Expansion Protected/Exposed Players

[RP-29]

Protected Lists
* 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

* 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).


Player Exposure Requirements
* 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.

* Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a club's player exposure requirements, unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection by the League.



Those are the rules as of the official expansion announcement.

• Can you think of any roster/payroll anomalies that could cause the league to add or amend the rules?
• Can you think of any loopholes that a creative GM might exploit?
• Is your team exposed to any kind of franchise-altering trouble because of the expansion draft?

 

[RP-29]

The Red Wings already have three defensemen with no movement/trade clauses at the time of the expansion draft. (Kronwall, Ericsson, Green) They have two guys who are currently RFAs and could have no movement clauses built into their contracts to protect them from the draft. (DeKeyser, Marchenko) Their only other roster defenseman is Brendan Smith who will be an unrestricted free agent at the time of the draft.

Jimmy Howard has a no movement clause in his contract. Mrazek is currently a restricted free agent and could have a no movement clause to protect him from the draft. If Howard chooses not to expose himself to the draft, that makes two protected goalies.

Franzen will be tagged as draft ineligible. The only other locked forward would be Nyquist, whose NMC kicks in after this season.

In that scenario, that’s a total of 9 protected players, 5 defensemen, 2 goalies and 2 forwards. It fits neither A nor B of the protection options. It could also force Ken Holland to expose Larkin, Zetterberg, Abdelkader, Tatar, Athanasiou and Mantha.

Now I don’t think Marchenko will get a NMC, but Ken Holland is going to want to protect DeKeyser, so he will probably get one. Same with Mrazek. That still leaves 4 locked defensemen, 2 goalies, 1 forward and 1 injured forward.

Which rule would the NHL force Detroit to follow?

“A” – substituting two forwards for a defenseman and a goalie, allowing them to protect three additional forwards to Franzen and Nyquist.

“B” – substituting one forward/defenseman for a goalie, allowing them to protect one additional forward to Franzen and Nyquist.

Does the NHL exempt Franzen from the protection totals, allowing Detroit to protect an additional forward?

One final twist – Does Detroit protect Zetterberg? If so, would Las Vegas consider drafting a potential future Hall of Fame team captain who is at the end of his career with a lot of years and cap hit remaining on his contract? If the intent is to sell tickets now, build a leadership core and stay off the cap floor, they might.

 

[forty_three]

Teams that have contracts on the books for players that will never play again (Horton, Savard, Pronger) should have to protect them. There has to be some penalty for cap circumvention. In fact, with Vegas having to meet the floor, and likely having a lot of young players on the squad, they are actually helping teams with those fuzzy contracts because they will pick them up.

Jackets have 5 NMC contracts, and only 2 are guys they would protect. They will try and move the other 3 and failing that, buy out 2 this year and 1 next.

NMC - Tyutin, Foligno, Dubinsky, Hartnell, Clarkson. Tyutin, Clarkson, Hartnell will somehow go away (two buyouts, and one trade is my bet).

Protect, Forwards:
Dubinsky
Saad
Foligno
Jenner
Rychel
Atkinson (or whatever center they trade him for)
Wennberg

Defensemen:
Jones
Murray
Goloubef

Goalie:
Bob

All based on my interpretation of the rules, which could be wrong. I guess I need clarification on what rule takes precedence when there is a conflict.

Example, First and second year pros are exempt, but then it says any player under contract who plays more than 40 NHL games the year prior. Bjorkstrand, Werenski, and Puljujarvi (assuming the draft goes the right way) should all meet both categories. Need to be protected or not?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Did they confirm how first and second year professionals would be defined? For example, McJesus and Eichel, would have completed their second NHL season and would be going into their third. Would that qualify them as 2nd or 3rd year professionals for the purposes of whether they have to be protected?

 

[Comeds]

Wow I saw the "exposed players" part of this topic and immediately thought "what did Patrick Kane do now?"

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

And I also wonder if the NMC clause will include NTCs. The league's release specifically says "No Movement" (they even use the quotes), so if NTCs don't need to be protected, that would make a big difference.

