Potential Expansion Draft Rules

[bustaheims]

Unless Bernier earns a new contract, he won't have to be protected. The Leafs probably don't have a goalie in the system right now they'll feel the need to protect.

Sure, but whether a goalie is protected or not doesn't make a difference to the rest, so I just threw him in there as a placeholder at least.

Fair enough.

 

[bustaheims]

Hence this season being the perfect time to not do anything drastic and play out what we have to see what we really have.

That's what I was thinking, too. Unless a crystal clear, must make this move kind of deal comes along, the team should stay patient, and pick up futures/players that are exempt from the expansion draft.

 

[herman]

Hence this season being the perfect time to not do anything drastic and play out what we have to see what we really have.

That's what I was thinking, too. Unless a crystal clear, must make this move kind of deal comes along, the team should stay patient, and pick up futures/players that are exempt from the expansion draft.

And have a full wallet and contract space open to take advantage of anything tasty that might shake free because another team did not plan ahead properly.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Based on my review of the current roster, I don't think we have a concern of losing someone we care a heck of a lot about.

However, we may have a problem with the 40/70 rule (two forwards and one defenseman must be exposed that played either 40 NHL games in 2016-2017 or 70 NHL games between the previous two seasons... and that player must be under contract for 2017-2018).

As of right now I only see a few forwards we have under contract who could fullfil that requirement (assuming we want to protect Kadri, JvR, Komarov, and Brown, plus Stamkos should he sign here):

Lupul - but he needs to play in 24 games this season and he needs to waive his NTC
Bozak - but I'd much rather trade him- I think he can net a 2nd round pick

The following players aren't under contract in '17-'18, so signing them to an extension just to expose them might be the best course of action:

Laich 
Froese (needs 14 gp to qualify for 70 in 2 as well)
Michalek (needs 25 gp to qualify for 70 in 2 as well)
Greening (needs 39 gp to qualify for 70 in 2 as well)
Holland (assuming we keep him... might as well sign him to a 2 year deal now)

I don't see Leipsic playing enough NHL games to qualify- and he'd need a contract extension to boot.

On defense:

Protect:  Rielly, Gardiner
Expires, so not eligible (unless we sign him to an extension):  Hunwick

I see us most likely protecting Carrick, who is an RFA at the end of next season- so even if we choose not to protect him, we need him extended to qualify

That means, between Marincin, Corrado, and Harrington, who are all RFA's this offseason, at least one of them needs to be under contract for '17-'18 and play the required number of NHL games this upcoming season.  (Marincin needs 5 NHL games to hit 70 in 2, Corrado needs 31 NHL games to hit 70 in 2, and Harrington would need 40 NHL games this season)

Anyways, I bring this up because there will be a lot of consideration management needs to do with their assets.  Selling off players at the deadline might make it tougher to reach this requirement.  They may need to make trades just to acquire players to meet the requirement.  It will be an interesting to see what juggling happens in preparation for the expansion draft (and not just for the Leafs).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

GeneralFanager just released a pretty neat feature, their mock expansion draft tool: http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

Obviously, with it being so far away and with so many potential players not having contracts, it's not perfect. But still seems like a fun tool to play around with.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Here's Mirtle's post on the expansion rules that contain a few more guidelines than Sportsnet's piece did:

Teams cannot reacquire players they trade after Jan. 1, 2017 prior to Jan. 1, 2018. This is to prevent teams from entering arrangements to ?hide? players from the expansion draft. There will likely be a lot more guidelines as part of this rule.

Teams have to expose at least two forwards and one defenceman who have played either 40 games in the previous season (2016-17) or 70 games in the previous two seasons (2015-17). Teams can only lose a max of one player.

The expansion team must select players that have a total value of between 60 and100 per cent of the 2016-17 salary cap.

The expansion team can?t buy out anyone it picks in the expansion draft until the following off-season (2018).

The expansion team will be given the same draft lottery odds as the team that finishes third last in the league and cannot pick later than sixth in the 2017 NHL entry draft. It?s possible the expansion team could end up with the first overall pick, if it wins the lottery.

