A look at some teams that could be affected by a possible NHL expansion draft and more in today’s NHL rumor mill.
Highlights from Friedman’s latest “30 Thoughts.”
The rules governing the next NHL expansion draft could be very different from the last one in 2000.
SPORTSNET: Elliotte Friedman touched on the recent proposed rules regarding a possible NHL expansion draft. Of note, teams can only protect one goaltender. “The choice is three defencemen and seven forwards OR eight skaters of any makeup.” One expansion team means each current NHL club will only lose one player, while two expansion teams means they’ll lose no more than two.
While there’s no official word from the league yet regarding players carrying no-movement clauses, Friedman claims there’s speculation the league doesn’t want to get into a fight with the NHLPA about it. He also wonders if players with no-trade clauses will also be exempt from expansion selection, pointing out any team can claim them off waivers. Friedman also wonders if players with no-movement clauses would also count among the players a team wants to protect.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: I weighed in on most of this in today’s “News” section. I’m betting players with no-movement clauses will be exempt. However, it’ll be interesting to see if the league extends the same coverage to players with no-trade clauses. If they don’t, it could certainly make things more interesting. Some established NHL clubs could avail themselves of those players through waivers if unclaimed by an expansion team.
Friedman suggests we keep an eye on the number of two-year contracts signed between now and the expansion draft. Players with one-year deals will be of little interest to expansion clubs.
If the Los Angeles Kings fail to re-sign left wing Milan Lucic, it’s assume the Vancouver Canucks will pursue him via free agency this summer. The Edmonton Oilers could also go after him, as Lucic played for Oilers general manager Peter Chiarelli with the Boston Bruins.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Chiarelli could be interested in Lucic, but his priority is bolstering his defense. Forking out over $7 million annually on a long-term deal for Lucic hampers that process.
Speaking of Chiarelli, he was apparently unwilling to go below his asking price for struggling right wing Nail Yakupov at the trade deadline. Despite rumors linking Yakupov to the Montreal Canadiens, they didn’t appear too interested.
Friedman will be interested to see how much influence the Toronto Maple Leafs analytics department has in the club’s contract negotiations with defenseman Martin Marincin, who’s a restricted free agent. “Marincin is not a points producer. He’s not overly physical. He defends well,’ writes Friedman. “I’m very curious to see how much Babcock/Lamoriello value him at contract time and as the organization grows in talent.”
USA TODAY: Kevin Allen also weighed in on the potential expansion draft rules, especially how it could cost some teams good young players. “As an example, the Pittsburgh Penguins would be at risk of losing prize young goalie Matt Murray unless they leave veteran Marc-Andre Fleury unprotected. The Nashville Predators might have to expose defenseman Ryan Ellis or Mattias Ekholm. Depending upon what happens with Steven Stamkos’ contract, the Tampa Bay Lightning’s No. 8 forward could be Valtteri Filppula, Ryan Callahan or Vladislav Namestnikov” Allen also suggests teams could trade players they’re in jeopardy of losing to an expansion draft in order to get a return they can keep.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Excellent examples raised by Allen. By the look of things, a future expansion draft won’t be filled with just has-beens and never-weres. Established teams stocked with talent certainly risk losing a good player. Allen also brings up a valid point about those clubs trying to trade those players, rather than risk losing them for nothing to the expansion draft.
I can’t see how a player with a NMC/NTC won’t be exempt, two questions though are raised: Will teams be forced to “protect” that player if that is the case? Secondly what if a team goes over the limit for players on a NMC/NTC then what happens to that “unprotected” player? Would teams then be allowed to have more “protected” players?
I think NMC/NTC will not be exempt. I saw a snippet of the CBA which talks about these in the last week and the wording is really specific in my mind. From what I can see, the wording protects a player from being involuntary moved from their team to another team as it centres around what the team itself can and cannot do based on the contract. There is nothing that i read which lends itself to expansion situations as there is no restriction on the league from doing anything – essentially this is where the league would pluck the player from their current team and move them into the new team.
Here is what I mean for NMC:
“A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless permitted by the player to move the player by one of these means. A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.”