 

[dash]

Wow I saw the "exposed players" part of this topic and immediately thought "what did Patrick Kane do now?"

I went old school and was thinking "What did Dino Ciccarelli do now?"

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Working under the belief that guys like McJesus and Eichel don't have to be protected and that NTCs don't have to be protected, based on the current roster I'd see the Sabres going with:
Not required to protect:
Eichel
Reinhart
Fasching

Required to protect:
Bogosian (D1) (only NMC on the team)

Optional protect:
Ristolainen (D2)
McCabe (D3)
O'Reilly (F1)
Ennis (F2)
Girgensons (F3)
Kane (F4)
Lehner (G) (That even assumes they re-sign him)

Beyond that, for the last 3 forwards, it's a crapshoot. They don't have a ton of guys that are actually under contract past 16-17 (that aren't on my list already).

Leaves room to still protect potential UFAs this year.

I think they'd hit the exposed requirements by leaving Moulson and Gorges and some other random 4th line forward. Goalie would be a snag for them because they currently don't have any goalies signed through 17-18.

 

[RP-29]

If they allow NTC players to be exposed to the draft, then DET doesn't have much to be concerned about regarding the excess of locked goalies and defensemen. I was under the assumption that no trade clauses would be treated as no movement. I was also under the assumption that guys like McDavid, Eichel and Larkin would be exposed because they would have completed their second year in the NHL by the time of the draft.

 

[dash]

Speaking of exposed players, is anybody going to submit an offer sheet for Mrazek? That could really put the Wings in a bind if they are going hard after Stamkos.

 

[RP-29]

Speaking of exposed players, is anybody going to submit an offer sheet for Mrazek? That could really put the Wings in a bind if they are going hard after Stamkos.

I've been concerned about an offer sheet on Mrazek for over a year now. If a team submits one, matching would FORCE DET to move Datsyuk's $7.5M, jettison some of their top prospects and carry two high-priced goalies under long-term contracts for at least this year. Not matching would lose their goalie-of-the-present-and-future and would likely spiral the team into the bottom of the league standings for a few years.

 

[forty_three]

If they allow NTC players to be exposed to the draft, then DET doesn't have much to be concerned about regarding the excess of locked goalies and defensemen. I was under the assumption that no trade clauses would be treated as no movement. I was also under the assumption that guys like McDavid, Eichel and Larkin would be exposed because they would have completed their second year in the NHL by the time of the draft.

As I understand it, NMC players can be asked to waive the NMC for purposes of the draft, but if they do not, the team has to protect them.

Which is why I think the of the Jackets NMCs will get bought out.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

If only NMCs are auto-protected, do you think we see a rise in players asking for them during this UFA period to avoid risking getting chosen?

 

[RP-29]

As I understand it, NMC players can be asked to waive the NMC for purposes of the draft, but if they do not, the team has to protect them.

Which is why I think the of the Jackets NMCs will get bought out.

That's what I perceived as well. If NTCs and NMCs are both subject to draft restrictions, I'm thinking Ken Holland would probably ask Jimmy Howard and Jonathan Ericsson to waive them. I have no idea if either guy would, but I would be surprised if either guy got bought out - too much term and dead money left on the books for both if they did.

 

[RP-29]

If only NMCs are auto-protected, do you think we see a rise in players asking for them during this UFA period to avoid risking getting chosen?

I was thinking some teams might ask players - particularly RFAs - to incorporate a NMC into their contract for next year to skirt the draft eligibility restrictions.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I was thinking some teams might ask players - particularly RFAs - to incorporate a NMC into their contract for next year to skirt the draft eligibility restrictions.

RFAs are not eligible for NMC/NTC (I think)

 

[RP-29]

RFAs are not eligible for NMC/NTC (I think)

If that's true, then I learned something new today.

 

[forty_three]

So which GM is going to give 15 players one year NMC extensions?

That would be funny.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Zajac has a no trade clause and would be an ideal expansion draft candidate. Hopefully automatically protected players are limited to the NMCs.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

The Isles could have a problem protecting their defense. Somebody will definitely be available. I wonder if Garth might consider trading De Haan tomorrow or during the weekend.