In past expansion drafts teams have traded players and picks to new teams with the deal they agreed to not pick certain players.
- dadeadhead

Yep, sportsnet was talking about this the other night:

Buffalo traded Jean-Luc Grand-Pierre, Matt Davidson, and two fifth-round draft picks, one each in the 2000 (Tyler Kolarik) and 2001 (Andreas Jämtin) Entry Drafts, to Columbus on June 23, 2000, after the Blue Jackets agreed not to select Dominik Hasek or Martin Biron.

The name that crossed my mind on this was Fasching. If they sign him this season and give him a few games does that count as 1 pro year? Would you protect Bailey?
- Sabresfan-365

I can't imagine that would count towards a season, since there are only 11 games left. I refer back to the free agency rules as my reason, which I can't recall the # of games that count as a year of accrual, but pretty sure it's more than that.

I can't imagine that would count towards a season, since there are only 11 games left. I refer back to the free agency rules as my reason, which I can't recall the # of games that count as a year of accrual, but pretty sure it's more than that.
- stashu

Except the rule on # of games burned to count as 1 year on an ELC is different than the numbers games you need to get 1 year closer to FA. I suppose either way it wouldn't affect him but it could make things interesting with a lot of high end prospects.

I see your point, but a couple from North Dakota who has saved up money for long time to take a trip to Vegas, I can't see their things to do list going like this:

1. Take in a show
2. Seafood buffet at the Rio
3. Check out the fountains at the Bellagio
4. Get tickets for Vegas vs. Buffalo
- sskkoo1

haha, well, if they're diehard NHL fans, I would think it would be a great opportunity myself.

If you're going to Vegas, you're going for a decent amount of time I'd think (anything short of a week would be worthless to me). Obviously every person is different, but I wouldn't want to spend more than a 2-3 nights seeing shows (same sort of shows that is, like broadway-type shows), so a "break" by seeing a sporting event I couldn't normally attend would be great in your example.

Yep, sportsnet was talking about this the other night:
- Sabresfan-365

I also remember teams selecting a player and trading them back to the team.

Except the rule on # of games burned to count as 1 year on an ELC is different than the numbers games you need to get 1 year closer to FA. I suppose either way it wouldn't affect him but it could make things interesting with a lot of high end prospects.
- Sabresfan-365

Not sure of the numbers, so I'll take your word for it. Is 11 games below that threshold though?

I also remember teams selecting a player and trading them back to the team.
- dadeadhead

Yea Terreri was sent right back with a pick for Bombardir

I also remember teams selecting a player and trading them back to the team.
- dadeadhead

I remember a robot behind an anonymous person in a wedding dress

I also remember teams selecting a player and trading them back to the team.
- dadeadhead

Then there was the whole thing with Mike Richter. Select the impending Free agent with 0 chance of signing him. Get the compensatory draft pick.

Well I would. But I live in SoDak. NoDak's are dumb.....
- SDSabre

Okay, Vegas can pencil you in for one seat, one game in the future. Only a million more to go to make the team viable.

Not sure of the numbers, so I'll take your word for it. Is 11 games below that threshold though?
- stashu

I really don't know. Im looking at McCabe, he was signed and given 7 nhl games and that burned year 1. But in the case of Nylander with the leafs it's 10 nhl games till you burn year 1.

I would protect ROR, Kane, Foligno, Girgs, Larsson, Bogo, Pysyk, Ennis and Sugar Ray.

Is this the consensus of what everyone else thinks?
- mhp

i read that if a player has 2 years after next season, you would have to protect them. that means protecting eichel and reinhart. also read (lebrun i believe) that you have to expose 20% of your previous seasons payroll. if these conditions are true, it changes things. dont think they know what to do with nmc and ntc. gorges and moulson will have ntc, bogo and ror will have nmc. hoping they dont honor ntc at least.

if we assume a 70m payroll for next year, we have to expose 14m

ill guess, but its just with what i understand the rules are-

ror, kane, eichel, reinhart, girgensons, larsson, foligno, ristolainen, mccabe, bogo, lehner.

that would expose moulson, gorges, ennis, deslauriers, and pysyk. franson and gionta will be ufas, not sure how that works. they count towards our previous years salary which matters, but they arent ours to give away.

