Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Expansion Draft


campabee82
 Share

Recommended Posts

Personally I would like to see Weber added to this list, an opportune time to get out from under that contract.

 

Since he hasn't been added, I would go will Allen.  Takes a good portion of the contact off the table and will allow us to bring up Primeau to give some valuable experience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 26NCounting said:

Personally I would like to see Weber added to this list, an opportune time to get out from under that contract.

 

Since he hasn't been added, I would go will Allen.  Takes a good portion of the contact off the table and will allow us to bring up Primeau to give some valuable experience

There was an other option lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, habs1952 said:

Expose Weber who is past his "best before" date and go with youth.

If we're considering moving Weber (which i dont think we are with MB at the helm) it would make a lot more sense to trade him for assets vs. letting him be picked up by the Kraken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Allen was signed with the hope he will be picked up by Seattle.  

He'll be 31, signed to a very reasonable 2 year deal.  May well be the most appealing goalie left exposed in the expansion draft, so i think there's a legit chance the team is right & the Kraken will take him. 

If they dont pick him, I would assume we'll lose a defensman.  Petry has to be protected, Weber will be protected and guys like Romanov and Brook dont need to be.  That leaves Mete, Chairot, Edmundson, Kulak and Fleury as guys who could be picked (and we can only protect one). I suspect out of that group we'll protect Chairot actually (unless he loses his job to Romanov).   In which case, i think Edmundson gets picked up.

There's an outside chance we lose a forward.  Suzuki and Poehling are both exempt, and we will undoubtedly protect Kotkaniemi, Gallagher, Drouin, Anderson & Toffoli (thats 5).   Lehkonen is the only other guy we'll likely protect who is under contract. Danault, Armia & Tatar are all UFA this summer so may or may not be signed, may be traded etc. Byron will almost certainly be exposed but at $3.4m its unlikely to be nabbed. Likewise Weal.  Evans is probably the only forward we'll likely expose, who may or may not be of interest as a young defensive centre. 


So my guess, if i had to pick, in order of the chances we lose guys:

- Allen
- Edmundson
- Mete
- Evans
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
4 minutes ago, dreegking said:

Who is exempt? Rules? 
 

whar are the rules? Anyone with a good link? 

Answering my own questions:

The Expansion Rules (for those who may have forgotten from last time like me) ...

Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie, under the following conditions.

* All players with no movement clauses at the time of the draft, and who decline to waive those clauses, must be protected and will be counted toward their team's applicable protection limits.

* All first- and second-year NHL players, and all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward protection limits.

In addition, all NHL teams must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the draft:

* One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2021-22 and B) played in at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2021-22 and B) played at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* One goalie who is under contract in 2021-22 or will be a restricted free agent at the end of his current contract immediately prior to 2021-22. If a team elects to make a restricted free agent goalie available to meet this requirement, that goalie must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the team's protected list.

* Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a team's player exposure requirements unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection.

KRAKEN must pick 14, 9, and 3. And a few other salary things, etc. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dreegking said:

But clarify this for me: 

Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie, under the following conditions.

?????????????????

The second option allows you to protect less skaters(8). The first option allows 10 protected skaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dreegking said:

Who is exempt? Rules? 
 

whar are the rules? Anyone with a good link? 

I see that you answered your own question about exemptions & such.

Just to clarify on our own roster:

- Price & Petry MUST be protected (unless they waive their clauses)

- Suzuki, Poehling, Romanov & Primeau are exempt (as are, of course, players not with the team yet like Caufield and Guhle etc)

- Kotkaniemi, Evans, Fleury, Juulsen and Mete are all young players who ARE eligible - even though some of them (Fleury, Evans) haven't played a lot of NHL games, they have played pro games in the AHL.

- Danault, Tatar, Armia are all guys who are set to become UFA next summer.  We could, theoretically, leave their contracts & not need to protect them.  The Kraken could also pick one but that would be pretty silly since they could just not sign with them.  So if you felt confident in a handshake deal you could leave a guy like Armia with the promise to give him a contract after the ED.  It has happened in the past on other teams. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, habs1952 said:

The second option allows you to protect less skaters(8). The first option allows 10 protected skaters.

I get that. Ha. But why would a team choose to protect less? What’s these advantage. I’m sorry, I’m just not seeing it.  
why the difference of two skaters? For what trade off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, maas_art said:

I see that you answered your own question about exemptions & such.

Just to clarify on our own roster:

- Price & Petry MUST be protected (unless they waive their clauses)

- Suzuki, Poehling, Romanov & Primeau are exempt (as are, of course, players not with the team yet like Caufield and Guhle etc)

- Kotkaniemi, Evans, Fleury, Juulsen and Mete are all young players who ARE eligible - even though some of them (Fleury, Evans) haven't played a lot of NHL games, they have played pro games in the AHL.

- Danault, Tatar, Armia are all guys who are set to become UFA next summer.  We could, theoretically, leave their contracts & not need to protect them.  The Kraken could also pick one but that would be pretty silly since they could just not sign with them.  So if you felt confident in a handshake deal you could leave a guy like Armia with the promise to give him a contract after the ED.  It has happened in the past on other teams. 

 

Thanks.
 

Won’t Suzuki have played two years by this years end? Same with Poeling? 
 

So tge only two non trade clauses are Perry and Price? That’s it? 
 

personally, I’d prefer everyone was signed. The more left available the merrier. I say sign them all. But I doubt it.
 

I think a lot depends on how guys play this year. A lot can change. I know they believe in Anderson. But his contract based a lot on belief and projection.  Drouin too. 
 

danault is a proven commodity. I just think bergervin is a fool to let him go. These are exactly the guys you want. Same with Tartar. Completely consistent. Of course it always boils down to how much and the cap. 

