Jump to content

Pre-Expansion Draft Discussion


Recommended Posts

29 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.

 

What does any of that have to do with Lehkonen not needing to be protected?

 

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

3 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

What does any of that have to do with Lehkonen not needing to be protected?

 

I was responding to your post that asked: Huh? Then why does Kotkianiemi need to be protected? He is also an RFA after the season

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

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

 

Demko is a horrible call.  No way Vancouver protects Holtby over demko

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

 

I was responding to your post that asked: Huh? Then why does Kotkianiemi need to be protected? He is also an RFA after the season

 

Right, but the question was if Lehkonen doesn't have to be protected because he is an RFA who isn't under contract, then why does Kotkianiemi have to be protected since he is in the same situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

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.

 

Yes, Dlblar was taking about the 2 forwards rule, not whether he needs to be protected or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fanpuck33 said:

 

Right, but the question was if Lehkonen doesn't have to be protected because he is an RFA who isn't under contract, then why does Kotkianiemi have to be protected since he is in the same situation. 

 

Lehkonen has to be protected (if you want to keep him)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

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

Why would anyone want Holtby. He’d really have to turn this season around to be someone Seattle wants.  As an aside, I think the cunackleheads are a prime candidate to make side deals to clear bad contracts - Holtby being one of many.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dlbalr said:

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.

 

[...]

 

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. 

 

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

 

I agree with the obvious 5 forward and 2 backend  names. Out of the other names:

a. I have had the feeling for a couple of years that Tatar would not be back.

b. I have also had the feeling for a couple of years that Danault is a core player, to solidify the center depth

c. When Armia and Lehkonen signed their last contracts, I thought it would be a coin toss between them. I still have that feeling.

d. Evans is way better than I thought but before this season I thought he would go unprotected.

e. I like how Edmundson complements Petry and I also believe that Chiarot can be replaced by Romanov after this season

 

For these reasons, here is my list:

Protected

Danault, Gallagher, Drouin, Anderson, Toffoli, Kotkaniemi, Weber, Edmundson, Petry, Price

and one of: Armia, Evans, Lehkonen

 

Excempt

Suzuki , Romanov, Fleury, Poehling, Teasdale, Ylönen, Belzile, Hillis, Brook, Leskinen

 

Exposed/Not-resigned

Tatar, Allen, Byron, Mete, Vejdemo, Chiarot, Kulak, G.Olofsson, Ouellet

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in theory, can’t the Habs have agreed apon but not signed extensions with Danault, Tatar and Armia so they wouldn’t need to be protected but would sign the extension after the expansion draft?  
 

Or is there a rule about carrying a minimum roster for the seat and/or some form of draft dodging rule that prohibits this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

So in theory, can’t the Habs have agreed apon but not signed extensions with Danault, Tatar and Armia so they wouldn’t need to be protected but would sign the extension after the expansion draft?  
 

Or is there a rule about carrying a minimum roster for the seat and/or some form of draft dodging rule that prohibits this?

You could probably have a verbal gentlemen's agreement without breaking the rules -- but it also wouldn't be legally binding. (That aside, absolutely no way for us to keep all three anyway.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

So in theory, can’t the Habs have agreed apon but not signed extensions with Danault, Tatar and Armia so they wouldn’t need to be protected but would sign the extension after the expansion draft?  
 

Or is there a rule about carrying a minimum roster for the seat and/or some form of draft dodging rule that prohibits this?

 

In theory, they can.  But Seattle will have exclusive negotiating rights for all free agents for a short period leading up to the draft so they could beat any handshake agreement.  There were some of those deals in place for Vegas, if I remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

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 default (once they get there).  Lehkonen can't be in that category because he's an RFA.  Unless he's signed, they can't protect Evans and unprotect Lehkonen. 

 

It's not that RFAs don't need to be protected - they do - but in order for the Habs to protect Evans over Lehkonen, they'd have to extend Lehkonen first.

 

Guaranteed Protectees

Anderson

Gallagher (NMC)
Drouin

Toffoli

 

RFA that's sure to be protected

Kotkaniemi

 

Other signed forwards that project to meet the 27/54 rule, 2 must be exposed

Byron

Evans

 

RFA, eligible for selection, only eligible to go in the above section if extended

Lehkonen

 

UFA, eligible for selection but can't go in the 27/54 category unless they sign an extension

Armia

Danault

Tatar

Perry

Frolik

Weal (needs 3 GP to get to 54)

 

(Armia/Danault/Tatar would almost certainly go into the automatic protectees slot if they signed)

 

Exempt from selection

Suzuki

 

Ah, ok. I completely misread and/or misunderstood what was being said.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We own  two 2nd round picks and three picks  in each of round 3, 4 and 5.

