Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

  1. #1
    Location
    Not Toronto, ON
    Rep Power
    38

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Pengwin7 brought this up in the Matthews/OEL trade rumor thread but in an effort to keep that post geared to the OP, thought this deserved its own thread for debate.

    It's important to break it down into teams who don't have any issue (1 viable keeper goalie) vs. teams with an issue.

    No issues with goalie keepers (ie, 1 viable keeper heading as of now heading into expansion draft):
    ARI (SMITH), BOS (Rask), BUF (Lehner), CHI (Crawford), CLB (Bobrovsky), EDM (Talbot), FLA (Luongo), LA (Quick), MIN (Dubnyk), MTL (Price), NJ (Schneider), NYR (Lundqvist), SJ (Jones), TOR (Bernier), WAS (Holtby), WPG (Hellebuyck)

    Which leaves the following teams with a "goaltending dilemma":
    ANA - Andersen (RFA 2016), Gibson
    CGY - Hiller (UFA 2016), Ortio (RFA 2016)
    CAR - Ward (UFA 2016), Lack
    COL - Varlamov, Pickard (RFA 2016)
    DAL - Lehtonen (NTC), Niemi
    DET - Mrazek (RFA 2016), Howard (NTC)
    NYI - Halak, Greiss (UFA 2017...included because he's pushed Halak this year)
    OTT - Anderson, Hammond
    PHI - Mason (UFA 2017), Neuvirth (UFA 2017)
    PIT - Fleury (NMC), Murray (2017 RFA)
    STL - Elliott (UFA 2017), Allen (RFA 2017)
    TB - Bishop (UFA 2017), Vasilevskiy (RFA 2017)
    VAN - Miller (UFA 2017), Markstrom (UFA 2017)

    Based off this list, you can see that some teams have very little to worry about. The main teams that have issues would be ANA, PIT, STL & TB who are risk of losing a significant asset (this is my opinion). The rest I think are fairly cut and dry and you can leave your starter unprotected to accommodate the young star if need be (DET would protect Mrazek and leave Howard unprotected for example). But when you look at who else is available, as it stands right now, the Wings would not have to shop Howard to get a subpar return as there are other better goaltenders available and they would be at little risk of losing him. It is likely that the goalies are far more valuable than any player these teams would leave unprotected. Of course some of this will sort itself out and some of those "safe teams" will move to the caution zone regarding goaltenders. I think its important to realize that just because a team has 2 goalies, they may be a tier lower than other teams and thus not have to rush to make a trade since it would be unlikely their guy gets picked. Teams are only going to lose 1 player in expansion (2 if the NHL expands by 2 teams but that is unlikely atm of initial expansion).

    **Because we don't know full expansion draft rules (effect of NMC/NTCs for example), contracts for guys with pending RFA/UFA contracts by the end of 2017, this is a pretty simplified list and some may sort itself out. The idea is moreso to see who would potentially be available for trade next season for teams in trouble.
    Last edited by Goldendelicious; May 6, 2016 at 11:21 AM. Reason: Missed the Yotes

  2. #2
    Location
    Dallas
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Superstar

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    I forget, is the team forced to protect players with NTCs? Or is it only NMCs?


    RETIRED







  3. #3
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Deity

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Instant Karma View Post
    I forget, is the team forced to protect players with NTCs? Or is it only NMCs?
    I believe it's NMC's.
    10 Team, Points Only, Cash League

    25 Man Roster (no position), top 20 point getters count at end of month
    Keep 20/25 at seasons end, Cut 5 to FA for redrafting
    Goalie points W=2pt L=-1pt SHO=2pt

    Stamkos, Tavares, Eichel, Mercer, JRobertson, RThomas, Kucherov, Nugent-Hopkins, Tuch, KConnor, Necas, Point, Konecny, SJarvis, Cozenz, Morrissey, Bouchard, Josi, Novak, Tolvanen, Peterka, Brink

    G- Vasilevskiy, Sorokin, Oettinger


    "Cleavage is like the sun. You can look, but dont stare.. Unless you're wearing sunglasses."

  4. #4
    Location
    Dallas
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Superstar

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Axeman33 View Post
    I believe it's NMC's.
    Thanks, that's what I thought as well. I was just wondering if Dallas would be forced to protect Lehtonen.


