected player with a full NTC/NMC per team, to prevent "cycling" the protected list until a desirable player becomes available.

Also, I believe the rules for the number of protected players would be reduced as the whole point of the salary cap, which wasn't in effect during the last expension draft, was to make the league more competitive. Under the last ruleset for the draft, teams could easily protect their top 5 defensemen and top 9 players, leaving the drafting teams with a team full of bottom 6 forwards and bottom pair defencemen, theoretically. Completely counter acting the desire for a fully competitive league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be interesting for sure. Should a team have to protect a player with a NTC/NMC? It would depend on the clause. If it is limited NTC/NMC they should provide their list and make themselves available or unavailable to the drafting team, unless protected. If it were full NTC/NMC it should be up to the player, and not need to be protected by the team. If they are unprotected and refuse, then the team should be forced to protect them, forfeiting the protection of another player. Adding to this the drafting team can pick only 1 unprotected player with a full NTC/NMC per team, to prevent "cycling" the protected list until a desirable player becomes available.

I'd have to think it would be all but automatic, the original team would have to protect them. A full NTC/NMC is obvious, protection would be required since being drafted and changing teams is akin to being traded and/or claimed off waivers. A partial clause (one that says the player can be traded to __ teams) wouldn't have the expansion team on the list, that team wouldn't have existed at the time the clause came into effect. If permitted in the contract, teams I suppose could ask the player if he'd like to add the expansion team(s) to the 'okay to trade me to' list but that may be the only way that a player with trade protection could be on there.

That all said, I haven't looked in the CBA to see if there is anything in there about an expansion draft so it's speculation on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't players have to provide the lists of teams they are willing ro not willing to be traded to annually?

Normally that's the case but I do believe it's a contract-by-contract thing. I believe some have lists that can be changed at any time, others (most) annually, others get listed once and that's that. Of course, for those who submit annually, the question is when each year. Is it immediately following the Cup Final (where the expansion team may not be confirmed), or training camp (where it most certainly would be)...or somewhere in between? The answer to that would determine whether or not a player may have that team on an NTC.

Honestly, in most cases where a player submits annually, I'd have to think that unless the player really wants to leave the team he's currently with, he's probably going to put the expansion team(s) on the no-trade part of his list, simply to avoid getting sent to a team that won't be competitive for a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24

Normally that's the case but I do believe it's a contract-by-contract thing. I believe some have lists that can be changed at any time, others (most) annually, others get listed once and that's that. Of course, for those who submit annually, the question is when each year. Is it immediately following the Cup Final (where the expansion team may not be confirmed), or training camp (where it most certainly would be)...or somewhere in between? The answer to that would determine whether or not a player may have that team on an NTC.

Honestly, in most cases where a player submits annually, I'd have to think that unless the player really wants to leave the team he's currently with, he's probably going to put the expansion team(s) on the no-trade part of his list, simply to avoid getting sent to a team that won't be competitive for a few years.

So when a player is picked up by the expansion team it's considered a trade?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when a player is picked up by the expansion team it's considered a trade?

I'm not entirely sure - they could classify it as a claim I suppose as well, similar to the old waiver drafts. Basically, the purpose of a no-trade clause is to prevent an unwanted transfer to another organization. Though not a direct trade, an expansion claim would qualify as a transfer to that team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24

I'm not entirely sure - they could classify it as a claim I suppose as well, similar to the old waiver drafts. Basically, the purpose of a no-trade clause is to prevent an unwanted transfer to another organization. Though not a direct trade, an expansion claim would qualify as a transfer to that team.

Yeah, that makes sense. If there is an expansion draft, I can't see it following the same terms as in 2000. There was a couple decent players acquired, other than though it was slim pickings for both organizations.

A lot of under the tables deals where Columbus or Mini wouldn't select an unprotected player from a team in order to get draft pick or have a trade in their favour down the road

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...