Do you protect Kane with only 1 year left on his deal? Don't forget we will have new FAs here as well...
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Good point. If we sign Stamkos or get another FA/trade I would think that player or players would be protected and I would definitely not protect Kane.

haha, well, if they're diehard NHL fans, I would think it would be a great opportunity myself.

If you're going to Vegas, you're going for a decent amount of time I'd think (anything short of a week would be worthless to me). Obviously every person is different, but I wouldn't want to spend more than a 2-3 nights seeing shows (same sort of shows that is, like broadway-type shows), so a "break" by seeing a sporting event I couldn't normally attend would be great in your example.
- stashu

That's just it, they're not diehard fans of hockey. If they are, they probably have a team near home already they can see. If they don't, they probably don't care enough about hockey to skip all the other Vegas amenities.

In past expansion drafts teams have traded players and picks to new teams with the deal they agreed to not pick certain players.
Also if memory serves me once a player from your team is picked, you are allowed to remove a player.
- dadeadhead

Hard to tell honestly becuase from the sounds of it all the old rules are going out the window. They need to use the ELC rule IMO.

Assuming we live in some fantasy world where im actually right about this:

7 fwds: Eichel, Reinhart, O'Reilly, Kane, Fasching/Bailey, top 6 forward we acquire in 2016, ennis/replacement.

3 D: Risto, Bogo, Top pair we acquire in 2016.

G: Lehner.

Obviously doesn't account for the possible moves you could swing like DD mentioned.

Got the PM Homie.. They'd make ugly offspring. Ruined my lunch..

i read that if a player has 2 years after next season, you would have to protect them. that means protecting eichel and reinhart. also read (lebrun i believe) that you have to expose 20% of your previous seasons payroll. if these conditions are true, it changes things. dont think they know what to do with nmc and ntc. gorges and moulson will have ntc, bogo and ror will have nmc. hoping they dont honor ntc at least.

if we assume a 70m payroll for next year, we have to expose 14m

ill guess, but its just with what i understand the rules are-

ror, kane, eichel, reinhart, girgensons, larsson, foligno, ristolainen, mccabe, bogo, lehner.

that would expose moulson, gorges, ennis, deslauriers, and pysyk. franson and gionta will be ufas, not sure how that works. they count towards our previous years salary which matters, but they arent ours to give away.
- rover16

Don't agree with Kane... he will only have 1 year left. And do you protect Larsson, Foligno and LionEater over guys like Bailey, Baptiste, Schaller, Catenacci etc.?

Assuming we live in some fantasy world where im actually right about this:

7 fwds: Eichel, Reinhart, O'Reilly, Kane, Fasching/Bailey, top 6 forward we acquire in 2016, ennis/replacement.

3 D: Risto, Bogo, Top pair we acquire in 2016.

G: Lehner.

Obviously doesn't account for the possible moves you could swing like DD mentioned.
- Sabresfan-365

You're going to leave Stamkos unprotected?

Got the PM Homie.. They'd make ugly offspring. Ruined my lunch..



- Pairo11

they may produce a beauty contest winner for Jersey though

Also, what about players you acquire via trade? So if we make a blockbuster at the deadline and trade away prospects and picks that would be protected for a stud, now we have to protect that guy? That doesn't seem right either.

You're going to leave Stamkos unprotected?
- buffalofan19

That would be the leafs problem

And I did say:

"top 6 forward we acquire in 2016"

You're going to leave Stamkos unprotected?
- buffalofan19

Replace Kane with him. Or whoever else we bring in unless Kane is signed to an extension.

Assuming we live in some fantasy world where im actually right about this:

7 fwds: Eichel, Reinhart, O'Reilly, Kane, Fasching/Bailey, top 6 forward we acquire in 2016, ennis/replacement.

3 D: Risto, Bogo, Top pair we acquire in 2016.

G: Lehner.

Obviously doesn't account for the possible moves you could swing like DD mentioned.
- Sabresfan-365

McCabe is the victim in this scenario, IMO. Obviously if there's a top-pair guy acquired, it's no big loss overall, but I'd like to keep him on the team

McCabe is the victim in this scenario, IMO. Obviously if there's a top-pair guy acquired, it's no big loss overall, but I'd like to keep him on the team
- stashu

Yea any way i slice it seems to result in him being the victim as well. All depends on what they choose to do about NTC/NMC.