    RETIRED







  5. #5
    Location
    Hamilton, ON
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Titan

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Highest paid cap hit goalies:
    Lundy – 8.5mill – NMC must keep
    Bob – 7.425mill
    Rask – 7mill – NMC ending after 2016-17 season. NTC after, don’t HAVE to keep
    Rinne – 7mill – NMC must keep
    Price – 6.5mill
    Holtby – 6.1mill
    Schneider – 6mill
    Miller – 6mill
    Crawford – 6mill – NMC must keep
    Bishop – 5.95mill – Likely gets a NMC
    Lehtonen – 5.9mill
    Varly – 5.9mill
    Quick – 5.8mill
    Fleury – 5.75mill – NMC must keep
    Smith – 5.67mill – NMC ending now (2015-16 season), NTC in effect, don’t HAVE to keep
    Luongo – 5.33mill
    Howard – 5.291mill
    Halak – 4.5mill
    Niemi – 4.5mill
    Dubnyk – 4.33mill
    Talbot – 4.167mill – NMC must keep
    12 Team, H2H, Keep 6 (in Bold)
    G, A, Pts, PPP, FW, SOG, Hits, Blocks
    W, Saves, S%, GAA, Game Started
    2C, 2LW, 2RW, 4D, 1Util, 2G, 5BN, 2IR, 1IR+, 1NA

    C: Horvat, Trocheck
    LW: J. Robertson, Byfield (C), Guenther
    RW: Pavelski (C), Giroux (C), Svechnikov (LW)
    D: Fox, Makar, Bouchard, Morrissey, Gudas
    Util: Meier (LW, RW)
    G: Oettinger, Georgiev, Samsonov, Woll


  6. #6
    Location
    Not Toronto, ON
    Rep Power
    38

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    One of variables that is unknown with the expansion process is the effect of players who have not played 2 seasons in the NHL but are not longer on their ELC. Heard repeatedly that players like McDavid will fall into a separate category and not be required to be on the X player protected list. But if its a true 2 year NHL effect that has zero impact on whether the player is still under his ELC or not, then the Pens may luck out and not have to worry about moving one of Fleury/Murray (at the moment) as both would be protected under separate regulations.

  7. #7
    Location
    Hamilton, ON
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Titan

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldendelicious View Post
    One of variables that is unknown with the expansion process is the effect of players who have not played 2 seasons in the NHL but are not longer on their ELC. Heard repeatedly that players like McDavid will fall into a separate category and not be required to be on the X player protected list. But if its a true 2 year NHL effect that has zero impact on whether the player is still under his ELC or not, then the Pens may luck out and not have to worry about moving one of Fleury/Murray (at the moment) as both would be protected under separate regulations.
    My guess is they do a “Games played” number for players and goalies. Any player over say 180 games is subjected to be drafted, and goalies are like 90GP. If Murray gets close to that number, they’ll shut him down so he can’t be drafted.

    As it stands, the only teams that could be affected by the goalie issue in my eyes are Penguins and Edmonton. Talbot and Sekera for the Oilers HAVE to be kept, and in reality, you’d prolly expose those 2 players because there are better options out there for an expansion team to pick.
    12 Team, H2H, Keep 6 (in Bold)
    G, A, Pts, PPP, FW, SOG, Hits, Blocks
    W, Saves, S%, GAA, Game Started
    2C, 2LW, 2RW, 4D, 1Util, 2G, 5BN, 2IR, 1IR+, 1NA

    C: Horvat, Trocheck
    LW: J. Robertson, Byfield (C), Guenther
    RW: Pavelski (C), Giroux (C), Svechnikov (LW)
    D: Fox, Makar, Bouchard, Morrissey, Gudas
    Util: Meier (LW, RW)
    G: Oettinger, Georgiev, Samsonov, Woll


  8. #8
    Location
    Not Toronto, ON
    Rep Power
    38

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by 2014olympicgold View Post
    My guess is they do a “Games played” number for players and goalies. Any player over say 180 games is subjected to be drafted, and goalies are like 90GP. If Murray gets close to that number, they’ll shut him down so he can’t be drafted.

    As it stands, the only teams that could be affected by the goalie issue in my eyes are Penguins and Edmonton. Talbot and Sekera for the Oilers HAVE to be kept, and in reality, you’d prolly expose those 2 players because there are better options out there for an expansion team to pick.
    You're probably right. I can see the completed 2nd year of ELC as a protection stipulation plus what you mentioned with a game number threshold. The numbers may be pretty low though as Daley and Bettman have instituted that future expansions would work towards creating a competitive team and improving the pool of available players. They don't want the new team(s) to be dormant franchise like the last few rounds of expansion. When you look at the last expansion drafts...those rosters....woof!

    I've said this before, but I'll say it again....I really hope the NHL doesn't allow pick compensation to be traded from and NHL team to the expansion team(s) so that the new guy doesn't pick a particular player. This occurred a bit in the last expansion sets and one of the big ones was SJ trading garbage picks so Nabokov wasn't selected.

