Around the NHL

[sweep the leg]

10 minutes ago, Atomic said:

It will be slanted towards protecting existing teams.  As the LeBrun tweet above said, teams will probably lose a 4/5 D or 6/7 F.  That is protecting the existing teams because it sure as hell isn't doing the expansion team any favours.  Imagine picking a team and having to use Mark Stuart on your first line or Burmistrov as your number one center.  Conversely, how much does losing one of those players hurt the Jets?  Not that much.

Why would an expansion team move Stuart to forward?

Based on our roster now, if we could only protect 3 dmen we'd probably lose Enstrom. That's a pretty solid player for them.

[Floyd]

When would this draft take place, couldn't Chevy just announce our Rfa extensions after

if so you can protect almost the whole team

[The Unknown Poster]

The 3 D thing is going to anger teams.  As noted, if the Jets have Toby, Buff, Myers, Trouba in their top four, one of those guys has to be exposed.  And we're lucky that Morrissey will likely be protected as a "2nd Year Player".

I think where Vegas might luck out as far as getting some decent forwards is bad contracts, if that can be called lucking out.  Any teams wanting to rid themselves of a bad deal, even on a decent talent, can expose him.  Especially if they have to expose 25% of their salary.  That might get Toby exposed because not only would the Jets need to leave one of their four D exposed, but they will need to expose some salary.

According to 1290, Daley confirmed that second year players are still second year players until July 1.  So presumably the drafts would be June 2017 thus doing the Jets a big favour.  Ehlers, Morrissey, Copp, Petan, Comrie would all be protected, along with first year guys like Connor, Lemieux.  They'd protect Helle, 3 of their top 4 D and most of their forwards.  Jets might luck out big time.

[Rich]

Early draft projection from Yahoo has us losing Enstrom.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/what-if-the-nhl-expansion-draft-was-held-today-211129955.html

Here would be their projections on what the expansion team would look like:

 

 

[Goalie]

Enstrom has what? 1 or 2 years left after this season? Either or he's exposed for sure. 

Basically agree with ppl saying we will not lose any players that have a long term future with us 

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Enstrom has what? 1 or 2 years left after this season? Either or he's exposed for sure. 

Basically agree with ppl saying we will not lose any players that have a long term future with us 

Then only negative on not protecting Enstrom is that he will, regardless of what people think, have value in a trade.  I believe he has two years left after this season so by the time the draft rolls around, he'd have one year left.  So that makes him attractive too.

But it bring up another point.  Do pending UFA's count as players that can be left unprotected.  We're talking a matter of a couple of weeks before they are UFA's... what if a team only had UFA's unprotected (unlikely I know).  Vegas is unlikely to pick a UFA so it sort of goes against the spirit of the expansion draft, no?  Or am I over-thinking it?

[Rich]

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Then only negative on not protecting Enstrom is that he will, regardless of what people think, have value in a trade.  I believe he has two years left after this season so by the time the draft rolls around, he'd have one year left.  So that makes him attractive too.

But it bring up another point.  Do pending UFA's count as players that can be left unprotected.  We're talking a matter of a couple of weeks before they are UFA's... what if a team only had UFA's unprotected (unlikely I know).  Vegas is unlikely to pick a UFA so it sort of goes against the spirit of the expansion draft, no?  Or am I over-thinking it?

I think it is over thinking it if you look at the flip side of the argument.

You can't expose UFAs so you have to expose players under contract, which means you could theoretically only get to protect a smaller number of players then everyone else.

Given the fact that teams only have one year to plan for this and most NHL contracts (of "desirable" players anyway) are multi year, you let it fall however it falls.  If teams knew 4 - 5 years in advance and could strategically decide how to structure their contracts, it might be a different story.

Enstrom also has a NMC so the issues on how that may or may not affect expansion aside, trading him may not be so easy.  You will have a limited number of teams you can go to, and each of those teams is already stuck with only 3 D-men they can protect.

So what are they going to give up in a trade for someone they may just lose anyway.  Unless you are getting under market value for him and the other team wants him to hedge their bets on exposing some other player.