 

Let's just make a deal with Seattle and force them to pick whoever we want.


Just like Columbus did with W. Karlsson.

 

I wouldn't sell the farm for such a deal, but if it was to save us some trouble, I'd be glad to pay to keep the players I love most.

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

We own  two 2nd round picks and three picks  in each of round 3, 4 and 5.

 

Let's just make a deal with Seattle and force them to pick whoever we want.


Just like Columbus did with W. Karlsson.

 

I wouldn't sell the farm for such a deal, but if it was to save us some trouble, I'd be glad to pay to keep the players I love most.

So you want to make the type of moves that turned out to bad for Florida and Columbus?? Really???

 

I would just make a decision to expose the who players who cost more than they bring, or we have to expose.

Make Byron, Allen (no choice), Edmondson, Chariot, Kulak all available. Let them take whoever they want. The only type of deal I’d consider is a 3rd if they take Byron. But I wouldn’t give up anymore than that.  
Lekhonan gets protected and Armia isn’t signed until after the draft.

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

We own  two 2nd round picks and three picks  in each of round 3, 4 and 5.

 

Let's just make a deal with Seattle and force them to pick whoever we want.


Just like Columbus did with W. Karlsson.

 

I wouldn't sell the farm for such a deal, but if it was to save us some trouble, I'd be glad to pay to keep the players I love most.

 

How'd that work out for Columbus?

 

They should have just taken their lumps, lost Korpisalo or Murray and been done with it.  Instead they lost a guy who quickly developped into a two-way top 6 centre. 

 

Nearly every team that made a trade with Vegas of here take this piece to take who we want you to take lost the deal.  Every one. 

 

Just lose your one player (Lehkonen or Evans or Edmundson or Kulak or Allen) and be done with it, and keep the other 4

 

You are only going to lose one player.  No need to keep giving them more and more pieces and draft picks IMO.  Don't repeat the mistakes all the GMs made with Vegas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

So you want to make the type of moves that turned out to bad for Florida and Columbus?? Really???

 

I would just make a decision to expose the who players who cost more than they bring, or we have to expose.

Make Byron, Allen (no choice), Edmondson, Chariot, Kulak all available. Let them take whoever they want. The only type of deal I’d consider is a 3rd if they take Byron. But I wouldn’t give up anymore than that.  
Lekhonan gets protected and Armia isn’t signed until after the draft.

 

I mean, Florida's expansion draft moves were atrocious, but you can hardly point at Columbus as a mistake. Nobody on earth expected William Karlsson to score 41 goals and then settle in as a medicore 2nd line center after the fluke season. Dude had 20 and 25 points in two full NHL seasons and had shown no sign of being more than a 4th liner. Josh Anderson has ended up being a slower project, but I still think he probably ends up having the better career. And let's not forget a big part of that deal was unloading David Clarkson's contract. 

 

That being said, Montreal is not going to have to expose anyone whom they cannot live with out, so I say just let them have whomever we deem expendable.

 

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

They should have just taken their lumps, lost Korpisalo or Murray and been done with it.  Instead they lost a guy who quickly developped into a two-way top 6 centre. 

 

That's the thing - I don't think Karlsson becomes what he is today if not for being unprotected and seeing a team trade assets to make sure they took him off their hands. It was a wake up call that unlocked a whole new player.  He had shown no signs in Columbus of being anything more than a 4th liner and nothing was going to change for him there.

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

 

I mean, Florida's expansion draft moves were atrocious, but you can hardly point at Columbus as a mistake. Nobody on earth expected William Karlsson to score 41 goals and then settle in as a medicore 2nd line center after the fluke season. Dude had 20 and 25 points in two full NHL seasons and had shown no sign of being more than a 4th liner. Josh Anderson has ended up being a slower project, but I still think he probably ends up having the better career. And let's not forget a big part of that deal was unloading David Clarkson's contract. 

 

That being said, Montreal is not going to have to expose anyone whom they cannot live with out, so I say just let them have whomever we deem expendable.