I see this in the same way as if a player has a NMC and pulls something which gets them banned for life/indefinitely (think Pete Rose or Chris Simon). The player isn’t protected via the NMC – the league itself is performing the action to restrict their ability to play and to remove them from their team (although in this case I think the team is still on the hook for the cap hit).
Regardless of how this plays out, its going to be really interesting to see what they do with NMC/NTC and the cap hits.
BTW I took that quote off general fanager in case anyone wants to look at it.
I think players with NMC/NTC shouldn’t be exempt for the simple reason that creates a large disadvantage to teams who don’t have players on such contracts. If the clauses are allowed to stand, that team is in effect exposing fewer players, and those fewer players exposed will be bottom of the talent pool. Teams without those clauses will have to expose more of their players, and better players. This will particularly stand out as an issue if the league expands by two teams.
Thing that gets me are the idiots hand em it like candy, then realize wait a secomd I dont want this (these) guy(s) anyway….they made thier bed sleep in it. Also if you dont want the guy with the ridiculous contract what make them so sure they would be picked up in an expansion draft? If I have a new team in order to become competitive I will need to be able to move players Im not taking untradable contracts. Think the Vegas bog wheels or whatever the hell they call themselves are going to get it right the first time with an expansion draft? Sometimes the braintrust that are NHL teams front offices are beyond comical. 31 stooges comical yuk yuk yuk.
Even if you could leave them unprotected what are the chances when half your team is available the expansion teams are picking from your top worst contracts. Ooh look at that David Clarkson is available, do I take him or Kirby Rychel? hmmmm
Actually David Clarkson has a limited NTC
Kinda splitting hairs. The point would be that an expansion team would be mad to take players with claises that make them even harder to deal in a league with enough restraints due to the cap. Its not like the guys who have these clauses are going to be the Kaine and Toews of the teams its going to be a player the team doesnt mind losing and if they dont mind losing them because they are limited by the player by his contract, then why would another team want to put them self in a similar position with a weaker roster by default? It would make no sense unless it was a plauer who would be a core type player and if a team can protect half its roster what are the chances they are leaving a core piece unprotected? Slim and none asside from a guy who might need a comtract extension.
This could lead to some very good trades, as I see teams trading some players as to potentially leaving them at risk of losing them to an expansion draft. What also could be interesting if for example the no movement clause players are exempt, then maybe a team like Anaheim decided to resign one or two of their defenseman with a NMC making them exempt from expansion, then protecting their other 3.
I would imagine that a NMC/NTC would be the same as protecting a player, you wouldnt get an extra player the player with the NMC/NTC would count against the amount of players you could protect.
I am also thinking players would have the ability to waive their NMC/NTC to be part of the expansion draft.
Reading the sportsnet article yesterday it was my understanding that players need to be in the league at least 3 years to be exposed to an expansion draft. So if Pittsburgh protected Fluery I believe Murray would be safe. Unless I’m missing something…
Murray will be completing his third pro season at the end of 2016-17. That’s why Allen mentioned him in the piece.
Also, the Sportsnet piece stated it was players with two years or less as professionals who will be ineligible.
Yes, I misread the article, it is 2 years not 3. But Murray has only played 6 NHL games this year (total actually) would this year even count? I thought players needed to play 9 games to burn a year on their elc, or is it different for goalies?
No, it’s years under a pro contract, not games played. Again, Murray will be completing the third season of his pro contract. He’ll be eligible to be left exposed in the expansion draft.
Are the teams losing players compensated in any way with additional draft picks?
No.
Wondering if the push for such a small protected list is to ensure the Las Vegas team (Bettman’s obvious choice) to be competitive from day 1.
I could see the Leafs offering up PIT 1st round pick for a top goalie prospect, at the draft.
I would think it would need to be a little more concrete than a prospect. Lou did similar with Schneider but I think he was beyond prospect status.
Well more competitive than past expansion teams but they will still be awful.
Exactly, my point…they will be really bad, so why on earth would they want guys they cant trade even if they were available? They would better off to take a 4th line plug over a guy with any type of restriction regardless. There will be enough to choose from to not even bother looking at that type player.
