HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Expansion Draft Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2016, 12:15 PM
  #101
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulipunaruusu View Post
Does 2011-12 Danish champion Oliver Bjorkstrand qualify with his 46 games for Herning Blue Fox?

Mmmmm, danish!


leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 03:01 PM
  #102
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoggz22 View Post
I trust Capgeek as well so that may be the best information to pull from. I didn't bother looking becuase I knew the site was no longer active. I still recall discussions about Tyutin having to submit a list of teams that he could not be traded to which indicates a partial NTC. To my knowledge a player would not have both a NTC AND a NMC. The NMC covers all movement. We'll see what happens i guess.

As to point #2, if the league year isn't over until 6/30 then the player would still be in his 2nd year of professional service, not have completed their 2nd year. That's where the difference is, in my opinion, with this discussion. If they protect players with one or two years of professional service and the expansion draft is in June (prior to the amateur draft) than you would essentially only have to consider protection of players that are IN their 3rd year (which at that time would almost be over)
Okay I understand what you are saying but I'm guessing it is not right. I'm thinking playing seasons not contract years. We'll see.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 05:11 PM
  #103
CBJ Tiffin
Registered User
 
CBJ Tiffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 364
vCash: 500

CBJ Tiffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 05:33 PM
  #104
vogeezy
In search for a 1C
 
vogeezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Bjorkstrand
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,728
vCash: 1356
What if we sign more people to NMC and NTC like we have 12 players with contracts like that? How do you protect all of them then?

vogeezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 05:35 PM
  #105
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vogeezy View Post
What if we sign more people to NMC and NTC like we have 12 players with contracts like that? How do you protect all of them then?
Interesting question.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 06:00 PM
  #106
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vogeezy View Post
What if we sign more people to NMC and NTC like we have 12 players with contracts like that? How do you protect all of them then?
Assuming a 2017 expansion draft, none of these would take effect until July 1 of that year (or later), which would be after the expansion draft. Unless it's a player who has a contract expiring after this season, in which case it could kick in July 1 of this year if the NTC or NMC eligibility requirements are met.

A footnote to the way it was done the last expansion cycles is that every existing team was required to expose a certain number of players who met certain requirements for NHL games played either that season or that season plus the previous one. I think it was one goalie, one defenseman, and two forwards. But since almost everyone had multiple players that met those, there was no need to get that far into it.

Would it be possible for this team or others to sign a bunch of their players to NMCs or NTCs? Probably, but then you're only losing one guy anyway and you've probably completely strangled your roster for the indefinite future by making everyone unmovable.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2016, 07:25 PM
  #107
Viqsi
"grumpy grandma"@30s
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kölumboos
Country: United States
Posts: 30,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vogeezy View Post
What if we sign more people to NMC and NTC like we have 12 players with contracts like that? How do you protect all of them then?
Scenarios like this are likely why the rules for handling same have not yet been clarified, seeing as though Chicago (for example) is in or close to in that situation.

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 07:58 AM
  #108
JacketsDavid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vogeezy View Post
What if we sign more people to NMC and NTC like we have 12 players with contracts like that? How do you protect all of them then?
Good question. Don't think anyone knows.

Obviious answer is if you sign all players to NMC long-term, then it does commit you to them - and in a lot of cases things change. So a guy with NTC/NMC signs it an 2 years later team is asking them to waive it.
Also a lot of players wouldn't want a NMC. Most guys (especially young guys) want to move up and if they are blocked they won't sign one.

Also I wouldn't be surprised to see the league start penalizing teams for NTC/NMC. Basically if they do end up moving a guy then they have to pay a fee or penalty to do so. So if you sign a guy to NMC but get him to waive it down the road to fine the team in dollars/cap and/or draft picks.

JacketsDavid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 08:20 AM
  #109
Double-Shift Lassé
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassé's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Semirural Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 21,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacketsDavid View Post
Good question. Don't think anyone knows.
There are more than a few things that need settled, despite the media reporting that went on last week on the subject. As many questions as it answered, it created. Which is not to blame the media, I am not certain the NHL powers-that-be are fully clear on these issues.