There were a lot of teams that gave up a lot of extra assets to protect extra players, or dump salary - a number of them backfired. Right now we don’t know who is going to better next year, Edmondson, Chariot, Kulak.  Not even sure if Allen will have another yo-yo year.  The only guy I would hope that Seattle picks up is Byron - mainly for cap reasons. Having said that the Edmondson contract end up being worse.   There are no sure things that we’d be giving up to protect.  I’d rather just keep those fringe players exposed and not give up anymore assets. Moves like that is what got vegas picks AND guys like Theodore and Tuch in side deals.

 

we are going to lose 1 player.  Why make deals to lose more than that?? We have a weak D core, no one I’m going to sweat losing. Unless we resign a UFA, we can protect Lekhonan and Evans.  In goal, Allen has been good, but I’m not really going to give up on asset for him.  On the flip side if Seattle really wants Lekhonan, or Evans, and are willing to give us something in return, if listen.  

The main point though, is we are going to lose one player. We aren’t a powerhouse team that has a loaded top nine that we can only protect 7, or a kick-ass top 4 D, and we have to expose 1.  Let’s just lose the single asset and move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

There were a lot of teams that gave up a lot of extra assets to protect extra players, or dump salary - a number of them backfired. Right now we don’t know who is going to better next year, Edmondson, Chariot, Kulak.  Not even sure if Allen will have another yo-yo year.  The only guy I would hope that Seattle picks up is Byron - mainly for cap reasons. Having said that the Edmondson contract end up being worse.   There are no sure things that we’d be giving up to protect.  I’d rather just keep those fringe players exposed and not give up anymore assets. Moves like that is what got vegas picks AND guys like Theodore and Tuch in side deals.

 

we are going to lose 1 player.  Why make deals to lose more than that?? We have a weak D core, no one I’m going to sweat losing. Unless we resign a UFA, we can protect Lekhonan and Evans.  In goal, Allen has been good, but I’m not really going to give up on asset for him.  On the flip side if Seattle really wants Lekhonan, or Evans, and are willing to give us something in return, if listen.  

The main point though, is we are going to lose one player. We aren’t a powerhouse team that has a loaded top nine that we can only protect 7, or a kick-ass top 4 D, and we have to expose 1.  Let’s just lose the single asset and move on.

 

It kind of sounds like you are arguing against what I said, when I completely agree with you that Montreal shouldn't make a trade to influence Seattle's decision on who to take from us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Athletic Support podcast, Arpon Basu and Marc Antoin Godin both said they can't see how Seattle picks anyone but Jake Allen from Montreal. They didn't exactly deep dive into research for who else could be available from other teams, but they agree that Allen will be the best player available on the Habs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

How'd that work out for Columbus?

 

They should have just taken their lumps, lost Korpisalo or Murray and been done with it.  Instead they lost a guy who quickly developped into a two-way top 6 centre. 

 

Nearly every team that made a trade with Vegas of here take this piece to take who we want you to take lost the deal.  Every one. 

 

Just lose your one player (Lehkonen or Evans or Edmundson or Kulak or Allen) and be done with it, and keep the other 4

 

You are only going to lose one player.  No need to keep giving them more and more pieces and draft picks IMO.  Don't repeat the mistakes all the GMs made with Vegas.

Like I said,  do not sell the farm at no cost.    A 2nd pick to pick anyone but Jake Allen...   Instead of losing Jake Allen.

 

IMO,  it's a good move.

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

Like I said,  do not sell the farm at no cost.    A 2nd pick to pick anyone but Jake Allen...   Instead of losing Jake Allen.

 

IMO,  it's a good move.

Give up a pick to keep Allen? Wasnt that the intention of signing him for 2 more years, to simply make him available for Seattle and be a quality back-up for Price in this shortened year?

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

Give up a pick to keep Allen? Wasnt that the intention of signing him for 2 more years, to simply make him available for Seattle and be a quality back-up for Price in this shortened year?

Why not extend that quality backup for one more season into the "Price-Weber" window ???

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

Why not extend that quality backup for one more season into the "Price-Weber" window ???

Because we have only seen him play a couple games as a Hab and likely could use caproom he will take up, to sign UFAs? 

But, i still thought he was signed 'mostly' to make him a target for Seattle? And if not plucked, no big deal, he can be back up next year or be trade bait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trizzak said:

On the Athletic Support podcast, Arpon Basu and Marc Antoin Godin both said they can't see how Seattle picks anyone but Jake Allen from Montreal. They didn't exactly deep dive into research for who else could be available from other teams, but they agree that Allen will be the best player available on the Habs.

Best player available on the Habs ... but the draft is a big jigsaw puzzle for Seattle and they need to figure out the best combination of 30 players. That won’t necessarily be the best player from each team.

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...