Deck already stacked against new franchises ahead of NHL expansion draft

On one hand is Gary Bettman’s expressed mandate that whatever expansion draft scenario the National Hockey League comes up with, it must allow the new club the chance of a respectable roster.

[np_storybar title=”Picking their poison: With NHL expansion draft on the way, GMs need to figure out which players to protect” link=”http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/picking-their-poison-with-nhl-expansion-draft-on-the-way-gms-need-to-figure-out-who-to-protect”%5D

On the other is the collection of arched eyebrows and quiet snickers the commissioner’s admonition is likely to draw from NHL general managers, who naturally will use every loophole known to man — and a few man hasn’t thought of yet — to keep the expansion franchise from actually getting any good players.

History says the GMs will find the way.

For purposes of this discussion, we’re assuming it will be one expansion team, Las Vegas, and that it will begin play in 2017-18, though the NHL is determined not to show its cards.

(The Canadian peso is so down in the dumps, Quebec City’s bid might be viable if expansion holds off another year and the loonie rebounds, but for now, it’s on hold.)

The notable difference between the expansion draft model the league will adopt this time and the one in 2000, when Columbus and Minnesota stocked the shelves from 26 other teams’ jetsam (Nashville and Atlanta, admitted in 1998 and ’99, respectively, were exempt), is that the Las Vegans should have a really terrific goaltender and even a darned good backup.

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

They’ll need them. The talent available everywhere else on the roster is going to be … um, sparse.

Because each of the 30 existing clubs will be permitted to protect only one goalie under either of the scenarios former Vancouver Canucks assistant GM Laurence Gilman developed for the league, Las Vegas potentially could be picking from some or all of Ryan Miller (or Jacob Markstrom), James Reimer, Frederik Andersen, Jimmy Howard, Al Montoya, Brian Elliott, Cam Ward (or Eddie Lack) …

It shouldn’t be like 1999, when clubs had the option to protect two goalies and Atlanta’s goaltending yield was Trevor Kidd (immediately traded to Florida), Norm Maracle and Corey Schwab, or like 2000 when the first two goalies picked were Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan.

But now the other shoe drops.

It sounds good in theory: if clubs choose Option A, to protect three defencemen and seven forwards, you’d think an expansion team could make a decent blueline corps by picking from the best No. 4 D-men on 30 teams.

Just for fun, let’s say the unprotected list were to include Michal Rozsival from Chicago, Kyle Quincey from Detroit, Anton Volchenkov from Nashville, Kevin Bieksa from Anaheim, Rob Scuderi or Luke Schenn from Los Angeles, Keith Yandle or Kevin Klein from the Rangers, Matt Niskanen from Washington, and on down the list.

Not bad, right?

Ah, but now we get to the fine print: a team deep in defencemen and just average up front chooses Option B: protect eight skaters, regardless of position.

How many really good D-men are unprotected in that case?

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press

Now look at forwards: if a team chooses Option A and protects seven, which is probably going to be the preferred choice of so many mediocre teams — protecting 10 skaters overall rather than eight — try to think of your club’s eighth best forward and ask yourself how an expansion team can be any good picking 14 or 15 players just like that.

Couldn’t those skinflints even reduce the protected list to a goaltender, two D-men and six forwards, or a goalie and eight skaters of any position?

You want to give the new guys a fighting chance, at least that would be a start.

As it is, the plan is slanted heavily toward existing teams to preserve anyone who’s really any good, and yes, a case can be made that that’s how it should be. Those teams worked a lot of years to build their talent pools.

But for $500 million — if the NHL gets the full asking price — an expansion franchise ought to be able to expect more than the halt, the lame, the poor of spirit and the rich of contract … and a goalie.

Oh, and first- or second-year pros are exempt, so a team doesn’t have to lose its best young prospects.

Oh, almost forgot: now factor in players on no-move contracts, which the league would argue should make them ineligible for expansion purposes, because existing clubs should be stuck with their bad contracts.

The GMs want the opposite: to be able to unload their aging, overpriced turkeys, but there’s a lot of wrangling to be done before that’s settled, and the GMs don’t lose too many arguments on hockey operations.

Someone suggested it be left up to the player with a no-trade or no-move deal to decide whether he wants to be made available or not; the idea being, as expressed this week by Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, that some might want to play in Vegas because there is no state tax in Nevada.

That’s the kind of character guy I want on my expansion team.

