Jump to content

Pre-Expansion Draft Discussion


Recommended Posts

It's early, but worth talking about who should be protected and who shouldn't be. When we get closer to the actual draft and have info we'll switch over to a shiny, new thread. 

 

If no 2021 UFAs are protected (and no one else is extended), then the Habs could only have 1 unprotected forward who meets the minimum criteria for the expansion draft (either Byron (in 1 game) or Evans in 12 games.)) If Bergevin wants to protect either of those players we could see a situation where someone like Frolik or Perry is signed just to be exposed, or someone is traded for just to be exposed.

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle

 

^ an excellent simulator to find out who could be unprotected in the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lehkonen needs to be protected as well but the Habs have to comply with the 2 forwards under contract that meet the 27/54 rule.  As things stand, those two forwards are likely Byron and Evans by defau

I don’t get how that makes him MB 2.0?  He played a key role in Toronto. He’s the reason they chose Marner, over the consensus Hanafin.  He has been a GM and part of owner for a highly successful  j

So basically MB is 2 time loser who can;t build a WINNING team

Posted Images

So we can protect 7 forwards and 3 defence for a total of 10 or any 8 players I think?

 

Who is exempt? 

 

KK, Suzuki, Romanov, Evans?

 

UFA Tatar, Danault, Armia 

 

Must protect due to no movement clause- Price, Petry 

 

Is my info correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

So we can protect 7 forwards and 3 defence for a total of 10 or any 8 players I think?

Who is exempt? 

KK, Suzuki, Romanov, Evans?

UFA Tatar, Danault, Armia 

Must protect due to no movement clause- Price, Petry 

Is my info correct?

Seattle 2021 NHL Expansion Draft rules same as Golden Knights followed

 

By my read KK is not exempt as this is his third NHL season, but Suzuki, Romanov & Evans are.

 

The link doesn't make specific  reference, but I think that I recall (based on Vegas) that at least RFAs and perhaps UFAs can be selected ... if so, Habs would then not be able to extend offers/offer-sheets until everyone else in the league can too.

 

Finally, I believe that Gallagher is also a must protect as a NMC was added as part of his extension

 

My preferences/expectations, not predictions what MB will do:

Up front, Gallagher, Drouin, Anderson and Toffoli are keepers, and can't see bergevin not protecting KK ...  so two more spots open ... I suspect that Byron may be exposed regardless, with MB ***not*** upset if his cap-hit leaves for Seattle ... at the moment, I don't expect Tartar to be extended  or protected ... so the remaining two should come from Armia, Danault, Lehkonen and Perry; maybe even Frolik (all depending on how the rest of the season and contract talks develop) ... Danault seems like the safest bet as he still is their best face-off guy.

 

Petry is my only absolute for the defence (even without the NMC) ... as I am of the "a year too soon rather than a year too late" philosophy, I would expose Weber ... like Byron, losing the cap-hit would not be terrible but I doubt Seattle would take him ... he is 36 before next season and I remain uncertain he will play at 37 for $3 million or 38/39 for $1 million ... that would leave the choice between Chiarot, Edmundson, Kulak and Mete ... as a recent UFA signing I think Edmundson will have to play his way off the protected list and, right now, would keep Chiarot as the other

 

Goalies are a no-brainer UNLESS Price politely asks (i.e., Price's version of a demand) to be exposed ... even then, a trade would be more likely once Seattle' roster is set.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzuki and Romanov are exempt, Kotkaniemi and Evans are not.

 

Forwards are fairly easy in my opinion: Gallagher, Anderson, Drouin, Toffoli, Kotkaniemi, Lehkonen and either Byron or (more likely) Evans. If one of the UFAs is signed before the draft, both Byron and Evans will be exposed.

 

On defence, I expect Petry and Weber (although maybe they could take a risk on Weber), and probably Mete, assuming his trajectory continues in the right direction. Chiarot and Kulak have only one year left on their contracts so I don't think they will be high on Seattle's list. So, Edmundson would be the highest risk to lose, assuming Seattle is looking for this type of D-man.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Suzuki and Romanov are exempt, Kotkaniemi and Evans are not.