I agree greg the leafs need some good goalie prospects either trade that pick or use it for the best goalie available they really don’t have any goalie prospects that look like number 1s
@Shticky these new teams still have to make the cap floor so they will be taking some guys with big dollar contracts to get there
I agree they will need to take some salary but Look at how some teams make the floor now…you dontneed to take a ntcor nmc contract to get to the floor…they will also be able to sign free agents or trade. I just dont think the expansion draft is going to dump as many untradable contracts as people assume and are getting worked up about in regards to ntc or nmc. Even if they were not protected the only guys with these clauses would likely be the bottom of an expansions teams wish list…there just 8snt enough of em to really matter playing 3rd or 4th line minutes there might be the odd one that needs an extension that would be difficult for his current team to resign the following year but besides that its a bit of a stretch to make it an issue.
IMO
Leafs do not need goalie prospects/picks. How many goalies get drafted and actually become starters for the team that drafted them? 5%?
Goalies are a total crap shoot and not worth investing in unless you are getting an established prospect/young goalie with potential to become an above-average starter.
In any case, the Leafs rebuild is not far enough along that need to upgrade above average/slightly-below goaltending which is what they already have.
dan late first and second rd picks are a crapshoot for any position goalie scouting has vastly improved in recent years 13 goalies have been drafted in the top 2 rds in the last 3 yrs! the leafs are 5 yrs away from being competitive why have to make a trade later and give something up when you could have a good one in the system?
Ya know what else is a crapshoot? Goalie prospects.
you know what else Is a crapshoot? any prospects. good comment shticky it made a lot of sense!! lol
K well then hows this big bear since 2010 there have been 10 different goalies in the stanley cup Final only 1 of the one who won it was a first round pick Raask the other 2 who didnt win were Luongo and Brodeure
the other 7
Crawford 52
Bishop 85
Lundqvist 205
Quick 72
Thomas 217
Leighton 165
Neimi undrafted
So why would you waste a first round pick on a goalie prospect when chances are just as likely an undrafted goalie and a first round pick are basically the same for winning a cup over the past 6 seasons? Or chances of finding one in later round are more likely to have success?
There are only 2 goalies per team vs 6or 7 d and 12 or more forwards who do you think has better odds of not being a bust.
10% of the time a first rounder won a cup 10% of the time an undrafted won a cup, 70% of the goalies in the final were not first round picks 80% of the goalies who won cups in the last 5 seasons were third round picks or lower but ya sure they totally need to waste a first on a goalie.
15 of the leagues starters were drafted I. The first Rd! Nuff said shticky
Heres another 16 that were aswell Dipeitro leclaaire Norene Toivenen Brian Finley Blackburn Dubnyk Pat dercshier max outlette JF Damphose Al montoya Brent Krhan Marek Schwartz Ari Ahonen Adam Munro Mat Chouinard Jason bacashuhia…all common house hold names. Its a waste of a pick.
15 of the leagues starters were drafted in the first rd! nuff said shticky
Name em big bear, because 1994 there have only been39 goalies taken in the first round and I can only see or 10 that could be considered starters in the nhl…and a whole lot of questionable starters in that bunch, Bernier Dubnyk Ward Lehtonin so out of that 39 guy picked in the first round over the past 20 years there might be 5 or 6 really good ones Marty Luong Raask Price 8ver 20 years of goalies 4 or 5 good ones and nearly 40 that were not worth the pick yet…ya great odds! There are not 15 good first round picks that are starters in the nhl…if there are you could name them I can name all 39 7n the past 22 years has been taken with a fiirst so you can see how
many times a goalie who costs a first is a bust. Its way above the average of other first round picks….keep saying nuff said tho like you know what you are talking about, maybe you will convince someone.
Think about that for a second over 20 years 30 teams and maybe 5 or 6 good goalie taken in 600 picks why you think that is? 600 picks and 40 of em were goalies and a handful of good ones. How many good forwards have there been in that 600 picks or D? Pretty sure its way more than 5.
keep throwing out useless selective stats shticky…nuff said
For the 1992 expansion draft (Ottawa, Tampa Bay) team could protect 14 players and two goalies, leaving mere scraps behind. For the 1993 expansion draft (Anaheim, Florida) the protected list was tightened up to increase competitiveness from the expansion teams. I remember them doing a mini-second phase of that draft allowing SJ, OTT, TB to take a few players from FLorida and Tampa Bay (I guess as compensation for having a more diminished talent pool to choose from). Since then the protected list has been pretty much the same (Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus). So this has nothing to do with Bettman trying to stock up Las Vegas, it’s been the system for over a decade.