Yea or nay, we should know more before the draft in June. Vegas probably has a prop bet for that.

Postmedia News

Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Deck already stacked against new franchises ahead of NHL expansion draft

On one hand is Gary Bettman’s expressed mandate that whatever expansion draft scenario the National Hockey League comes up with, it must allow the new club the chance of a respectable roster.

[np_storybar title=”Picking their poison: With NHL expansion draft on the way, GMs need to figure out which players to protect” link=”http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/picking-their-poison-with-nhl-expansion-draft-on-the-way-gms-need-to-figure-out-who-to-protect”%5D

On the other is the collection of arched eyebrows and quiet snickers the commissioner’s admonition is likely to draw from NHL general managers, who naturally will use every loophole known to man — and a few man hasn’t thought of yet — to keep the expansion franchise from actually getting any good players.

History says the GMs will find the way.

For purposes of this discussion, we’re assuming it will be one expansion team, Las Vegas, and that it will begin play in 2017-18, though the NHL is determined not to show its cards.

(The Canadian peso is so down in the dumps, Quebec City’s bid might be viable if expansion holds off another year and the loonie rebounds, but for now, it’s on hold.)

The notable difference between the expansion draft model the league will adopt this time and the one in 2000, when Columbus and Minnesota stocked the shelves from 26 other teams’ jetsam (Nashville and Atlanta, admitted in 1998 and ’99, respectively, were exempt), is that the Las Vegans should have a really terrific goaltender and even a darned good backup.

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

They’ll need them. The talent available everywhere else on the roster is going to be … um, sparse.

Because each of the 30 existing clubs will be permitted to protect only one goalie under either of the scenarios former Vancouver Canucks assistant GM Laurence Gilman developed for the league, Las Vegas potentially could be picking from some or all of Ryan Miller (or Jacob Markstrom), James Reimer, Frederik Andersen, Jimmy Howard, Al Montoya, Brian Elliott, Cam Ward (or Eddie Lack) …

It shouldn’t be like 1999, when clubs had the option to protect two goalies and Atlanta’s goaltending yield was Trevor Kidd (immediately traded to Florida), Norm Maracle and Corey Schwab, or like 2000 when the first two goalies picked were Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan.

But now the other shoe drops.

It sounds good in theory: if clubs choose Option A, to protect three defencemen and seven forwards, you’d think an expansion team could make a decent blueline corps by picking from the best No. 4 D-men on 30 teams.

Just for fun, let’s say the unprotected list were to include Michal Rozsival from Chicago, Kyle Quincey from Detroit, Anton Volchenkov from Nashville, Kevin Bieksa from Anaheim, Rob Scuderi or Luke Schenn from Los Angeles, Keith Yandle or Kevin Klein from the Rangers, Matt Niskanen from Washington, and on down the list.

Not bad, right?

Ah, but now we get to the fine print: a team deep in defencemen and just average up front chooses Option B: protect eight skaters, regardless of position.

How many really good D-men are unprotected in that case?

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press

Now look at forwards: if a team chooses Option A and protects seven, which is probably going to be the preferred choice of so many mediocre teams — protecting 10 skaters overall rather than eight — try to think of your club’s eighth best forward and ask yourself how an expansion team can be any good picking 14 or 15 players just like that.

Couldn’t those skinflints even reduce the protected list to a goaltender, two D-men and six forwards, or a goalie and eight skaters of any position?

You want to give the new guys a fighting chance, at least that would be a start.

As it is, the plan is slanted heavily toward existing teams to preserve anyone who’s really any good, and yes, a case can be made that that’s how it should be. Those teams worked a lot of years to build their talent pools.

But for $500 million — if the NHL gets the full asking price — an expansion franchise ought to be able to expect more than the halt, the lame, the poor of spirit and the rich of contract … and a goalie.

Oh, and first- or second-year pros are exempt, so a team doesn’t have to lose its best young prospects.

Oh, almost forgot: now factor in players on no-move contracts, which the league would argue should make them ineligible for expansion purposes, because existing clubs should be stuck with their bad contracts.

The GMs want the opposite: to be able to unload their aging, overpriced turkeys, but there’s a lot of wrangling to be done before that’s settled, and the GMs don’t lose too many arguments on hockey operations.

Someone suggested it be left up to the player with a no-trade or no-move deal to decide whether he wants to be made available or not; the idea being, as expressed this week by Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, that some might want to play in Vegas because there is no state tax in Nevada.

