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

2017 Expansion Draft

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

. . .

 

Why would a team, knowing they are giving up a player they want to Vegas anyway, trade one they are afraid of losing and risk losing two guys?  This never made sense to me.  So, no real surprise to me things were slow.

 

. . .

 

You're right, it would take a special situation, but here's one example where it might make sense.  Say the ex-draft had been next year instead of this one.  Going 7/3, we could only protect 3 of Pesce, Slavin, Hanifin, and Faulk but after those 4, who cares?  I'm guessing the expansion team would require a high enough premium to pass on the one we'd have to leave unprotected that it might make more sense to trade one for assets that weren't at jeopardy in the ex-draft and then fill in the missing spot after the ex-draft was done.

 

Of course, there's lots of other variables in play, such as what forwards RF adds this summer (hopefully enough and at a level that it wouldn't be an easy decision to just to go with the "8 skaters" option instead of 7/3), how Fleury/ McKeown/ and perhaps even Bean had progressed over the next year, etc.  But you get the picture.

 

Seems like maybe only TB fit that special situation this year.  I'm guessing that in addition to $ issues the fact that Sergachev is exempt also played a role in the Drouin trade.

 

All of which reminds me how lucky we are that the ex-draft came this year instead of next!   . 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Why would a team, knowing they are giving up a player they want to Vegas anyway, trade one they are afraid of losing and risk losing two guys?

This one sentence perfectly captures why nothing much has happened. Nothing big was ever going to happen today. It was strictly about turning in the protected lists, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OBXer said:

 

Not entirely true. Lake posted this in another thread

 

 

The expansion draft is a little confusing with all the little side maneuvers and deals being discussed.

 

I get you don't like Chip but from my perspective he does a pretty good job keeping Canes news in the forefront without much editorializing. Call me old school but in a world with so much editorializing I like to have at least one old school reporter on the Canes beat.

They are not eligible at all, because they have not met the threshold for professional games. Period. Under the rules, to be selected in the ExDraft players must have at least three years (minimum ten games per year) on their NHL contract. Neither PDG nor McGinn do. Their RFA status is moot because they don't meet this eligibility threshold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

They are not eligible at all, because they have not met the threshold for professional games.

 

They aren't eligible to be a player that can be exposed to meet the minimum requirements. It doesn't mean Vegas can't sign an RFA or pick players like McGinn and DiGi from the way I understand it. Neither Gonner or DiGi meet the exemption status so while they can't satisfy the number of forwards we must expose that meet the criteria ie: Nordy and Stemper there is nothing to prevent Vegas from signing or picking them.

 

If I got the nuance wrong I will be the first to admit it but ask yourself why do they continue to be talked about in this light by various reporters and bloggers. Do we all have it wrong?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

That's wrong.  CapFriendly specifically lists players exempt from the expansion draft and neither McGinn nor PDG fit the bill.

 

From the official NHL CBA: [under the Free Agent section]

For the purposes of the foregoing, the term "professional season" shall:
(A) for a Player aged 18 or 19, mean any season in which such Player plays in eleven (11) or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC), and (B) for a Player aged 20 or older, mean any season in which such Player plays in one or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC).

 

And players on a two-way NHL contract are under an NHL Standard Player's Contract (SPC) regardless of whether they're playing in the NHL or AHL.  Note that there are players that are directly under contract with AHL teams instead of with that teams NHL affiliate.  I know the Chex have signed a couple within the past couple of years.

 

I think where you're getting crossed up is that the compensation part of the CBA specifies "10 NHL games" for players on an ELC, whereas the criteria for free agency and the expansion draft refers to "professional season", which includes games in the AHL and European Pro leagues if a player is under an NHL teams SPC at the time.  And there's even an age breakdown under the "professional season" definition, with 18-19 yo players needing 11 games for it to count as a season while players older than that need play in just 1 professional game for it to count as a season.

I think you are right on the technical piece regarding what constitutes professional eligibility. However, I don't think you realize that all three are still on their ELCs, so the "10 NHL games" piece applies to all three. PDG was signed to his ELC in 2014, McG and Carrick in 2013 with an ELC slide in year one. Therefore, none of them can be drafted.