So much depends on how guys play this year. As would and should be the case. 
 

a lot can change. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dreegking said:

I get that. Ha. But why would a team choose to protect less? What’s these advantage. I’m sorry, I’m just not seeing it.  
why the difference of two skaters? For what trade off. 

Im not sure if its ever happened but the reasoning behind it would be this: lets say you have the best defense in the NHL and you dont want to lose one of your top 4, you may prefer to protect 4 dmen and your top 4 forwards. I dont think they did it, but Nashville during the LV expansion would have been a candidate - 4 great dmen and only a couple of elite forwards... 

 

2 hours ago, dreegking said:

Won’t Suzuki have played two years by this years end? Same with Poeling? 

Yes, they will be 2nd year forwards then (All first- and second-year NHL players are exempt)

2 hours ago, dreegking said:

So tge only two non trade clauses are Perry and Price? That’s it? 

As of right now, yes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dreegking said:

danault is a proven commodity. I just think bergervin is a fool to let him go. These are exactly the guys you want. Same with Tartar. Completely consistent. Of course it always boils down to how much and the cap. 

I cant imagine MB would let Danault go for nothing. I could see him trading him (or sign & trading him) if our 2 young centres do well to start the year, but even then, its unlikely. I think the only thing that could keep Danault from sticking with us long term is Danault: As in, will he accept a lesser role behing Suzuki and Kotkaniemi.  Not sure.  I wouldnt blame him if he didnt, but as his age & ability, id love to keep him around for 4-5 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

I cant imagine MB would let Danault go for nothing. I could see him trading him (or sign & trading him) if our 2 young centres do well to start the year, but even then, its unlikely. I think the only thing that could keep Danault from sticking with us long term is Danault: As in, will he accept a lesser role behing Suzuki and Kotkaniemi.  Not sure.  I wouldnt blame him if he didnt, but as his age & ability, id love to keep him around for 4-5 years. 

I don't really think a lesser role is needed at this time. He already is matched up against the other teams top lines. He also doesn't get much PP time. So he'll probably get the same amount of minutes which is fine. I definitely don't see JK being able to match up against the other teams top lines yet. So i could see Suzuki and Danualt having about the same minutes a game maybe Suzuki a little more as he can play PP & PK. JK depending on the game situations if we have a lot more PP's than PK's getting as much time. In todays game having 3 solid centers is a good thing. Being able to role 3 lines close to equal is a good thing. The "old school" #1-2-3-4 having set roles and minutes divided by line # with as fast as the game is and the number of games per week and back to backs, will really wear your top players thin. Also it's much easier to defend against a team with one or two lines only that have any threats to them. In todays fast game a well balanced attack is a better approach. I think our team finally has the depth to be a team that can throw 3 lines an role them this year. I really think it should be a game by game situational how the different lines and roles are used in each game. this team should be able to give the coach great flexibility this year. Hopefully everyone can check their ego and play as a team and win together as a team no matter who is getting what ice time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, maas_art said:

I cant imagine MB would let Danault go for nothing. I could see him trading him (or sign & trading him) if our 2 young centres do well to start the year, but even then, its unlikely. I think the only thing that could keep Danault from sticking with us long term is Danault: As in, will he accept a lesser role behing Suzuki and Kotkaniemi.  Not sure.  I wouldnt blame him if he didnt, but as his age & ability, id love to keep him around for 4-5 years. 

Both have still got to price they can elevate there game to D’s. They are young. But do they deserve elevated status. No. That’s D’s gripe. He’s not griping per say. But it’s fair opinion. They have not dislodged him. Make them earn it. 
 

regarding Drouin. I can easily see him being made available. This is his year. He needs to Prove He won’t disappear for long spells. Otherwise, he won’t be protected. And should not be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dreegking said:

Both have still got to price they can elevate there game to D’s. They are young. But do they deserve elevated status. No. That’s D’s gripe. He’s not griping per say. But it’s fair opinion. They have not dislodged him. Make them earn it. 
 

regarding Drouin. I can easily see him being made available. This is his year. He needs to Prove He won’t disappear for long spells. Otherwise, he won’t be protected. And should not be. 

Drouin has a modified no trade clause so I assume he won't be going to Seattle. I may be wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, habs1952 said:

Drouin has a modified no trade clause so I assume he won't be going to Seattle. I may be wrong though.

The way most modified ntc clauses work is that you have to specify teams you wouldnt allow trades to.  So unless he's specified Seatle (and why would he) he would not be protected.  

My undertstanding is that no movement or full NTC are the only way you are fully protected (and must be protected by the team) in expansion drafts.  That said, there's basically zero chance MB wouldnt protect him so its moot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

The way most modified ntc clauses work is that you have to specify teams you wouldnt allow trades to.  So unless he's specified Seatle (and why would he) he would not be protected.  

My undertstanding is that no movement or full NTC are the only way you are fully protected (and must be protected by the team) in expansion drafts.  That said, there's basically zero chance MB wouldnt protect him so its moot. 

He has a clause allowing a list of three teams he cannot be traded to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maas_art said:

The way most modified ntc clauses work is that you have to specify teams you wouldnt allow trades to.  So unless he's specified Seatle (and why would he) he would not be protected.  

My undertstanding is that no movement or full NTC are the only way you are fully protected (and must be protected by the team) in expansion drafts.  That said, there's basically zero chance MB wouldnt protect him so its moot. 

Only NMC have to be protected, full no trade clauses don't have to be. So from my understanding Drouin would have no choice if Seattle chose him cause technically the ED is not a trade so even with a full NTC he would still have to report to Seattle. Also different this time around is the trade protection moves with the player when they are traded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...