Teams must protect players that have no-movement clauses active in the 2017-18 season. No-movement clauses active in 2016-17 will have no impact. There will likely be exceptions made for players with no-movement clauses who are out with career-ending injuries (i.e. Ryane Clowe and Nathan Horton). Teams are not expected to be forced to protect those contracts.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-teams-begin-to-learn-guidelines-for-likely-expansion-draft-in-2017/article30400443/

 

[Zee]

Handy-dandy webpage to show you who is protected/exempt from the Expansion draft: http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

 

[Coco-puffs]

GeneralFanager just released a pretty neat feature, their mock expansion draft tool: http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

Obviously, with it being so far away and with so many potential players not having contracts, it's not perfect. But still seems like a fun tool to play around with.

I was surprised to see Froese on the exempt list... considering his first season in the AHL was 2011-2012.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

GeneralFanager just released a pretty neat feature, their mock expansion draft tool: http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

Obviously, with it being so far away and with so many potential players not having contracts, it's not perfect. But still seems like a fun tool to play around with.

I was surprised to see Froese on the exempt list... considering his first season in the AHL was 2011-2012.

I suspect that's an error.

 

[Zee]

GeneralFanager just released a pretty neat feature, their mock expansion draft tool: http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

Obviously, with it being so far away and with so many potential players not having contracts, it's not perfect. But still seems like a fun tool to play around with.

I was surprised to see Froese on the exempt list... considering his first season in the AHL was 2011-2012.

I suspect that's an error.

Ooops, didn't even see that you had already linked it before I posted.  Insert blushing face here.

 

[Peter D.]

So Las Vegas will get a lottery pick in each of their four years, regardless of whether they make the playoffs.  As well as will get to put together a reasonable roster off the hop.

I don't care if you paid $500 million -- that's a joke. 

 

[cabber24]

So Las Vegas will get a lottery pick in each of their four years, regardless of whether they make the playoffs.  As well as will get to put together a reasonable roster off the hop.

I don't care if you paid $500 million -- that's a joke.

Is that a fact? Leafs would of been better folding and restarting for from scratch.

 

[Kin]

But all non playoff picks are lottery picks, right? So if they make the playoffs doesn't that just mean that they'll pick 14th instead of 17th or whatever?

 

[Peter D.]

Is that a fact? Leafs would of been better folding and restarting for from scratch.

Friedman reported it in the lead in to the press conference, so I'd say it's pretty accurate.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

But all non playoff picks are lottery picks, right? So if they make the playoffs doesn't that just mean that they'll pick 14th instead of 17th or whatever?

All I can see from Bob McKenzie's tweet on the matter is that they're guaranteed a top 6 pick next year, given the same odds as the 3rd worst regular season team.

[tweet]745718038406692865[/tweet]

 

[Peter D.]

But all non playoff picks are lottery picks, right? So if they make the playoffs doesn't that just mean that they'll pick 14th instead of 17th or whatever?

I took it that the Vegas team would participate in the lottery either way.  So under the new lottery rules, they'd have the chance to move up to one of the 1st three picks. 

That's just my interpretation of what Friedman said though so there is likely clarification needed.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

But all non playoff picks are lottery picks, right? So if they make the playoffs doesn't that just mean that they'll pick 14th instead of 17th or whatever?

That's reasonable enough.  There's too much incorrect intuitive attachment between the term "lottery pick" and "lottery winner/top 3 pick".

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

But all non playoff picks are lottery picks, right? So if they make the playoffs doesn't that just mean that they'll pick 14th instead of 17th or whatever?

I took it that the Vegas team would participate in the lottery either way.  So under the new lottery rules, they'd have the chance to move up to one of the 1st three picks. 

That's just my interpretation of what Friedman said though so there is likely clarification needed.

I don't see where it's a big deal.  They're highly likely to have a lottery (non-playoff) pick those years anyway and the assurance will make no difference either way.  At most, it gives them a remote lottery chance if they should happen to squeak into the playoffs.

 

[Kin]

All I can see from Bob McKenzie's tweet on the matter is that they're guaranteed a top 6 pick next year, given the same odds as the 3rd worst regular season team.

That's pretty standard though. Nashville picked 2nd their first draft, Minnesota picked 3rd, Columbus picked fourth, Atlanta had the #2 pick and so on.

 

[Kin]

I took it that the Vegas team would participate in the lottery either way.  So under the new lottery rules, they'd have the chance to move up to one of the 1st three picks. 

That's just my interpretation of what Friedman said though so there is likely clarification needed.

Sure but Boston had, what, a 1% chance of winning the lottery? And like a 4% chance of moving up?