Teams won’t be allowed to circumvent the 7 F ,3 D & 1 G or 8 F/D & 1 G option due to NMC’s. I think the NHL & NHLPA will come to an agreement to allow players with NMC to be acquired in expansion. The # of players who have these clauses that are made available will be very limited. The majority that have NMC’s will be protected by their respective teams as in most cases were talking about their best players.
The NHL will have to extend the NHLPA some form of carrot to get them to agree to it but an accommodation will most likely be found. If not, the teams that signed players to deals with NMC’s will be required to protect them as part of their 11 or 9 depending upon which formula they choose to use. The NHL won’t allow these players to increase the # of players a team can protect with the exception of unsigned prospects or young players with less than 2 years of NHL contract status.
Im not sire it relly ,atters that much when you see the rules. Basically you re able to protect youre top 2 limes plus a forward your starting goalie and your top 3 D so it basically leaves 4th liners and questionable 3rd liners bottom pairing D men and back ups…now why would any team consider it a good idea to pick up a bottom pairing D 4 th liner or back up goalie with a ntc or nmc as a good idea?Its like buying theft insurance with a $1500 deductible on your 2001 ford Tempo thats been in 3 aaccidents and has 500k miles on it. Dont want this one to get away on me!
It should potentially make some young players who are currently 3rd liners or 4/5 Dman but with brighter futures available that might even have 1st or 2nd line potential if given a chance & a few more years development.
I haven’t started to look at rosters yet to speculate who each team might protect but I will start to do so this weekend & thru next week well on spring break with the family.
Does anyone feel M. Lucic is worth over $7m per and a long term deal? I’m always interested in other people’s takes on him as a player because although I was a big supporter of his between 10-11 and 11-12 during the cup run and when he basically posted his best stat lines of his career. He was such a solid player, consistent, and brought this scary edge that made you excited as a fan. Now in the past 4 seasons in my opinion, and based solely on the eye test, he’s been an invisible player for huge stretches of the season… not someone who should be for the type of game he plays, and also being a top 6 forward/leader on the ice. Just don’t feel that’s acceptable and to think he may get $7m + per, I feel it’s an overpayment for a player that you don’t know what you’re getting night in and night out. When he decides to play hard and play his type of game, he certainly makes a huge impact but the he’s gone for 10-15 games and I don’t think that’s worth that type of money.
I could though see Chiarelli making that type of move, Chiarelli was a big fan of Lucic.
Also, Chiarelli needs to get off his high horse if he’s unwilling to come down off of his asking price for Yakupov. No offense but if he wasn’t moved at the deadline because he was unwilling to move off the price, then what makes you think he’ll move him in the off season. The other GM’s are professionals also and know what and who the player is… he needs to reevaluate his assets and decide what he’s going to do. Spend another season at he bottom of the league or finally make some tough moves for the longterm and better of the organization. If that means taking a little less for some of your assets in order to move them for immediate needs then you do that… news flash Chiarelli, Edmonton SUCKS, they have for years, and nothing has changed besides bringing in more top picks in the draft… I realize you never want to come out as the loser in a trade (ex. Seguin <- Chiarelli!) but still there's typically always a winner and loser with a trade, one team gets a slight advantage and the other doesn't. It's very rare that both teams receive equal value in a move, so Chiarelli has his work cut out for him but if he's unwilling to negotiate and come off of prices then I don't see Edmonton making big changes in the off season.
I don’t pay Lucic 7 mil per on any term.
agreed
Agreed about Lucic: he is over valued only due to his physical presence, when once he inspired fear in players who could not fight back…he is not worth a big contract, not worth more than two years…there is something going on with him we don’t know about because he is nowhere near the player that his physical tools suggest he could be. I think the display of really dumb attitude at the end of the playoffs (with Lemelin) is a case in point-Lemelin is a big hitter, but pretty clean and clearly not a fighter-Lucic cold not intimidate him but his approach in terms of sportsmanship really set him back.
lucic has played a lot better all around game this season! last offseason he had some personal tragedy and he has really turned a page in his life
I would say Lucic is worth about $6.25-$6.5 per on a multi year. He has been exceptional for the Kings thus far and brings the rare skillset of size/strength and offensive capabilities while being defensively responsible.