 

Now, per the link I posted, Vegas has 72-hours, beginning tomorrow (Sunday) at 10 a.m., to SIGN pending unrestricted and restricted free agents. While it's possible that they could go hard for any of these three, I have to think their priorities will be "name" FAs, since they must SIGN them by Wednesday 10 a.m. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


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

 

They aren't eligible to be a player that can be exposed to meet the minimum requirements. It doesn't mean Vegas can't sign an RFA or pick players like McGinn and DiGi from the way I understand it. Neither Gonner or DiGi meet the exemption status so while they can't satisfy the number of forwards we must expose that meet the criteria ie: Nordy and Stemper there is nothing to prevent Vegas from signing or picking them.

 

If I got the nuance wrong I will be the first to admit it but ask yourself why do they continue to be talked about in this light by various reporters and bloggers. Do we all have it wrong?

Probably because the reporters and bloggers are as confused as the rest of us!

 

But see my reply to Lake just above: All three of PDG, McG and Carrick are still on ELCs, so they do meet the exemption status from being picked, even if RF would have signed them. Instead, it seems he did the ExDraft equivalent of a "pocket veto," leaving them uncontracted as RFAs, and knowing Vegas could talk to them and try to sign them by Wednesday 10 a.m., but figuring McPhee will be out for bigger fish--and that when they are not approached, it strengthens Ronnie's bargaining position for their new deals with us.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

I think you are right on the technical piece regarding what constitutes professional eligibility. However, per the link I posted, Vegas will have 72-hours, beginning tomorrow (Sunday) at 10 a.m., to SIGN pending unrestricted and restricted free agents. 

 

True, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply if a team has used one of their protection slots on the pending free agent.  Think about it. As an example, the Oil haven't signed Leon Draisaitl yet.  If they've got him on their protected list (I'll wager they do), do you really think Vegas has the right to exclusively negotiate with and sign him during that 72 hour grace period?  I'm not 100% positive, but I seem to recall that teams can even protect UFAs, which would make sense in a case such as if the Canes hadn't already signed Darling but were still negotiating a contract with him.      

 

4 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Probably because the reporters and bloggers are as confused as the rest of us!

 

But see my reply to Lake just above: All three of PDG, McG and Carrick are still on ELCs, so in that sense they are not eligible, even if RF would have signed them. Instead, it seems he did the ExDraft equivalent of a "pocket veto," and left their contracts open knowing Vegas could talk to them and try to sign them by Wednesday 10 a.m., but figuring McPhee will be out for bigger fish.

 

Top, I can understand that you don't trust my interpretation of the rules and regs.  But the CapFriendly site is very sophisticated regarding NHL details and technicalities.  They specifically list which young players are automatically exempt, and McGinn and PDG don't make that list.  And I've never seen anything that ties ELCs into the expansion draft equation. 

Share this post


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

Now, per the link I posted, Vegas has 72-hours, beginning tomorrow (Sunday) at 10 a.m., to SIGN pending unrestricted and restricted free agents.

 

We reached an agreement on this. That is absolutely true. From what I read if they (Vegas) were to sign one of our RFA that would then count as the player picked from us and they couldn't pick another.  Like you I doubt Vegas will focus on either of these players but until they start making picks and deals we really can't be sure what kind of team they want to put on the ice this season.  From previous statements it sounded like they want to be immediately competitive so that would lean me in the direction of proven vets.

 

I really hope RF can make a side deal with one of our draft picks so they take Lack.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL..Make me a deal I can't refuse

 

Quote

 

From the Golden Knights:

“The Golden Knights organization is very pleased with how the expansion draft process has gone so far, through the NHL trade freeze which took effect Saturday, June 17 at 12 noon PT. Now, General Manager George McPhee and his staff will continue to have discussions with the other 30 NHL clubs. Vegas has indicated that they will give all 30 clubs every opportunity to keep their rosters intact if they’d like. This means that before the Golden Knights claim a player off a team’s unprotected list, McPhee and his staff are willing to negotiate deals so the other clubs do not lose a player they would otherwise like to keep.”

 

 

Teams can still resume making trades with Vegas — and only Vegas — beginning tomorrow morning and through Wednesday, when the expansion draft takes place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've made statements like this early in the process, and have always made it clear they are willing to be an auction house.  Nothing has changed.