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassé is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 08:47 AM
  #110
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassé View Post
There are more than a few things that need settled, despite the media reporting that went on last week on the subject. As many questions as it answered, it created. Which is not to blame the media, I am not certain the NHL powers-that-be are fully clear on these issues.
I agree. This has all the potential of a lockout-esque FUBAR.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 10:12 AM
  #111
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassé View Post
There are more than a few things that need settled, despite the media reporting that went on last week on the subject. As many questions as it answered, it created. Which is not to blame the media, I am not certain the NHL powers-that-be are fully clear on these issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
I agree. This has all the potential of a lockout-esque FUBAR.
I don't think this will get close to the lockout, since I don't think the NHLPA is going to turn every single point into a turf war the way that they did in 2011 and 2012.

I do think that we're really overcomplicating what should be a pretty simple set of parameters. I admit that I'm speculating here, but based off of past precedent and a dash of common sense, this is what I expect to happen.

Let's say there's a 2017 expansion draft. As a league year is defined as July 1 to June 30, and as an expansion draft would take place in June (within the 2016-17 league year), the following would most likely be true.
1) Players who are in their first pro year (2016-17) are exempt
2) Players who are in their second pro year (2015-16 and 2016-17 are exempt)
3) Players who are in their third pro year or higher (2014-15 or earlier) are not exempt and will either need to be protected or not

For 90% of players, there is absolutely no clarification that's needed beyond that. For the rest, I expect something like this fairly simple litmus test:
- Is a player on an ELC? If no, then he must be either protected or not; he is not exempt.
- If a player is on an ELC, is he in the final year of it (as of June 2017)? If so, then he is NOT exempt and must be protected or not. If he is not in the final year of it, he is exempt.

This takes care of another 9% of situations. Let's take a look at three simple but different ones.

Dylan Larkin was a 2014 draft pick. After the conclusion of his college season, he signed an ELC with Detroit and played 6 playoff games with Grand Rapids of the AHL. Since this did not result in burning the first year of his ELC, said ELC began in 2015-16 (first pro season). As a second-year pro (2015-16 and 2016-17) with another year remaining on his ELC, Larkin is exempt.

Julius Honka was a 2014 draft pick of Dallas. He signed an ELC as 18-year-old shortly after, and spent the 2014-15 season professionally in the AHL. Since he did not play 10+ games in the NHL, his ELC slid to the next season. As a second-year pro (2015-16 and 2016-17) with another year remaining on his ELC, Honka is exempt and does not need protected.

Artemi Panarin was an undrafted player, and signed a two-year ELC (in accordance with his age) with Chicago. As he is in the final year of his ELC, he is NOT exempt and needs to either be protected or not.

The final remaining situations would involve unsigned college players, who I believe has always been exempt anyway. There may be one or two lone situations outside of this, but that's about it and hardly worth a protracted fight between the NHL and NHLPA over.

Using these guidelines, CBJ players on ELCs currently would be...
Need protected in 2017 by this framework: Wennberg, Kukan, Korpisalo, Hannikainen, Anderson, Zaar
Exempt in 2017 by this framework: Bjorkstrand, Milano, Moutrey, Rychel, Bittner, Heatherington, Sherwood, Kolesar, Siebenaler, all college prospects (including Werenski)

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 11:01 AM
  #112
Double-Shift Lassé
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassé's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Semirural Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 21,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I don't think this will get close to the lockout, since I don't think the NHLPA is going to turn every single point into a turf war the way that they did in 2011 and 2012.

I do think that we're really overcomplicating what should be a pretty simple set of parameters. I admit that I'm speculating here, but based off of past precedent and a dash of common sense, this is what I expect to happen.

Let's say there's a 2017 expansion draft. As a league year is defined as July 1 to June 30, and as an expansion draft would take place in June (within the 2016-17 league year), the following would most likely be true.
1) Players who are in their first pro year (2016-17) are exempt
2) Players who are in their second pro year (2015-16 and 2016-17 are exempt)
3) Players who are in their third pro year or higher (2014-15 or earlier) are not exempt and will either need to be protected or not

For 90% of players, there is absolutely no clarification that's needed beyond that. For the rest, I expect something like this fairly simple litmus test:
- Is a player on an ELC? If no, then he must be either protected or not; he is not exempt.
- If a player is on an ELC, is he in the final year of it (as of June 2017)? If so, then he is NOT exempt and must be protected or not. If he is not in the final year of it, he is exempt.

