We’re just a few weeks away from the NHL Expansion Draft, where the Seattle Kraken will form their team.
The New York Islanders are one of the teams who are likely to lose a pretty notable player, no matter which protection format they use. The Islanders could either protect seven forwards, three defenders and a goaltender, or any eight skaters and a goalie.
In net, we know the Islanders would protect Semyon Varlamov, given that Ilya Sorokin is exempt from selection. If the Islanders do use the 7-3-1 format, we can predict that the Islanders would likely protect the following forwards: Josh Bailey, Mathew Barzal, Anthony Beauvillier, Jordan Eberle, Anders Lee, Brock Nelson and Jean-Gabriel Pageau.
However, that leaves New York with only three spots to protect four key defenders, in Adam Pelech, Ryan Pulock, Scott Mayfield and Nick Leddy. Pelech and Pulock are locks but then it comes down to a decision between Mayfield and Leddy, if the team chooses to protect seven forwards. While a year ago, it seemed like a pretty easy decision to leave Leddy exposed, he had a really strong season and contributed more offense than any other defender on the team. For a team that lacks offense, losing their top offensive defenseman, who logged over 23 minutes per game in the postseason, isn’t ideal.
However, the team really can’t let Mayfield go either. He’s very good defensively and was key for the team in the playoffs, not to mention his contract runs for another two years at an extremely team-friendly $1.45 million AAV.
The Islanders don’t have anyone to replace either Leddy or Mayfield, should they be selected. If a forward was selected, however, the team may have an easier time using the cap space to find a replacement forward, and might be less limited than trying to find a defender who will fit into the team’s top-four group.
So would the team go with the 4-4-1 format to protect all four defenders? If so, Barzal and Beauvillier would be locks, leaving two more spots. In my opinion, Jean-Gabriel Pageau should be protected as well and Josh Bailey still brings pretty decent value for his contract, though you could say Brock Nelson should be protected instead. That would leave Jordan Eberle, Anders Lee and Bailey/Nelson as the three forwards exposed from the 7-3-1 format above.
While I don’t think that’s an issue, as none of the three players are on great deals, there’s no way the Islanders are going to leave their captain exposed, even if Seattle probably wouldn’t go after Lee. Perhaps that would mean leaving the other forward between Bailey and Nelson exposed as well, though either Bailey or Nelson would probably be more likely to be selected.
I wouldn’t have an issue with the Islanders going with the 4-4-1 format, as again, I think it might be easier to replace one of the forwards with money off the books, whereas losing Leddy would hurt New York’s top-four group.
Being realistic though, I do think New York likely goes with the 7-3-1 format, in order to protect the most players possible. They could still opt to leave one of their top-six forwards like Jordan Eberle unprotected to try and clear some cap space but I’d doubt that Seattle takes them if Leddy is also exposed. Selecting Leddy would leave Seattle with the option of retaining salary and flipping him to a different team as a rental for assets.
At the risk of being very wrong, I’m going to predict this as the Islanders’ expansion protection list, even if I’m not sure that it’s necessarily the right way to go:
FORWARDS (7): Josh Bailey, Mathew Barzal, Anthony Beauvillier, Jordan Eberle, Anders Lee, Brock Nelson and Jean-Gabriel Pageau
DEFENSE (3): Scott Mayfield, Adam Pelech, Ryan Pulock
GOALIE (1): Semyon Varlamov
If the Islanders do use this protection list, it’s likely that Nick Leddy is the player who will be selected.
***We've launched a HockeyBuzz Islanders Twitter account! For anyone interested, you can follow @HB_Islanders for updates on articles, Islanders news, etc.***
Do you think the Islanders will lose Nick Leddy to Seattle?
New York Islanders Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»