Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

  1. #1
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Recruit

    Default Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    Will Dustin Byfuglien and Brent Burns be allowed to be declared as forwards should the teams be asked to submit their protected players list?

  2. #2
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Veteran

    Default Re: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    That's an interesting point considering that both WPG and SJ could use this as a potential loophole.

    Things still need to be ironed out in terms of what the protection limits will be. Right now it looks like 1 of 2 possibilities:
    A) 3D, 7F, 1G
    B) 8 skaters, 1G

    However there has been other speculation that this number could be reduced slightly in attempt to improve the player pool available to the expansion team. I don't have exact number but it appears as though Buff and Burns both played very little at forward last year, making them Defencemen. I would anticipate that the NHL monitors their situations closely next year if expansion is happening and will inform the teams of what position eligibility they are. I think its safe to say both with fall under the D category.

  3. #3
    Location
    Brampton, Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Jedi

    Default Re: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldendelicious View Post
    That's an interesting point considering that both WPG and SJ could use this as a potential loophole.
    […]
    I think its safe to say both with fall under the D category.
    I agree that it will be something that the NHL will have to give a final ruling on, likely based on the majority of games played at a certain position or something along those lines.
    Capped writer for DobberHockey. Find the latest articles here: http://www.dobberhockey.com/Table/Hockey-home/Capped/
    (No I don't have a hockey problem...)

  4. #4
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Recruit

    Default Re: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    Jets still use Buff sometimes at forward on the PP to plant in front of the net. If the NHL sets down criteria, it might be interesting to see if the Jets and Sharks throw them out for more forward shifts next year to keep dual eligibility.

  5. #5
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Veteran

    Default Re: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    When considering positional eligibility, we can only really count even strength TOI/shifts as an indication. Lots of teams use a 4F 1D approach, doesn't mean the Blackhawks of yesteryear should have been able to claim Ptrick Sharp as a Dman. The Bruins consistently used Chara in front of the net on the PP (maybe not so much the last couple of years) but that was never a cause to have someone label him as a D/LW.

  6. #6
    Location
    Prairies
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Titan

    Default Re: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    I don't think anybody in the real NHL considers Buff or Burns as a forward.
    If you are speaking towards a fantasy hockey league, I'd also say NO.
    Despite what fantasy providers list them at (incorrectly), both guys have played exclusively at D for the last 1.5+ years. (Buff made a full switch back to D in Jan 2015, IIRC. Burns has been D for SJ for 3+ years, IIRC)

    If I'm a fantasy commissioner, both these guys should be considered as D and D-only.
    There's no excuse for any fantasy provider to call them as F/D... even though some still are doing that (incl. Fantrax with Buff at F/D... shame, shame on you Fantrax.).

  7. #7
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Veteran

    Default Re: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    Quote Originally Posted by Pengwin7 View Post
    I don't think anybody in the real NHL considers Buff or Burns as a forward.
    If you are speaking towards a fantasy hockey league, I'd also say NO.
    Despite what fantasy providers list them at (incorrectly), both guys have played exclusively at D for the last 1.5+ years. (Buff made a full switch back to D in Jan 2015, IIRC. Burns has been D for SJ for 3+ years, IIRC)

    If I'm a fantasy commissioner, both these guys should be considered as D and D-only.
    There's no excuse for any fantasy provider to call them as F/D... even though some still are doing that (incl. Fantrax with Buff at F/D... shame, shame on you Fantrax.).
    I agree wholeheartedly...I know my argument is was mainly based around fantasy but that's where the debate is mainly stemming from.

    I hate how quick all these fantasy systems are to hand out position eligibility but never take it away from the player.

  8. #8
    Location
    Hamilton, ON
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Legend

    Default Re: Expansion Draft Positional Eligibility

    Should really just be you can keep 7players, 1 G, and 1 Util (goalie or player). Just lay it out as 1 set and ignore D/F.
    12 team, H2H, 6 keeper league (Keepers in Bold)
    G, A, Pts, +/-, PPP, PIM, FW
    W, GAA, S%, Saves
    2C, 2RW, 2LW, 4D, 2G
    C: Eichel, Pettersson (C), Zibanejad,
    LW: Marchand, Couture (C), Parise, Dubois (LW)
    RW: Marner (C), Kessel, Keller (C, LW)
    D: Barrie, Yandle, Suter, Poluck
    G: Andersen (G), Dubnyk, Murray
    IR+: Karlsson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •