Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

2017 Expansion Draft

Recommended Posts

A nice read from Luke  on the  Hurricanes expansion draft scenarios

 

Hurricanes’ expansion drama

Quote

 

The real intrigue is less about who’s going than who’s coming, because Francis and the Hurricanes have to find a way to take advantage of these unusual circumstances.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me a side deal with Vegas is a real possibility. With Francis and McPhee  already talking and more talks in the near future I expect we will make a deal. Of course there are lots of other teams also looking to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke confirms the org's thinking, which most of us recognized last summer: It would have been foolish then for RF to do any more than he did, given the opportunities the ExDraft presents. He was far smarter to hold out for the info we're about to get (thanks to seeing other teams' protect lists) than it was to risk overpaying and overcommitting to any player last summer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It appears to me a side deal with Vegas is a real possibility. With Francis and McPhee  already talking and more talks in the near future I expect we will make a deal. Of course there are lots of other teams also looking to do the same.

Just so as not to disappoint SD, could they be talking trade up? Never know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading it as Luke is saying RF may give up a pick or asset to make sure LV takes Lack.  That seems a little cheap to me when they could buy him out or stick him in Charlotte. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

I'm reading it as Luke is saying RF may give up a pick or asset to make sure LV takes Lack.  That seems a little cheap to me when they could buy him out or stick him in Charlotte. 

 

I'm not sure I know what you mean by a little cheap. 

 

I think the advantage is that if you buy him out your stuck with the payoff for the next 2 seasons(?) If you put him on waivers to play in Charlotte you could lose him for nothing.

 

I think the big plus for us is by making a deal for Vegas to take Lack we get to keep Stemper and/or Nordy in exchange for a pick or prospect we don't intend to use.

I could be evaluating this wrong but seems worth the price to me to keep a player you want and dump a player/salary you don't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

I'm reading it as Luke is saying RF may give up a pick or asset to make sure LV takes Lack.  That seems a little cheap to me when they could buy him out or stick him in Charlotte. 

yeah, probably right. The other advantage of them taking Lack is them not taking one of our forwards...oh OBXer beat me to it.

 

3 minutes ago, OBXer said:

 

I'm not sure I know what you mean by a little cheap. 

 

I think the advantage is that if you buy him out your stuck with the payoff for the next 2 seasons(?) If you put him on waivers to play in Charlotte you could lose him for nothing.

 

I think the big plus for us is by making a deal for Vegas to take Lack we get to keep Stemper and/or Nordy in exchange for a pick or prospect we don't intend to use.

I could be evaluating this wrong but seems worth the price to me to keep a player you want and dump a player/salary you don't.

 

Oh you beat me to the back half of that....but yes I agree we really don't want to lose Stemper and after Nordy's performance in the World tourney, he really is a valuable 4th line piece. If I'm Vegas I take one of our forwards, but if I'm us, I don't want them to go.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


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

 

I'm not sure I know what you mean by a little cheap. 

 

I think the advantage is that if you buy him out your stuck with the payoff for the next 2 seasons(?) If you put him on waivers to play in Charlotte you could lose him for nothing.

 

I think the big plus for us is by making a deal for Vegas to take Lack we get to keep Stemper and/or Nordy in exchange for a pick or prospect we don't intend to use.

I could be evaluating this wrong but seems worth the price to me to keep a player you want and dump a player/salary you don't.

 

Right now I see us with 5 available forward expansion "protection slots" as being locked up (Skinner, Staal, Lindy, Rask, TT).

 

If RF can leverage our "available" protection spots to get us at least one more forward who will be a clear starter for the Canes next season, a deal with Vegas to take Lack makes the most sense to me, as long as Vegas doesn't ask for too high a premium in return.

 

If that doesn't work out, I'd hope that RF could get something back in a trade for Lack, even if it's not too much more than a bag of pucks and we have to retain a bit of salary.  I'd rather we re-sign both PDG and McGinn to meet our exposure requirements than lose one of Stempniak or Nordstrom, especially Stempniak.  Stempniak seems like he's probably at or above the level of what we might expect to leverage out of another team's exposure problems.  I've gotta believe he provides veteran leadership, he's already fully integrated into the team, and even if we only have him for 1 more year, next year seems critical to the organization to me.  His production is what we're trying to get more of, not lose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Law-Dawg said:

This is interesting...we'd have to re-sign DiGuissepi or McGinn before expansion if we wanted to expose them. Players certainly hold the Aces there as if they don't want to be exposed, they just sit on the offer. 

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article152375787.html

 

Yeah, if that became obvious, I'm sure that would not go over well with GMRF. They might find themselves on the next trade out of town after signing...to Winnipeg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess bribing Vegas to take Lack could make sense if other pieces were added which exposed somebody else.  If I'm Vegas though, I'm really looking at taking the best players and I'd really need to be paid to take Lack.  There are going to be better goalies available

 

By cheap, I meant JRs old method of throwing in a pick to get somebody else to take your financial hit.  If it's just to get rid of Lack, there is only one year left on his deal.  The only way I see Lack having trade value is sticking him in Charlotte and wait for a goalie injury somewhere.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

I don't see how any RFAs are holding any aces here.  All RF has to do is qualify them

 

That's just for goalies.  Skaters have to actually by under contract for next season to qualify for the exposure requirement.  Still don't know why there's a difference.  :huh:

 

Regardless, I don't see "mid tier" (maybe being generous?) RFAs as having much power.   I've got to believe their big negotiating issue will be one way contracts rather than whether they might be exposed in the ExDraft.

 

edit: and neither McGinn nor PDG are arbitration eligible for another year.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


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

He can also be bought out for $1 meeeeeeellion dollars.

 

That's $1m for each of the next 2 years, would save the Canes $1m off of his $3m contract for next season.

Share this post


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

 

That's $1m for each of the next 2 years, would save the Canes $1m off of his $3m contract for next season.

OK, saves one meeeeellion dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above got me to thinking: say RF does pick up 2 more legitimate top 9 or better forwards.  Would you offer McGinn and/ or PDG one way contracts, or insist on 2-way if they want to remain CAnes? 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious to see how Francis handles and manipulates this expansion situation, but oddly tired of trying to figure the dang thing out.

Share this post


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

 

That's just for goalies.  Skaters have to actually by under contract for next season to qualify for the exposure requirement.  Still don't know why there's a difference.  :huh:

 

Source?  

 

Extending a qualifying offer prior to the deadline to submit a protected list should satisfy this.  I can't find the exact language

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


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

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592

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.

 

But doesn't a qualifying offer equal "under contract"?  I seem to remember conversation about Dahlbeck and a qualifying offer to satisfy that requirement.

 

Either way, I don't see the RFAs as having hand.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

 

But doesn't a qualifying offer equal "under contract"?  

I don't think so.  Look at the wording for goalies:

 

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.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason that is mentioned specifically with goalies is because they don't have to meet the games played requirement.  They only have to be under contract or RFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen, skaters have to be under contract to be exposed.  Las Vegas may select a non protected RFA in lieu of a contract player.

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...