  9. #9
    blackaces's Avatar
    blackaces is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    482
    Rep Power
    20

    Dobber Sports Blue-Chipper

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Gary Lawless added that "no-moves must be protected by teams. No-trade clauses [are] not exempt and can be left exposed."

    Also "First-and-second-year professional players would be exempt, so you wouldn't need to use a protected spot on them." I was under the assumption that meant Pro hockey years (AHL or NHL) not just NHL years. Not sure if that would also include players in Pro leagues overseas.

  10. #10
    LawMan's Avatar
    LawMan is offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,193
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Superstar

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by blackaces View Post
    Gary Lawless added that "no-moves must be protected by teams. No-trade clauses [are] not exempt and can be left exposed."

    Also "First-and-second-year professional players would be exempt, so you wouldn't need to use a protected spot on them." I was under the assumption that meant Pro hockey years (AHL or NHL) not just NHL years. Not sure if that would also include players in Pro leagues overseas.
    This was my understanding as well. Full No-Move-forced to protect. No-trade- may be exposed.
    1st and 2nd year "professionals" are free. So 2 years in the AHL and 0 NHL games is theoretically at risk. Will be interesting to see about European leagues, the NHL doesn't define the KHL as a
    Still haven't heard if that means a guy who has completed 2 years is a 2nd year or 3rd year.
    i.e. McDavid will have completed 2 NHL seasons, entering his 3rd, I assume he's a "2nd year player" (otherwise a 1st year player would be a brand new draft pick) and thus a "free protect" but not certain.

    If it's 2 years of pro guys like Murray will have had 3 years of pro hockey and thus be exposed. Given that the Pens must protect MAF they may be looking to move on to a struggling franchise. The question becomes to whom? Any franchise trading for him needs to be a team without a NMC and goal and a real need. Calgary, Carolina maybe Colorado.
    12 team H-2-H 1 year league, daily roster changes, 3 goalie start minimum/week
    2xC, 2xRW, 2xLW, 4xD, 3xUtil, 2xG, 5 Bench
    G, A, P, PIM, PPP, SHP, GWG, SOG, Hits, W, SV%, GAA, SVs
    C: C. Keller, C. Mittelstadt, B. Nelson, R. Strome,
    LW: K. Connor, B. Tkachuk, J. Gaudreau, J. Marchessault, E. Rodrigues, A. Lafreniere
    RW: K. Fiala, J. Bratt, T. Jeannot V. Arvidsson
    D: R. Josi, J. Trouba, E. Gustafsson,
    G: L. Thompson, F. Gustavsson, V. Vanecek
    NO IR

  11. #11
    Location
    Not Toronto, ON
    Rep Power
    38

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    After doing some more digging, the 2 year rule is for players in the AHL and NHL and your year is determined by number of AHL/NHL years completed at the end of 2016/17.

    So for example at the conclusion of the 2016/17 season:
    McDavid = 2 year player --> requires no protection
    Nylander = 3 year player --> requires protection
    Murray = 5 year player --> requires protection

  12. #12
    LawMan's Avatar
    LawMan is offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,193
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Superstar

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldendelicious View Post
    After doing some more digging, the 2 year rule is for players in the AHL and NHL and your year is determined by number of AHL/NHL completed at the end of 2016/17.

    So for example at the conclusion of the 2016/17 season:
    McDavid = 2 year player --> requires no protection
    Nylander = 3 year player --> requires protection
    Murray = 5 year player --> requires protection
    Any idea on the number. I'm guessing 9 games at either level in any given year would burn a year of eligibility, as this is number when Juniors go back or burn a year.
    12 team H-2-H 1 year league, daily roster changes, 3 goalie start minimum/week
    2xC, 2xRW, 2xLW, 4xD, 3xUtil, 2xG, 5 Bench
    G, A, P, PIM, PPP, SHP, GWG, SOG, Hits, W, SV%, GAA, SVs
    C: C. Keller, C. Mittelstadt, B. Nelson, R. Strome,
    LW: K. Connor, B. Tkachuk, J. Gaudreau, J. Marchessault, E. Rodrigues, A. Lafreniere
    RW: K. Fiala, J. Bratt, T. Jeannot V. Arvidsson
    D: R. Josi, J. Trouba, E. Gustafsson,
    G: L. Thompson, F. Gustavsson, V. Vanecek
    NO IR

  13. #13
    Location
    Not Toronto, ON
    Rep Power
    38

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default Re: Expansion Protection - The Goalie Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by LawMan View Post
    Any idea on the number. I'm guessing 9 games at either level in any given year would burn a year of eligibility, as this is number when Juniors go back or burn a year.
    That I am not 100% sure. But if you have junior eligibility, you would only be max 2 years outside of your draft year so you wouldn't require protection as you would be within the 2 year pro limit.

Posting Permissions

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