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


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

LOL..Make me a deal I can't refuse

 

I never really thought about that part literally. One by one telling each team who you plan on taking and then asking "what will you give me to not take him?"

Share this post


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

 

We reached an agreement on this. That is absolutely true. From what I read if they (Vegas) were to sign one of our RFA that would then count as the player picked from us and they couldn't pick another.  Like you I doubt Vegas will focus on either of these players but until they start making picks and deals we really can't be sure what kind of team they want to put on the ice this season.  From previous statements it sounded like they want to be immediately competitive so that would lean me in the direction of proven vets.

 

I really hope RF can make a side deal with one of our draft picks so they take Lack.

 

At this point the only way I see McGinn or PDF ending up in Vegas is if we include one or the other as part of a deal to take Lack. 

 

First off, I did find some confirmation that Vegas' 72 hour negotiating window does not pertain to pending free agents that have been protected by their teams. 

http://www.espn.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/43125/rumblings-las-vegas-will-get-a-head-start-on-free-agency

"Sources told ESPN.com that as part of these fascinating expansion-draft rules we keep learning about, the Vegas organization will have a 48-hour window ahead of the expansion draft in June to speak with and sign any pending unrestricted or restricted free agents whom the 30 teams left unprotected for the expansion draft."

 

"And the same goes for RFAs, who obviously are younger. Any RFAs left unprotected for the expansion draft can become property of the Vegas franchise if they agree to terms on a new contract within that 48-hour window. "

[the article came out before they extended Vegas' window from 48 to 72 hours]

 

Given that we now have to expose Stemp and Nordy, there's no reason not to use our 2 "open" protection slots on McGinn and PDG.  Other options start with McClement and Nesty and from there go to players like Andrew Miller, Connor Brickley, and Brendan Woods, lol.  I'll be gobsmacked if both McGinn and PDG don't show up on our protection list tomorrow morning. 

 

And I'm 100% with you in hoping that we reach an equitable agreement whereby Vegas takes Lack.  Otherwise I see us losing Stemp (maybe Nordy) and either having to buy out Lack's contract or eating part of his salary in a trade for a bag of pucks and a used ice scraper.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


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

Think about it. As an example, the Oil haven't signed Leon Draisaitl yet.  If they've got him on their protected list (I'll wager they do),

They can't have him on their protected list if he is not yet signed; protected players must be under contract, to my knowledge, just as exposed players must be. Unless the Oil signed him prior to submitting their protected list, he can't be on it, and the rules governing RFAs would apply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, top-shelf-1 said:

They can't have him on their protected list if he is not yet signed; protected players must be under contract, to my knowledge, just as exposed players must be. Unless the Oil signed him prior to submitting their protected list, he can't be on it, and the rules governing RFAs would apply. 

 

Ok top, I give up, whatever you say . . .

Share this post


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

 

Ok top, I give up, whatever you say . . .

It's not about being right, Lake, it's about figuring it out based on the (extremely vague) ExDraft rules. Just because CapFriendly doesn't list somebody doesn't mean CapFriendly understands the rules any better than everyone else trying to figure this out. If you can show me where the rules state that teams can protect unsigned pending UFAs, I'll readily accept it. But teams have been locking guys down (or releasing them) all week, so doesn't it follow that if teams could protect their unsigned guys, there would be no need for the 72-hour provision which allows Vegas to try to sign them?

 

You obviously read it differently, and that's fine. Methinks nobody's going to know what happened and why until after this show is over.

 

EDIT: It seems to me the key question around PDG and McG is this: Must unprotected RFAs meet the same requirements of professional experience that apply to those eligible for the ExDraft? In other words, might it be that PDG and McGinn, since they are on ELCs, would only be available for Vegas to pursue if they've played at least 10 NHL games in their first season, in addition to their games in these prior two?

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

It's not about being right, Lake, it's about figuring it out based on the (extremely vague) ExDraft rules. Just because CapFriendly doesn't list somebody doesn't mean CapFriendly understands the rules any better than everyone else trying to figure this out. If you can show me where the rules state that teams can protect unsigned pending UFAs, I'll readily accept it. But teams have been locking guys down (or releasing them) all week, so doesn't it follow that if teams could protect their unsigned guys, there would be no need for the 72-hour provision which allows Vegas to try to sign them?