That’s the kind of character guy I want on my expansion team.

Yea or nay, we should know more before the draft in June. Vegas probably has a prop bet for that.

Postmedia News


Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Deck already stacked against new franchises ahead of NHL expansion draft

On one hand is Gary Bettman’s expressed mandate that whatever expansion draft scenario the National Hockey League comes up with, it must allow the new club the chance of a respectable roster.

[np_storybar title=”Picking their poison: With NHL expansion draft on the way, GMs need to figure out which players to protect” link=”http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/picking-their-poison-with-nhl-expansion-draft-on-the-way-gms-need-to-figure-out-who-to-protect”%5D

On the other is the collection of arched eyebrows and quiet snickers the commissioner’s admonition is likely to draw from NHL general managers, who naturally will use every loophole known to man — and a few man hasn’t thought of yet — to keep the expansion franchise from actually getting any good players.

History says the GMs will find the way.

For purposes of this discussion, we’re assuming it will be one expansion team, Las Vegas, and that it will begin play in 2017-18, though the NHL is determined not to show its cards.

(The Canadian peso is so down in the dumps, Quebec City’s bid might be viable if expansion holds off another year and the loonie rebounds, but for now, it’s on hold.)

The notable difference between the expansion draft model the league will adopt this time and the one in 2000, when Columbus and Minnesota stocked the shelves from 26 other teams’ jetsam (Nashville and Atlanta, admitted in 1998 and ’99, respectively, were exempt), is that the Las Vegans should have a really terrific goaltender and even a darned good backup.

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

They’ll need them. The talent available everywhere else on the roster is going to be … um, sparse.

Because each of the 30 existing clubs will be permitted to protect only one goalie under either of the scenarios former Vancouver Canucks assistant GM Laurence Gilman developed for the league, Las Vegas potentially could be picking from some or all of Ryan Miller (or Jacob Markstrom), James Reimer, Frederik Andersen, Jimmy Howard, Al Montoya, Brian Elliott, Cam Ward (or Eddie Lack) …

It shouldn’t be like 1999, when clubs had the option to protect two goalies and Atlanta’s goaltending yield was Trevor Kidd (immediately traded to Florida), Norm Maracle and Corey Schwab, or like 2000 when the first two goalies picked were Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan.

But now the other shoe drops.

It sounds good in theory: if clubs choose Option A, to protect three defencemen and seven forwards, you’d think an expansion team could make a decent blueline corps by picking from the best No. 4 D-men on 30 teams.

Just for fun, let’s say the unprotected list were to include Michal Rozsival from Chicago, Kyle Quincey from Detroit, Anton Volchenkov from Nashville, Kevin Bieksa from Anaheim, Rob Scuderi or Luke Schenn from Los Angeles, Keith Yandle or Kevin Klein from the Rangers, Matt Niskanen from Washington, and on down the list.

Not bad, right?

Ah, but now we get to the fine print: a team deep in defencemen and just average up front chooses Option B: protect eight skaters, regardless of position.

How many really good D-men are unprotected in that case?

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press

Now look at forwards: if a team chooses Option A and protects seven, which is probably going to be the preferred choice of so many mediocre teams — protecting 10 skaters overall rather than eight — try to think of your club’s eighth best forward and ask yourself how an expansion team can be any good picking 14 or 15 players just like that.

Couldn’t those skinflints even reduce the protected list to a goaltender, two D-men and six forwards, or a goalie and eight skaters of any position?

You want to give the new guys a fighting chance, at least that would be a start.

As it is, the plan is slanted heavily toward existing teams to preserve anyone who’s really any good, and yes, a case can be made that that’s how it should be. Those teams worked a lot of years to build their talent pools.

But for $500 million — if the NHL gets the full asking price — an expansion franchise ought to be able to expect more than the halt, the lame, the poor of spirit and the rich of contract … and a goalie.

Oh, and first- or second-year pros are exempt, so a team doesn’t have to lose its best young prospects.

Oh, almost forgot: now factor in players on no-move contracts, which the league would argue should make them ineligible for expansion purposes, because existing clubs should be stuck with their bad contracts.

The GMs want the opposite: to be able to unload their aging, overpriced turkeys, but there’s a lot of wrangling to be done before that’s settled, and the GMs don’t lose too many arguments on hockey operations.