 

Forwards are fairly easy in my opinion: Gallagher, Anderson, Drouin, Toffoli, Kotkaniemi, Lehkonen and either Byron or (more likely) Evans. If one of the UFAs is signed before the draft, both Byron and Evans will be exposed.

 

On defence, I expect Petry and Weber (although maybe they could take a risk on Weber), and probably Mete, assuming his trajectory continues in the right direction. Chiarot and Kulak have only one year left on their contracts so I don't think they will be high on Seattle's list. So, Edmundson would be the highest risk to lose, assuming Seattle is looking for this type of D-man.


This makes the most sense. 
 

How does Price factor in? He takes Evans spot in your scenario?

 

If so then Danault might be a problem cause I expect him signed before he is ufa

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

This makes the most sense. 
 

How does Price factor in? He takes Evans spot in your scenario?

 

If so then Danault might be a problem cause I expect him signed before he is ufa

Seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie (I didn't post about goalies since Price has an NMC and I very much doubt Bergevin would want to give him up anyway). So, the goalie doesn't impact the F or D choices.

 

I, too, expect a UFA signing before the expansion draft. Whether it's Danault or one of the other two really depends on how they play for the rest of the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tomh009 said:

Suzuki and Romanov are exempt, Kotkaniemi and Evans are not...

 

Not certain about Evans... he is a third year pro but this is only his second year in the NHL ... rules specifically provide for "All first- and second-year NHL players,..." being exempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point it looks like Seattle would be doing us a favour if they took Edmundson, like Emelin last time. Would only a year on Kulak and Chiarot's deals actually  be a deterrent? Seems to me the best move would be to take the best player and then be first in line in trying to re-sign them if things work out. 

 

It would suck to lose a quality forward like Lekhonen or Evans because of our Kotkaniemi foolishness. Taking Byron would be doing us a favour, but it might not be a bad idea from Seattle's standpoint if they want veteran leadership.

 

Losing Allen would also suck with how good he's been.  It looks like we'll almost certainly be losing a more valuable piece than last time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

Not certain about Evans... he is a third year pro but this is only his second year in the NHL ... rules specifically provide for "All first- and second-year NHL players,..." being exempt.

 

Based on the vegas draft it is pro seasons.  Evans is eligible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Neech said:

At this point it looks like Seattle would be doing us a favour if they took Edmundson, like Emelin last time. Would only a year on Kulak and Chiarot's deals actually  be a deterrent? Seems to me the best move would be to take the best player and then be first in line in trying to re-sign them if things work out. 

 

It would suck to lose a quality forward like Lekhonen or Evans because of our Kotkaniemi foolishness. Taking Byron would be doing us a favour, but it might not be a bad idea from Seattle's standpoint if they want veteran leadership.

 

Losing Allen would also suck with how good he's been.  It looks like we'll almost certainly be losing a more valuable piece than last time. 

 

Agree that keeping KK a year too early may cost us. I don't think losing Allen would be awful, it would free up some cap room and Primeau may be ready by then. Allen has been good though, an excellent back up for Price. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Agree that keeping KK a year too early may cost us...

Sadly, his "home team" was terrible that season ... so bad that KK's dad was fired as coach after a bad start ... so returning might not have done KK's development any favours

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Agree that keeping KK a year too early may cost us. I don't think losing Allen would be awful, it would free up some cap room and Primeau may be ready by then. Allen has been good though, an excellent back up for Price. 

I think it's unlikely that Seattle will pick one of our unprotected forwards, so the question is whether they think one of our D (Chiarot? Edmundson?) fits their plan, or whether Allen does. It's not just a matter of picking the best goalie available, as they will need to choose one player from each of the 30 teams. If a team has no desirable D or F options, they might take a G instead.

 

They also have the option of signing a UFA as the #1 goalie -- there are many coming up this year, and Seattle will be able to negotiate before the other teams -- and choosing a goalie prospect instead of drafting two experienced ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of interesting decisions that need to be made and there's an element that's largely getting skipped over so far beyond Trizzak's first post.  Two forwards that meet the 27/54 requirement (27 GP this year, 54 this and last combined) have to be exposed and be under contract.  That last bit is where it gets a bit tricky.