From what I’ve seen this year, he hasn’t disappeared for long stretches, not even close. Boston fans need to remember, just because he isn’t donning the B, doesn’t mean he’s all of a sudden a crappy player.
He is doing exactly what the Kings brought him in to do. I 100% guarantee he will be resigned by LA, and other vet players will be moved out.
As for going to Van or Edm, when he was first traded to LA he said he has zero interest in going to a rebuilding team. He’s been very public about his desire to stay in LA.
Well for the last seasons in Boston he was very much a player who disappeared for stretches of the season and moves as if his skates were made of concrete. If he’s played better in LA then that’s a good step for the player and team but his time in Boston was very much over, and it wasn’t 100% because they didn’t want to pay player or saw a good chance at bringing back good trade value; there were other tangible evidence that the team saw in the past couple of seasons that made them move on. If he was a great core player they would’ve resigned or kept the player and went from there.
Also, although the chances are likely greater than not that Lucic resigns in LA… Don’t place 100% certainty on that. He’s going to demand a hefty contract, even if he takes a slight discount and I say slight because it won’t be a huge hometown discount. This is a player who’s 27 and looking for the big contract that rounds out his NHL career. Be prepared for 6-7 years at $6.5m with NMC, ect. Don’t be surprised either if he decides to walk and go to the Oilers if they decide to move out a top 6 forward and with the available cap space and familiarity with Chiarelli
I just went & ran all 30 teams & looked at players signed thru 2017-18 that have NMC’s. Obviously this doesn’t count any contracts signed between now & the expansion draft. It’s just not an issue. There are only 46 players effected.
Anh 2, Arz 1, Bos 3, Buf 1, Cal 0, Chi 6, Col 1, Clb 4, Dal 1, Edm 1, Det 0, Edm 1, Flo 0, LA 1, Min 4, Mtl 0, Nas 2, NJ 1, NYI 1, NYR 3, Ott 2, Phi 1, Pit 3, SJ 0, Stl 0, TB 2, Tor 1, Van 2, Was 0, & Win 1.
I retract what I said prior about the NHLPA & NHL negotiating an agreement to allow for their movement. No need just not an issue. The NHL simply makes teams protect players on NMC’s as part of either than 11 or 9 depending upon which format they choose.
Of those 46 I only see 1 player that a team might wish to lose that has an NMC. That being Columbus with Tyutin. There is 1 other odd situation where a team could possibly wish to lose 2 veteran players as opposed to losing younger players. The Sedin’s in Vancouver will each have 1 year left on their current deals if expansion were to happen in the summer of 2017-18 & that’s a weird potential scenario.
NTC’s aren’t a factor as players aren’t being traded. This is covered in the CBA. These players can be moved if placed on wavers also. No way the NHLPA could win an arbitration on players moving in expansion with NTC’s.
It will be interesting to see what teams do this summer when signing players. Even then not really an issue as again they will be players that the teams want to protect regardless.
Some ntc are losts of teams that the player would accept going to….Vegas might not be that so. The only difference in a ntc and a nmc is sending the player to the minors. Eitherway I dont think it matters a whole heck of alot. Again ,aybe in a few cases butnot really overall which is why I would think that the NHL will or has chose not to die on this hill. Save it for the next cba.
http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html
Here is the complete list of guys with NTC and NMC for this year and looking at it how many in acuality woouldnt be protected in the first place and of the ones that wouldnt I am not sure you would be in any hurry to pick them up if you were an expansion team. Ver few players to matter.
NMC should be exempt. The team signed it so they should be stuck with them. If a team like Hawks have to protect a Hossa over a Artimisov that is their problem. Not sure Hossa has a NMC but it is a good example.
In regard to goalies If I am Pits, Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa I would either be trading my prospect or exposing the veteran. Imagine Vegas having the choice of Fleury, Bishop, Miller or Anderson. Those teams either get something for their young tenders now or could lose starters for nothing? As an expansion GM I cant lose with these choices. I expect Miller and Anderson will be available for sure.