Someone suggested it be left up to the player with a no-trade or no-move deal to decide whether he wants to be made available or not; the idea being, as expressed this week by Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, that some might want to play in Vegas because there is no state tax in Nevada.

That’s the kind of character guy I want on my expansion team.

Yea or nay, we should know more before the draft in June. Vegas probably has a prop bet for that.

Postmedia News


Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Deck already stacked against new franchises ahead of NHL expansion draft

On one hand is Gary Bettman’s expressed mandate that whatever expansion draft scenario the National Hockey League comes up with, it must allow the new club the chance of a respectable roster.

On the other is the collection of arched eyebrows and quiet snickers the commissioner’s admonition is likely to draw from NHL general managers, who naturally will use every loophole known to man — and a few man hasn’t thought of yet — to keep the expansion franchise from actually getting any good players.

History says the GMs will find the way.

For purposes of this discussion, we’re assuming it will be one expansion team, Las Vegas, and that it will begin play in 2017-18, though the NHL is determined not to show its cards.

(The Canadian peso is so down in the dumps, Quebec City’s bid might be viable if expansion holds off another year and the loonie rebounds, but for now, it’s on hold.)

The notable difference between the expansion draft model the league will adopt this time and the one in 2000, when Columbus and Minnesota stocked the shelves from 26 other teams’ jetsam (Nashville and Atlanta, admitted in 1998 and ’99, respectively, were exempt), is that the Las Vegans should have a really terrific goaltender and even a darned good backup.

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
Tom Pennington/Getty Images)There will be plenty of goaltenders up for grabs at the expansion draft, but the talent pool will get pretty thin after that.

They’ll need them. The talent available everywhere else on the roster is going to be … um, sparse.

Because each of the 30 existing clubs will be permitted to protect only one goalie under either of the scenarios former Vancouver Canucks assistant GM Laurence Gilman developed for the league, Las Vegas potentially could be picking from some or all of Ryan Miller (or Jacob Markstrom), James Reimer, Frederik Andersen, Jimmy Howard, Al Montoya, Brian Elliott, Cam Ward (or Eddie Lack) …

It shouldn’t be like 1999, when clubs had the option to protect two goalies and Atlanta’s goaltending yield was Trevor Kidd (immediately traded to Florida), Norm Maracle and Corey Schwab, or like 2000 when the first two goalies picked were Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan.

But now the other shoe drops.

It sounds good in theory: if clubs choose Option A, to protect three defencemen and seven forwards, you’d think an expansion team could make a decent blueline corps by picking from the best No. 4 D-men on 30 teams.

Just for fun, let’s say the unprotected list were to include Michal Rozsival from Chicago, Kyle Quincey from Detroit, Anton Volchenkov from Nashville, Kevin Bieksa from Anaheim, Rob Scuderi or Luke Schenn from Los Angeles, Keith Yandle or Kevin Klein from the Rangers, Matt Niskanen from Washington, and on down the list.

Not bad, right?

Ah, but now we get to the fine print: a team deep in defencemen and just average up front chooses Option B: protect eight skaters, regardless of position.

How many really good D-men are unprotected in that case?

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press
L.E. Baskow/The Associated PressThe weak Canadian dollar may mean Las Vegas will be the only new team set to join the NHL for the 2017-18 season. They'll have their work cut out for them.

Now look at forwards: if a team chooses Option A and protects seven, which is probably going to be the preferred choice of so many mediocre teams — protecting 10 skaters overall rather than eight — try to think of your club’s eighth best forward and ask yourself how an expansion team can be any good picking 14 or 15 players just like that.

Couldn’t those skinflints even reduce the protected list to a goaltender, two D-men and six forwards, or a goalie and eight skaters of any position?

You want to give the new guys a fighting chance, at least that would be a start.

As it is, the plan is slanted heavily toward existing teams to preserve anyone who’s really any good, and yes, a case can be made that that’s how it should be. Those teams worked a lot of years to build their talent pools.

But for $500 million — if the NHL gets the full asking price — an expansion franchise ought to be able to expect more than the halt, the lame, the poor of spirit and the rich of contract … and a goalie.

Oh, and first- or second-year pros are exempt, so a team doesn’t have to lose its best young prospects.

Oh, almost forgot: now factor in players on no-move contracts, which the league would argue should make them ineligible for expansion purposes, because existing clubs should be stuck with their bad contracts.

The GMs want the opposite: to be able to unload their aging, overpriced turkeys, but there’s a lot of wrangling to be done before that’s settled, and the GMs don’t lose too many arguments on hockey operations.