I'm sure there is going to be a ton of strategizing and manoeuvring that comes out of this.  Going to be very interesting to watch unfold.  Last expansion draft teams also traded draft picks for "futures" where the future was don't draft this player we left unprotected.  Which to an expansion team, building their prospect pool may be more important than grabbing a 3rd liner where they could pick-up the equivalent in free agency.

[Rich]

The NMC / NTC discussion I think will also be very interesting to watch unfold with the PA.

I'm not sure the legalities of how the NMC can be applied to expansion, and the NHL has already said they are negotiating with the PA on how expansion will work, but expansion has to be in the best interest of the PA because it will create more jobs and it will increase the price of free agents as a new team will have a whole bunch of more money to spend.  Both things that are in the PA's interest.

But do they try to balance or fight that with NMC of players already under contract.  A player with a NMC cannot even be placed on waivers.  Could you force them to go to an expansion team? 

[Mr Dee]

As it stands, and if Enstrom has a NMC, then he is ineligible to be left open, is he not? 

But then that would be a detriment to any team that has such players. In the Jets case, we would have to expose another player, one of Trouba, Buffuglien or Myers?

 

*I don't think you can force NMC contracts to be moved.

**Perhaps, they can be exempt..

Edited March 17, 2016 by Mr Dee

[The Unknown Poster]

Perhaps we can retroactively add NMC to our key players.... lol  They will be resigning Trouba, throw in a NMC and then he doesnt need to be protected.  I believe Buff has a NMC for the first three years of his deal.  Doesnt have to be protected.

I bet they get the PA to relent on NMC and they are included as eligible players.  Any team looking to re-sign a guy this season can add a "one year" NMC and then not have to protect him.  We could do that with Scheif, Trouba, Hutch, Lowry... seems unfair.

[sweep the leg]

8 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

I bet they get the PA to relent on NMC and they are included as eligible players.  Any team looking to re-sign a guy this season can add a "one year" NMC and then not have to protect him.  We could do that with Scheif, Trouba, Hutch, Lowry... seems unfair.

This will never be a thing.  It's much more likely that either teams are forced to protect guys with NMCs, or they'll rule it doesn't apply to expansion drafts. IMO there's a 0% chance these guys will just be exempted from the draft.

[Mr Dee]

If NMC clauses are to be treated differently, and they probably will be..due to legalities, then it would seem to punish those teams that figured their rosters with only the NMC clauses in mind, not because they would be locked in to protecting them if expansion talk backed them into a corner. 

[The Unknown Poster]

13 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

This will never be a thing.  It's much more likely that either teams are forced to protect guys with NMCs, or they'll rule it doesn't apply to expansion drafts. IMO there's a 0% chance these guys will just be exempted from the draft.

Exactly.  I would think the NHL would have it built into contracts that they can over-ride the NMC clause.  What if a player had a NMC on the Thrashers?  He could opt to be a free agent?  Stay in Atlanta and get paid to not play?  That might sound silly and its different but again, it comes down to the strength of a NMC to take precedent over NHL business and interests.

I think NMC wont be a factor and those players will have to be protected or risk being selected by Vegas.  And if they ARE legally binding and dont have to be protected, then absolutely the Jets should add NMC to all their pending free agents this summer.

[sweep the leg]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Exactly.  I would think the NHL would have it built into contracts that they can over-ride the NMC clause.  What if a player had a NMC on the Thrashers?  He could opt to be a free agent?  Stay in Atlanta and get paid to not play?  That might sound silly and its different but again, it comes down to the strength of a NMC to take precedent over NHL business and interests.

The NMC is with the franchise, not the city.

 

[Rich]

I believe this is the text from the current CBA:

Quote

(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.

I'm not a lawyer, but unless you can interpret an expansion draft as a trade, loan, or waiver claim, I would think NMC don't apply to an expansion draft.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Rich said:

I believe this is the text from the current CBA:

I'm not a lawyer, but unless you can interpret an expansion draft as a trade, loan, or waiver claim, I would think NMC don't apply to an expansion draft.

 

Agreed.  As it should be.  The NHL's collective business like an expansion should over-ride individual contract clauses.