 

You obviously read it differently, and that's fine. Methinks nobody's going to know what happened and why until after this show is over.

 

Which is why I've spent time actually researching the issues and trying to clearly lay them out.  Just out of curiosity, did you read my post about being able to protect pending free agents right before your post stating that they couldn't be protected? And I say "pending free agents" because these are not unsigned players.  They are currently under contract to their respective NHL teams. 

 

Read a couple articles and you'll see that a big part of the reason the NHL even gave Vegas an exclusive negotiating period was because otherwise, teams could leave pending free agents off of their protection lists and free up protection slots because it wouldn't make sense for Vegas to take a chance on wasting an ex-draft pick by choosing a player they didn't know they could sign.

 

Hey, I've already spent way too much time on this.  We'll see tomorrow if Draisaitl is on Edmonton's protection list or not.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot's to talk about when the LIST comes out.  I'm kind of ready to move on from this.

 

Mostly, looking forward to updates after the list comes out, I'm headed out for a week to bother (band) Canada geese and will only have a few chances to check in.

 

Go Canes.

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side deals I wouldn't mind with LV:

 

A Nashville forward, Wilson or Neal, to play on Staal's left side.

 

we know Minnesota will have a great forward available but LV will more than likely take Zucker.  He is a LV native who they will keep.

 

we'll see soon if Jets, Columbus, and Anaheim went 8 or 7-3.  Could be a pretty good forward from either available or a really good defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

Lot's to talk about when the LIST comes out.  I'm kind of ready to move on from this.

 

Mostly, looking forward to updates after the list comes out, I'm headed out for a week to bother (band) Canada geese and will only have a few chances to check in.

 

Go Canes.

 

Only the Canadian geese?  That's profiling.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks there could still be a deal made, just have to go through LV to do it.  I guess we should have seen this coming.  I expect LV to end up with a bunch of picks by the time this thing is done.  Wouldn't you rather give up a 1st rounder than lose a good player that you'd have to replace by hoping that first rounder would be comparable maybe 3 years down the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

Lot's to talk about when the LIST comes out.  I'm kind of ready to move on from this.

 

Mostly, looking forward to updates after the list comes out, I'm headed out for a week to bother (band) Canada geese and will only have a few chances to check in.

 

Go Canes.

I'm with you here, coastal re "ready to move on". Don't know if I'm progressing into realm of dementia, but I have been unable to follow these innuendos that have been vigorously debated, but possibly they become apparent as these next few days unfold. At any rate, I for one was massively disappointed with how yesterday unfolded.   

Share this post


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

Looks there could still be a deal made, just have to go through LV to do it.  I guess we should have seen this coming.  I expect LV to end up with a bunch of picks by the time this thing is done.  Wouldn't you rather give up a 1st rounder than lose a good player that you'd have to replace by hoping that first rounder would be comparable maybe 3 years down the line?

And you're right on this, sd. Guess this should have been apparent, but my gosh, wouldn't it be something to see LV picking 50% of the 1st round? Does anyone EVER recall this happening? BTW, as things are unfolding, how does that impact how one sees our path in this bizarre period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Probably because the reporters and bloggers are as confused as the rest of us!

 

But see my reply to Lake just above: All three of PDG, McG and Carrick are still on ELCs, so they do meet the exemption status from being picked, even if RF would have signed them. Instead, it seems he did the ExDraft equivalent of a "pocket veto," leaving them uncontracted as RFAs, and knowing Vegas could talk to them and try to sign them by Wednesday 10 a.m., but figuring McPhee will be out for bigger fish--and that when they are not approached, it strengthens Ronnie's bargaining position for their new deals with us.

 

Canes protected McGinn, PDG, Carrick, Murphy plus the obvious guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

. . .

I'm headed out for a week to bother (band) Canada geese and will only have a few chances to check in.

 

Go Canes.

 

2 hours ago, super_dave_1 said:

 

Only the Canadian geese?  That's profiling.

 

Maybe we need to build a wall on the Canadian border, as well?

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...