Someone suggested it be left up to the player with a no-trade or no-move deal to decide whether he wants to be made available or not; the idea being, as expressed this week by Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, that some might want to play in Vegas because there is no state tax in Nevada.

That’s the kind of character guy I want on my expansion team.

Yea or nay, we should know more before the draft in June. Vegas probably has a prop bet for that.

Postmedia News

Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Deck already stacked against new franchises ahead of NHL expansion draft

On one hand is Gary Bettman’s expressed mandate that whatever expansion draft scenario the National Hockey League comes up with, it must allow the new club the chance of a respectable roster.

On the other is the collection of arched eyebrows and quiet snickers the commissioner’s admonition is likely to draw from NHL general managers, who naturally will use every loophole known to man — and a few man hasn’t thought of yet — to keep the expansion franchise from actually getting any good players.

History says the GMs will find the way.

For purposes of this discussion, we’re assuming it will be one expansion team, Las Vegas, and that it will begin play in 2017-18, though the NHL is determined not to show its cards.

(The Canadian peso is so down in the dumps, Quebec City’s bid might be viable if expansion holds off another year and the loonie rebounds, but for now, it’s on hold.)

The notable difference between the expansion draft model the league will adopt this time and the one in 2000, when Columbus and Minnesota stocked the shelves from 26 other teams’ jetsam (Nashville and Atlanta, admitted in 1998 and ’99, respectively, were exempt), is that the Las Vegans should have a really terrific goaltender and even a darned good backup.

Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
Tom Pennington/Getty Images)There will be plenty of goaltenders up for grabs at the expansion draft, but the talent pool will get pretty thin after that.

They’ll need them. The talent available everywhere else on the roster is going to be … um, sparse.

Because each of the 30 existing clubs will be permitted to protect only one goalie under either of the scenarios former Vancouver Canucks assistant GM Laurence Gilman developed for the league, Las Vegas potentially could be picking from some or all of Ryan Miller (or Jacob Markstrom), James Reimer, Frederik Andersen, Jimmy Howard, Al Montoya, Brian Elliott, Cam Ward (or Eddie Lack) …

It shouldn’t be like 1999, when clubs had the option to protect two goalies and Atlanta’s goaltending yield was Trevor Kidd (immediately traded to Florida), Norm Maracle and Corey Schwab, or like 2000 when the first two goalies picked were Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan.

But now the other shoe drops.

It sounds good in theory: if clubs choose Option A, to protect three defencemen and seven forwards, you’d think an expansion team could make a decent blueline corps by picking from the best No. 4 D-men on 30 teams.

Just for fun, let’s say the unprotected list were to include Michal Rozsival from Chicago, Kyle Quincey from Detroit, Anton Volchenkov from Nashville, Kevin Bieksa from Anaheim, Rob Scuderi or Luke Schenn from Los Angeles, Keith Yandle or Kevin Klein from the Rangers, Matt Niskanen from Washington, and on down the list.

Not bad, right?

Ah, but now we get to the fine print: a team deep in defencemen and just average up front chooses Option B: protect eight skaters, regardless of position.

How many really good D-men are unprotected in that case?

L.E. Baskow/The Associated Press
L.E. Baskow/The Associated PressThe weak Canadian dollar may mean Las Vegas will be the only new team set to join the NHL for the 2017-18 season. They'll have their work cut out for them.

Now look at forwards: if a team chooses Option A and protects seven, which is probably going to be the preferred choice of so many mediocre teams — protecting 10 skaters overall rather than eight — try to think of your club’s eighth best forward and ask yourself how an expansion team can be any good picking 14 or 15 players just like that.

Couldn’t those skinflints even reduce the protected list to a goaltender, two D-men and six forwards, or a goalie and eight skaters of any position?

You want to give the new guys a fighting chance, at least that would be a start.

As it is, the plan is slanted heavily toward existing teams to preserve anyone who’s really any good, and yes, a case can be made that that’s how it should be. Those teams worked a lot of years to build their talent pools.

But for $500 million — if the NHL gets the full asking price — an expansion franchise ought to be able to expect more than the halt, the lame, the poor of spirit and the rich of contract … and a goalie.

Oh, and first- or second-year pros are exempt, so a team doesn’t have to lose its best young prospects.