This takes care of another 9% of situations. Let's take a look at three simple but different ones.

Dylan Larkin was a 2014 draft pick. After the conclusion of his college season, he signed an ELC with Detroit and played 6 playoff games with Grand Rapids of the AHL. Since this did not result in burning the first year of his ELC, said ELC began in 2015-16 (first pro season). As a second-year pro (2015-16 and 2016-17) with another year remaining on his ELC, Larkin is exempt.

Julius Honka was a 2014 draft pick of Dallas. He signed an ELC as 18-year-old shortly after, and spent the 2014-15 season professionally in the AHL. Since he did not play 10+ games in the NHL, his ELC slid to the next season. As a second-year pro (2015-16 and 2016-17) with another year remaining on his ELC, Honka is exempt and does not need protected.

Artemi Panarin was an undrafted player, and signed a two-year ELC (in accordance with his age) with Chicago. As he is in the final year of his ELC, he is NOT exempt and needs to either be protected or not.

The final remaining situations would involve unsigned college players, who I believe has always been exempt anyway. There may be one or two lone situations outside of this, but that's about it and hardly worth a protracted fight between the NHL and NHLPA over.

Using these guidelines, CBJ players on ELCs currently would be...
Need protected in 2017 by this framework: Wennberg, Kukan, Korpisalo, Hannikainen, Anderson, Zaar
Exempt in 2017 by this framework: Bjorkstrand, Milano, Moutrey, Rychel, Bittner, Heatherington, Sherwood, Kolesar, Siebenaler, all college prospects (including Werenski)
Good thoughts in there.

Note I did not say this was a pending disaster, just that there are scenarios for which we do not yet know the parameters. I appreciate your attempting to clarify. I will now wait for official word that you are either correct or incorrect.

Double-Shift Lassé is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 12:53 PM
  #113
spintheblackcircle
...so that happened.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 46,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Using these guidelines, CBJ players on ELCs currently would be...
Need protected in 2017 by this framework: Wennberg, Kukan, Korpisalo, Hannikainen, Anderson, Zaar
What would the ramifications be of giving Wennberg and Korpi a short term extension with a NMC, if they decide players with a NMC cannot be picked by expansion teams rather than risk exposing them or other players?

__________________
Changes come. Keep your dignity. Take the high road. Take it like a man.
spintheblackcircle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 01:31 PM
  #114
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spintheblackcircle View Post
What would the ramifications be of giving Wennberg and Korpi a short term extension with a NMC, if they decide players with a NMC cannot be picked by expansion teams rather than risk exposing them or other players?
Neither one is eligible; a player cannot have a binding NTC or NMC until he would be at the point of being eligible for UFA status. In both of their cases, that would be another four years out from the time their ELC expires (next June 30).

You could sign both to six-year extensions with an NTC or NMC, but said clause would not go into effect until 2021.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 01:44 PM
  #115
Xoggz22
Registered User
 
Xoggz22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 5,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spintheblackcircle View Post
What would the ramifications be of giving Wennberg and Korpi a short term extension with a NMC, if they decide players with a NMC cannot be picked by expansion teams rather than risk exposing them or other players?
Neither is eligible for NMC or NTC. There is a years of service requirement for such clauses and neither will meet.

Xoggz22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 06:43 PM
  #116
spintheblackcircle
...so that happened.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 46,187
vCash: 500
thanks

spintheblackcircle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 06:54 PM
  #117
Iron Balls McGinty
Registered User
 
Iron Balls McGinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sec. 203/Worthington
Country: United States
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Not that I've paid a ton of attention to this expansion draft topic but I honestly wouldn't be concerned about anyone crucial being taken. Just take a look at who we got in the draft the last time there was an expansion draft. That draft was filled with mostly a bunch of has beens and never will be's.

If an expansion draft was so easy to get top prospects and serviceable players, the CBJ wouldn't have taken 8 year to make the playoffs. Dwayne Roloson chose to sign with an AHL team instead of Columbus.

Iron Balls McGinty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 07:12 PM
  #118
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 11,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Balls McGinty View Post
Not that I've paid a ton of attention to this expansion draft topic but I honestly wouldn't be concerned about anyone crucial being taken. Just take a look at who we got in the draft the last time there was an expansion draft. That draft was filled with mostly a bunch of has beens and never will be's.

