Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

Off-Season Talk 2017

Recommended Posts

Part of me feels management should not allow it's players to play in this tournament due to what we have seen happen in the past to our forwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The expansion draft will be here soon. This is a place to talk about the expansion draft. We have other topics to cover  the reg draft and off-season stuff.

Rules

Quote

 

The 30 NHL Clubs must submit their Protection List by 5:00 P.M. ET on Saturday, June 17, 2017. The Las Vegas team must submit their Expansion Draft Selections by 5:00 P.M. ET on June 20 and the announcement of their selections will be released on made on June 21

* Clubs will have two options for players they wish to protect in the Expansion Draft: 

a ) Seven forwards, three defensemen and one goaltender

b ) Eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goaltender

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I understand the Olympics, its the best of the best and I understand the players wanting to be there.

 

And it's only every 4 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Clearly some chemistry existing between Rask/Lindholm/Landeskog. I have to think this puts this guy back up high on RF's radar. All "Swede" Line? 

Does this count as Ronnie's big move if he pulls it off, and Rask once again becomes the 1C of the now/future? or Does a move like this happen, 

and we still pursue more (1C)?

 

I have to admit I was high on Duchene throughout the entire rumor mill process, but still no points in this tournament albeit only 2 games. The more 

I look though, Landeskog seeming more like a better fit. Not only because of his performance thus far in the IIHF, but for size and leadership. Look

around the playoffs at teams and players that are having most of the success. To me, and this could just be a misconception, but the "speedy" , "skill",

"snipers" aren't really the ones getting it done. Playoff hockey is a different animal. It's the guys willing to use their size and make room for themselves that are having success.

Also, to me, Colorado named this guy Captain in the beginning for a reason. He must have some form of leadership qualities hiding around somewhere in there.

 

Edited by sleekfeeder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not completely clear on the rules but why let that stop me

 

What I think I know

We will protect Darling and RF said no more goalie moves until after the expansion draft leaving both Ward and Lack unprotected

Dahlbeck is likely the unprotected D-man

From what I read any of Stemper,Nordy,Ginner or Digi could be unprotected (dealers choice B))

 

What I do know

All scenarios can change depending on signing or trades before the protected list is released.

We will only lose one player

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sleekfeeder said:

 

Clearly some chemistry existing between Rask/Lindholm/Landeskog. I have to think this puts this guy back up high on RF's radar. All "Swede" Line? 

Does this count as Ronnie's big move if he pulls it off, and Rask once again becomes the 1C of the now/future? or Does a move like this happen, 

and we still pursue more (1C)?

 

I have to admit I was high on Duchene throughout the entire rumor mill process, but still no points in this tournament albeit only 2 games. The more 

I look though, Landeskog seeming more like a better fit. Not only because of his performance thus far in the IIHF, but for size and leadership. Look

around the playoffs at teams and players that are having most of the success. To me, and this could just be a misconception, but the "speedy" , "skill",

"snipers" aren't really the ones getting it done. Playoff hockey is a different animal. It's the guys willing to use their size and make room for themselves that are having success.

Also, to me, Colorado named this guy Captain in the beginning for a reason. He must have some form of leadership qualities hiding around somewhere in there.

 

 

I have been one that believes that are need is a true top center but if we did manage to obtain Landeskog instead of a center I wouldn't cry about it.

Share this post


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

From what I read any of Stemper,Nordy,Ginner or Digi could be unprotected (dealers choice B))

 

Right now, we have to expose Stemper and Nordy as they are the only two guys (of your list) that meet the number of games played and under contract for next year. McGinn and PDG are RFAs and would need to be signed before meeting that exposure requirement for two forwards. Now, if we don't protect McGinn or PDG, they can still be taken regardless of contract status, but Stemp and Nordy will be our exposed forwards barring a new contract for someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, OBXer said:

The expansion draft will be here soon. This is a place to talk about the expansion draft. We have other topics to cover  the reg draft and off-season stuff.

Rules

 

That's the half that covers the protection rules.  The other half addresses exposure requirements, which seems like the bigger issue from the Canes perspective:

 

* All Clubs must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the Expansion Draft:

 

i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and b ) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.

 

ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and b ) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.

 

iii) One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18. If the club elects to make a restricted free agent goaltender available in order to meet this requirement, that goaltender must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the club's protected list.