 

Guaranteed protectees are Anderson, Gallagher (NMC), Toffoli, Kotkaniemi, and Drouin.  Others under contract that are eligible to be claimed are Byron and Evans, though neither have hit that mark yet (Byron will when he plays his next game; Evans is 12 games away).  Lehkonen's an RFA and everyone else is either exempt or a pending UFA.  As things stand, Byron and Evans become automatic unprotectees, assuming Evans doesn't suffer a serious injury over the next month.  Lehkonen would become the 6th forward protected and if one of Danault/Armia/Tatar sign an extension, then they get the 7th spot.

 

Alternatively, if they don't re-sign one of those three, they could be stuck giving Perry or Frolik a one-year extension, protect Evans or Byron (likely Evans) into the 7th spot, and fulfill the requirement that way by exposing Perry/Frolik and Byron.

 

On defence, Petry (NMC) is a lock, Weber close to a near-lock.  I think they protect Chiarot as the third option at this point - he's the one that's used the most and there are reasons to chance the others.  Kulak isn't as widely-regarded around the league as the advanced stats say he should be, Edmundson's contract could be a deterrent, Mete doesn't really have a long-term future with the organization (if everyone returns next year, he's probably 8th on the depth chart), and Fleury's in the minors and thus not really not boosting his stock.  They have to have one signed player meet the 27/54 criterion but with five players already reaching that, that one won't be an issue.

 

Price (NMC) gets the automatic protection slot so that one's easy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

As things stand, Byron and Evans become automatic unprotectees, assuming Evans doesn't suffer a serious injury over the next month.  Lehkonen would become the 6th forward protected and if one of Danault/Armia/Tatar sign an extension, then they get the 7th spot.

 

Alternatively, if they don't re-sign one of those three, they could be stuck giving Perry or Frolik a one-year extension, protect Evans or Byron (likely Evans) into the 7th spot, and fulfill the requirement that way by exposing Perry/Frolik and Byron.

This is where I am intrigued. If Frolik and Perry don't want to risk going to Seattle, Bergevin might even trade for a player he doesn't value just to keep a player he does. With the Habs center depth as it is, does Bergevin want to expose a young, cost-controlled center like Evans considering Danault might walk away to free agency a few days later? Is it worth a late round draft pick to trade for a grunt like Russ Johnston so Evans can be protected? 

 

I don't think you can stop Seattle from picking Jake Allen if they want him, but if they value other goalies more then it might be possible to direct them to taking a defenseman (of which the Habs have many) or Byron (who is a touch overpaid for his role in Montreal).

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

There are a couple of interesting decisions that need to be made and there's an element that's largely getting skipped over so far beyond Trizzak's first post.  Two forwards that meet the 27/54 requirement (27 GP this year, 54 this and last combined) have to be exposed and be under contract.  That last bit is where it gets a bit tricky.

 

Guaranteed protectees are Anderson, Gallagher (NMC), Toffoli, Kotkaniemi, and Drouin.  Others under contract that are eligible to be claimed are Byron and Evans, though neither have hit that mark yet (Byron will when he plays his next game; Evans is 12 games away).  Lehkonen's an RFA and everyone else is either exempt or a pending UFA.  As things stand, Byron and Evans become automatic unprotectees, assuming Evans doesn't suffer a serious injury over the next month.  Lehkonen would become the 6th forward protected and if one of Danault/Armia/Tatar sign an extension, then they get the 7th spot.

 

Alternatively, if they don't re-sign one of those three, they could be stuck giving Perry or Frolik a one-year extension, protect Evans or Byron (likely Evans) into the 7th spot, and fulfill the requirement that way by exposing Perry/Frolik and Byron.

 

On defence, Petry (NMC) is a lock, Weber close to a near-lock.  I think they protect Chiarot as the third option at this point - he's the one that's used the most and there are reasons to chance the others.  Kulak isn't as widely-regarded around the league as the advanced stats say he should be, Edmundson's contract could be a deterrent, Mete doesn't really have a long-term future with the organization (if everyone returns next year, he's probably 8th on the depth chart), and Fleury's in the minors and thus not really not boosting his stock.  They have to have one signed player meet the 27/54 criterion but with five players already reaching that, that one won't be an issue.