[Mr Dee]

13 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Agreed.  As it should be.  The NHL's collective business like an expansion should over-ride individual contract clauses.

We'll see if the NHLPA agrees with that stance. I personally dislike the extended contracts and NM clauses that have found their way into negotiations, but they're there, and will have to be 'negotiated' in this case, IMO.

[Ducky]

So, if we have to protect NMC and NTC clauses, we will have Buff, Enstrom, and Stu with NTC and NMC clauses. What do we do then?

Do we leave Trouba and Myers unprotected?

When I have more time today I am going to figure out who is left unprotected and if it is 25% of the team's salary.

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, Ducky said:

So, if we have to protect NMC and NTC clauses, we will have Buff, Enstrom, and Stu with NTC and NMC clauses. What do we do then?

Do we leave Trouba and Myers unprotected?

When I have more time today I am going to figure out who is left unprotected and if it is 25% of the team's salary.

I would suggest you do *not* have to protect them.  You will be able to choose to protect them or not.  They will be eligible like any other player.

If NMC players were not eligible, then you really wouldnt have to protect them because Vegas wouldnt be allowed to select them.

If Enstrom, Trouba, Myers, Buff, we can only protect 3.  One of them will be exposed.

[Ducky]

We'll see what the PA has to say about those clauses......this is far from finished.

Trade Myers or Enstrom before the draft. Trade them for players we don't have to protect.

 

 

[Rich]

11 minutes ago, Ducky said:

We'll see what the PA has to say about those clauses......this is far from finished.

Trade Myers or Enstrom before the draft. Trade them for players we don't have to protect.

 

 

Or wait for clarification from the NHL.

You do see the problem with moving players with no movement clauses?

[Ducky]

Clarification or not.

Why lose a player to draft if we can get anything for him?

[The Unknown Poster]

7 minutes ago, Ducky said:

Clarification or not.

Why lose a player to draft if we can get anything for him?

Depends on value.  If you can trade Enstrom before the draft and get back young players/picks/prospects, that sounds like a good deal.  You still can only protect 3 D.  But yes, you would have got something for Toby rather then lose him for nothing.  The team you're trading with must want him and be able to protect him.  It must also be a city Toby wants to go to. 

Keep in mind, at this point speculation is you have to expose 25% of your team payroll.  So if you protect everyone you want to but the exposed players dont amount to 25%, then you need to expose someone you'd otherwise want to protect.  You might need a pricy player to expose. 

Generally, you're right.  If you're going to lose a top 4 D man for nothing, try to trade him for players you wont lose (1st/2nd year players or pics).  But its easier said than done.  Tony has to consent to be traded, consent to where he's going and find a trading partner that has something to give back and room to protect him.

[Ducky]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Depends on value.  If you can trade Enstrom before the draft and get back young players/picks/prospects, that sounds like a good deal.  You still can only protect 3 D.  But yes, you would have got something for Toby rather then lose him for nothing.  The team you're trading with must want him and be able to protect him.  It must also be a city Toby wants to go to. 

Keep in mind, at this point speculation is you have to expose 25% of your team payroll.  So if you protect everyone you want to but the exposed players dont amount to 25%, then you need to expose someone you'd otherwise want to protect.  You might need a pricy player to expose. 

Generally, you're right.  If you're going to lose a top 4 D man for nothing, try to trade him for players you wont lose (1st/2nd year players or pics).  But its easier said than done.  Tony has to consent to be traded, consent to where he's going and find a trading partner that has something to give back and room to protect him.

So, he either gets traded or picked by Vegas in the draft....which do you think he takes?

[Jimmy Pop]

Agree that how they handle NMC should be very interesting and impact the Jets a lot. There's Toby to consider...and Meyers, too. He's got a clause that kicks in next season. 

Quote

The no-trade clause in the seven-year deal Myers signed with the Sabres in 2012 doesn’t kick in until 2016-17.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/move-to-jets-has-helped-tyler-myers-rejuvenate-a-career-that-was-stagnating-in-buffalo/

Edited March 17, 2016 by Jimmy Pop
link