If an expansion draft was so easy to get top prospects and serviceable players, the CBJ wouldn't have taken 8 year to make the playoffs. Dwayne Roloson chose to sign with an AHL team instead of Columbus.
They changed the rules. They're significantly friendlier to the drafting team.

major major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2016, 08:26 PM
  #119
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Balls McGinty View Post
Not that I've paid a ton of attention to this expansion draft topic but I honestly wouldn't be concerned about anyone crucial being taken. Just take a look at who we got in the draft the last time there was an expansion draft. That draft was filled with mostly a bunch of has beens and never will be's.

If an expansion draft was so easy to get top prospects and serviceable players, the CBJ wouldn't have taken 8 year to make the playoffs. Dwayne Roloson chose to sign with an AHL team instead of Columbus.
Ah, that takes me back to 2002-03. There was Minnesota, playing just their third season in the league, coming back from a 3-1 series deficit in the first round to beat Colorado; the winning goal was scored by Nashville and Atlanta castoff Andrew Brunette. Then they were down 3-1 against heavily-favored Vancouver in the second round, and came back to win that series. They were knocked out in the conference finals, but it was a terrific season for the third-year Wild...made even better when, in the draft that year, they took Brent Burns and Patrick O'Sullivan with their first two picks.

They very same year, Columbus finished third from the bottom in the league, then drafted Nikolai Zherdev and Dan Fritsche with the first two picks.

The end.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2016, 10:33 AM
  #120
lilfedor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Cleveland, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I'm interpreting the NMC issue the second way, which is that players with NMCs will be required to be protected.

If that's the case, it means that of the seven forward spots, four would be taken up by Dubinsky, Foligno, Hartnell, and Clarkson. It also means leaving unprotected two of Saad, Jenner, Wennberg, Atkinson, and Rychel.

I fully expect this interpretation to be the one that holds up, because GMs that have done a more shrewd approach toward NMCs will absolutely blow up if they're only able to protect seven forwards while ones that gave out NMCs like Halloween candy get to protect seven plus additional.

Clarkson will not be on the roster next season. This will open up another space. And, since the expansion will take place AFTER next seasons conclusion, expect the guys with NMC's to be at least attempted to move. We know Hartnell has a couple teams he'd accept.

lilfedor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2016, 10:50 AM
  #121
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilfedor View Post
Clarkson will not be on the roster next season.
Quite a declaration; how will he not be the roster next season?

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2016, 10:51 AM
  #122
Double-Shift Lassé
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassé's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Semirural Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 21,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilfedor View Post
Clarkson will not be on the roster next season. This will open up another space. And, since the expansion will take place AFTER next seasons conclusion, expect the guys with NMC's to be at least attempted to move. We know Hartnell has a couple teams he'd accept.
I don't know how we know the things I've bolded.

Double-Shift Lassé is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2016, 11:32 AM
  #123
Tulipunaruusu*
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassé View Post
I don't know how we know the things I've bolded.
There was a story in Helsingin Sanomat or somewhere recently about people who by gathering information around them from different sources achieve better reconnaissance results than whole organizations build for that purpose. They were called foxes.

I suggess that lilfedor should apply to work for federal bureau of investigation if the events fall as you have seen. The life of a G-man is glamorous but tough and dangerous work as we have seen through the eyes of Jerry Cotton and Phil Decker.

Tulipunaruusu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2016, 07:22 PM
  #124
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassé View Post
I don't know how we know the things I've bolded.
Well we do know that Hartnell gave some teams he was willing to go to at the deadline.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2016, 09:24 PM
  #125
punk_o_holic
 
punk_o_holic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: N. Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Japan
Posts: 8,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Well we do know that Hartnell gave some teams he was willing to go to at the deadline.
To add to this, if he wasn't willing to get traded, why would Columbus and Nashville waste their time, trying to work out a deal involving Hartnell. I think he was only willing go to teams that had a legit shot at a Cup. I remember him saying that he didn't want to leave Columbus but at the same time, the thought of going to a playoff team and potentially going on a Cup run was interesting.

punk_o_holic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.