Oh, almost forgot: now factor in players on no-move contracts, which the league would argue should make them ineligible for expansion purposes, because existing clubs should be stuck with their bad contracts.

The GMs want the opposite: to be able to unload their aging, overpriced turkeys, but there’s a lot of wrangling to be done before that’s settled, and the GMs don’t lose too many arguments on hockey operations.

Someone suggested it be left up to the player with a no-trade or no-move deal to decide whether he wants to be made available or not; the idea being, as expressed this week by Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman, that some might want to play in Vegas because there is no state tax in Nevada.

That’s the kind of character guy I want on my expansion team.

Yea or nay, we should know more before the draft in June. Vegas probably has a prop bet for that.

Postmedia News

Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Picking their poison: With NHL expansion draft on the way, GMs need to figure out which players to protect

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Bryan Murray isn’t sure when the National Hockey League family will officially welcome its newest members to the party.

[np_storybar title=”Avoiding the mistakes of past expansions as NHL gets ready for another round” link=”http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/avoiding-the-mistakes-of-past-expansions-as-nhl-gets-ready-for-another-round”%5D

Or if it will happen at all.

But should that day come — and the betting here is that Las Vegas will be the league’s 31st team at some point — the shrewd general manager of the Ottawa Senators already has a game plan in his head of who he might leave unprotected in the subsequent expansion draft.

Asked about the possibility of losing a good player in such a process, Murray replied: “You could, but that’s OK … if you do your job.

“I’ve got a guy in mind right now.”

Murray wasn’t about to show his hand. He’s leaving it up for you to take a wild stab at who it might be.

And there will be plenty of that going on among the fan bases of the 30 NHL cities now that the league has come up with a conceptual framework of what an expansion draft might look like.

Alex Gallardo/The Associated Press

Alex Gallardo/The Associated Press

Who gets protected? Who gets exposed? It’s the type of pick-your-poison guessing game that will be intriguing to watch up until the very moment that the league actually does expand and sees the roster of the new team (teams?) filled out.

This much we do know: Existing NHL teams will be forced to make available a far richer cache of talent than was the case during the previous expansion draft 16 years ago.

“What I would say generally about them is that they are very similar to the expansion draft rules that we had previously, except it is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Wednesday after GMs were briefed on the plans during their annual spring meetings here.

The basic blueprint includes the following:

a) If the league expands by just one team, existing franchises can only lose a maximum of one player.

b) Should the decision be made to add two teams, the 30 current squads could lose no more than two players from its roster.

c) First and second-year pros are automatically exempt.

d) If the league does plan on expanding in time for the 2017-18 season, a final announcement would need to be in place by June so GMs could make appropriate moves as they pertain to the entry draft and free agency. Under that scenario, the expansion draft would likely take place in the summer of 2017.

Here’s where the format gets interesting.

Under the league’s proposed plan, which must still be agreed to by the NHLPA, teams will have the choice of how many players they want to shield from being exposed in the draft.

In Option 1, a team can protect a total of 11 players — seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie.

In Option 2, a team can protect nine players — eight skaters and one goalie.

It is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on

At first blush, Option 1 would appear to be the favourable choice, given the fact that you could protect more players. But if you are a team that is rich on the blueline and want to protect more than three defencemen, Option 2 might be the way to go.

Take Nashville, for example. With a cache of talent on the back end that includes the likes of Shea Weber, Roman Josi, Ryan Ellis and Mattias Ekholm, the Predators might opt to keep all four and go with Option 2.

Meanwhile, with each team allowed to protect just one puckstopper, any potential incoming team should be able to pick up some solid goaltending when all is said and done.

Look at the situation in Anaheim, where it could be argued that both John Gibson and Frederik Andersen are potential No. 1 NHL goalies. If the league does, in fact, announce expansion plans in the next three months to bring a team to Las Vegas or back to Quebec City — or both — Ducks GM Bob Murray might be advised to trade one of them in order to ensure some kind of return rather than losing either in a subsequent expansion draft one year later.

Then there’s the case of a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning, a talent-rich roster which almost certainly will be ripe for the plucking. Under that scenario, does it change management’s thinking as to whether pending unrestricted free agent Steven Stamkos should be retained in order to make the roster numbers more manageable?

In the end, the Las Vegas Black Knights and/or the Quebec Nordiques will certainly have a better talent pool from which to choose than the Blue Jackets and Wild back in 2000, the previous time the NHL held an expansion draft.