 

Note that we need to re-sign McGinn and DiGi before they qualify for the exposure requirement.  Same with TT and Nesty, although from a practical

perspective they're not as relevant. 

 

edit: oops, Min got in before me as I was typing.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there were rules that excluded us having to protect Hanifin, Pesce and Slavin, what are those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right about Digi and Ginner. I don't think we actually have to sign them but I do think we have to make them a qualifying offer. Either way at this point it is Nordy and Stemper that look to be odd man (men) out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hag65 said:

I thought there were rules that excluded us having to protect Hanifin, Pesce and Slavin, what are those?

 

* All players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

* All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

 

* All players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

* All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OBXer said:

Your right about Digi and Ginner. I don't think we actually have to sign them but I do think we have to make them a qualifying offer. Either way at this point it is Nordy and Stemper that look to be odd man (men) out

Skaters have to actually be under contract for '17-18.  You can expose an RFA goalie who isn't under contract but who's been given a qualifying offer (not sure why the difference).

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the 40/70 rule

have played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.

 

I think that applies to Murphy who doesn't meet the criteria to count toward the minimum exposed player rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other question, are there any rules.ways that Vegas can cherry pick any non current NHLers, such as players stashed in any of the minor leagues?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hag65 said:

One other question, are there any rules.ways that Vegas can cherry pick any non current NHLers, such as players stashed in any of the minor leagues?  

 

I think just the "first- and second-year professional" exemption, or if a team used one of their exemption slots on a minor leaguer.  Pretty sure players like Ryan Murphy, Trevor Carrick, Brendan Woods, etc. are fair game for Vegas if they wanted one of them.  Unfortunately, players like that don't meet the requirement for what we have to expose.

 

 

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LakeLivin said:

 

I think just the "first- and second-year professional" exemption.  Pretty sure players like Trevor Carrick and Brendan Woods are fair game for Vegas if they wanted one of them. 

 

Thanks again.  Depending on how good a job Vegas does on this, it could be very interesting who they go after across all of the NHL clubs.  It is quite a daunting task to have scouted all of the possible players you could take from every franchise, including possible gems they have in the minors.

 

It's already been said but I think Ronnie did a great job holding off a bit on some moves to make sure we are minimally exposed, if that was indeed what he was up to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

 

I think just the "first- and second-year professional" exemption.  Pretty sure players like Trevor Carrick and Brendan Woods are fair game for Vegas if they wanted one of them. 

 

I think your right. Not much has been written about the AHL implications except I read Vegas will need to sign a total of 40 players so I expect the difference will come from AHL free agents. I also haven't seen if Vegas intends to have it's own AHL affiliate or share with another team next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting question: would you rather expose Stempniak or re-sign one of McGinn or DiGi and expose them? 

Nordstrom vs. McGinn or Digi?.

 

Even though Stempniak could be viewed as much more of a short term asset, I really want to see him back next season as I see it as being particularly important for the Canes as an organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

Here's an interesting question: would you rather expose Stempniak or re-sign one of McGinn or DiGi and expose them? 

Nordstrom vs. McGinn or Digi?.

 

Even though Stempniak could be viewed as much more of a short term asset, I really want to see him back next season as I see it as being particularly important for the Canes as an organization.

 

I can't make up my mind :facepalm2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this true? (I'm looking at you Lake)

 

Quote

Vegas will be granted a 48-hour window prior to the draft to sign any pending free agent (RFA or UFA, one per team) that was left unprotected. If a team loses a player to Vegas during this signing window they will not have a player selected from their roster during this draft

 

If it is true we could lose McGinn or DiGi anyway unless we sign them to protect them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, OBXer said:

Is this true? (I'm looking at you Lake)

"Vegas will be granted a 48-hour window prior to the draft to sign any pending free agent (RFA or UFA, one per team) that was left unprotected. If a team loses a player to Vegas during this signing window they will not have a player selected from their roster during this draft "

 

If it is true we could lose McGinn or DiGi anyway unless we sign them to protect them

 

Yes.

Edited by LakeLivin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, OBXer said:

Your right about Digi and Ginner. I don't think we actually have to sign them but I do think we have to make them a qualifying offer. Either way at this point it is Nordy and Stemper that look to be odd man (men) out

 

I don't think the qualifying offer is enough for non-goalies. That is why we had to sign Dahlbeck for exposure. He too, was an RFA, but we signed him for the next year to meet the exposure requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...