 

Price (NMC) gets the automatic protection slot so that one's easy.

 

 

Agree with your thoughts except for the last defenceman.  I would keep Mete, such a great skater who I think still has great potential. He might thrive on an expansion team. Chiarot, while a very useful player will be a year away from being a UFA,  I would expose him instead.  I think Mete gets scooped up quickly if exposed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

This is where I am intrigued. If Frolik and Perry don't want to risk going to Seattle, Bergevin might even trade for a player he doesn't value just to keep a player he does. With the Habs center depth as it is, does Bergevin want to expose a young, cost-controlled center like Evans considering Danault might walk away to free agency a few days later? Is it worth a late round draft pick to trade for a grunt like Russ Johnston so Evans can be protected?

 

How picky are Frolik and Perry going to be?  One more guaranteed paycheque has to count for something, doesn't it?  If the options are sign an extension and risk being picked up by Seattle or going into free agency where you may not get a contract, the smarter play would be to re-sign. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Agree with your thoughts except for the last defenceman.  I would keep Mete, such a great skater who I think still has great potential. He might thrive on an expansion team. Chiarot, while a very useful player will be a year away from being a UFA,  I would expose him instead.  I think Mete gets scooped up quickly if exposed. 

 

I'm not as sold on Mete as some are but if the Habs viewed him ahead of guys like Chiarot, Edmundson, and Kulak, wouldn't they be playing him more?  If they thought Mete was a piece to build around, they wouldn't have brought Edmundson in this offseason.  But he's viewed as a depth player.  As I mentioned in the discussion about his trade request, I'm not convinced they even tender him a qualifying offer this summer when he's arbitration-eligible and all of his previous experience becomes evidence in a hearing; they can't afford to have a 7th/8th d-man making much more than what Mete's getting now.  If Seattle took Mete, I suspect management would be perfectly okay with losing him and keeping Allen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

How picky are Frolik and Perry going to be?  One more guaranteed paycheque has to count for something, doesn't it?  If the options are sign an extension and risk being picked up by Seattle or going into free agency where you may not get a contract, the smarter play would be to re-sign. 

Please, Brian, I'm trying to galaxy-brain here. Stop ruining my 8D Chess with logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

I protect Evans over Lehkonen every day of the week, if he avoids another concussion between now and then.

 

It's not a one or the other situation unless Lehkonen signs an extension between now and the expansion draft.  He will meet the 27/54 requirement but needs to be under contract as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

It's not a one or the other situation unless Lehkonen signs an extension between now and the expansion draft.  He will meet the 27/54 requirement but needs to be under contract as well.

 

Huh? Then why does Kotkianiemi need to be protected? He is also an RFA after the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, THN mock draft has Seattle picking up Lehkonen (not sure how they figured that the Habs would expose him). In goal, they chose Holtby, Khudobin and Husso.

 

The Athletic has them choosing Khudobin, Allen and Daccord for goal.

 

Georgetown Voice guesses that they will pick up Mete. Murray, Demko and Campbell in goal.

 

I think we can conclude that the mock drafts are all over the place. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

 

Huh? Then why does Kotkianiemi need to be protected? He is also an RFA after the season.

KK is in his third NHL/pro season, exemption is for first and second year NHL/pro players ... it is something that hopefully was recognized and fully considered when they decided to keep him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

KK is in his third NHL/pro season, exemption is for first and second year NHL/pro players ... it is something that hopefully was recognized and fully considered when they decided to keep him.

Yes ... but I think Fanpuck's point is that if Lehkonen (RFA at the end of the season) doesn't need to be protected, then neither does Kotkaniemi (also RFA).

 

My understanding (which could be wrong!) is that each team needs to expose two forwards who are under contract -- but Seattle is not limited to choosing from those two, they can choose to draft a UFA (and get negotiating rights with him) or draft an RFA (and get his rights). Based on that, the Habs would ned to protect both Lehkonen and Kotkaniemi if they want to be sure of retaining them.

 

I suspect dlbalr's point is that Lehkonen will not help meet that two-forwards-under-contract rule.

Link to post
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...