At that time 26 of 28 teams (newly admitted Atlanta and Nashville had their entire rosters protected) were permitted to protect either one goaltender, five defencemen, and nine forwards; or two goaltenders, three defencemen and seven forwards. The first six picks were goaltenders, including Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan first and second.

This time around, teams will have to expose more players, which obviously means better ones. The question is: Who?

In the case of Bryan Murray, he has an idea — even if you don’t.

Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Picking their poison: With NHL expansion draft on the way, GMs need to figure out which players to protect

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Bryan Murray isn’t sure when the National Hockey League family will officially welcome its newest members to the party.

[np_storybar title=”Avoiding the mistakes of past expansions as NHL gets ready for another round” link=”http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/avoiding-the-mistakes-of-past-expansions-as-nhl-gets-ready-for-another-round”%5D

Or if it will happen at all.

But should that day come — and the betting here is that Las Vegas will be the league’s 31st team at some point — the shrewd general manager of the Ottawa Senators already has a game plan in his head of who he might leave unprotected in the subsequent expansion draft.

Asked about the possibility of losing a good player in such a process, Murray replied: “You could, but that’s OK … if you do your job.

“I’ve got a guy in mind right now.”

Murray wasn’t about to show his hand. He’s leaving it up for you to take a wild stab at who it might be.

And there will be plenty of that going on among the fan bases of the 30 NHL cities now that the league has come up with a conceptual framework of what an expansion draft might look like.

Alex Gallardo/The Associated Press

Alex Gallardo/The Associated Press

Who gets protected? Who gets exposed? It’s the type of pick-your-poison guessing game that will be intriguing to watch up until the very moment that the league actually does expand and sees the roster of the new team (teams?) filled out.

This much we do know: Existing NHL teams will be forced to make available a far richer cache of talent than was the case during the previous expansion draft 16 years ago.

“What I would say generally about them is that they are very similar to the expansion draft rules that we had previously, except it is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Wednesday after GMs were briefed on the plans during their annual spring meetings here.

The basic blueprint includes the following:

a) If the league expands by just one team, existing franchises can only lose a maximum of one player.

b) Should the decision be made to add two teams, the 30 current squads could lose no more than two players from its roster.

c) First and second-year pros are automatically exempt.

d) If the league does plan on expanding in time for the 2017-18 season, a final announcement would need to be in place by June so GMs could make appropriate moves as they pertain to the entry draft and free agency. Under that scenario, the expansion draft would likely take place in the summer of 2017.

Here’s where the format gets interesting.

Under the league’s proposed plan, which must still be agreed to by the NHLPA, teams will have the choice of how many players they want to shield from being exposed in the draft.

In Option 1, a team can protect a total of 11 players — seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie.

In Option 2, a team can protect nine players — eight skaters and one goalie.

It is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on

At first blush, Option 1 would appear to be the favourable choice, given the fact that you could protect more players. But if you are a team that is rich on the blueline and want to protect more than three defencemen, Option 2 might be the way to go.

Take Nashville, for example. With a cache of talent on the back end that includes the likes of Shea Weber, Roman Josi, Ryan Ellis and Mattias Ekholm, the Predators might opt to keep all four and go with Option 2.

Meanwhile, with each team allowed to protect just one puckstopper, any potential incoming team should be able to pick up some solid goaltending when all is said and done.

Look at the situation in Anaheim, where it could be argued that both John Gibson and Frederik Andersen are potential No. 1 NHL goalies. If the league does, in fact, announce expansion plans in the next three months to bring a team to Las Vegas or back to Quebec City — or both — Ducks GM Bob Murray might be advised to trade one of them in order to ensure some kind of return rather than losing either in a subsequent expansion draft one year later.

Then there’s the case of a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning, a talent-rich roster which almost certainly will be ripe for the plucking. Under that scenario, does it change management’s thinking as to whether pending unrestricted free agent Steven Stamkos should be retained in order to make the roster numbers more manageable?

In the end, the Las Vegas Black Knights and/or the Quebec Nordiques will certainly have a better talent pool from which to choose than the Blue Jackets and Wild back in 2000, the previous time the NHL held an expansion draft.

At that time 26 of 28 teams (newly admitted Atlanta and Nashville had their entire rosters protected) were permitted to protect either one goaltender, five defencemen, and nine forwards; or two goaltenders, three defencemen and seven forwards. The first six picks were goaltenders, including Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan first and second.

This time around, teams will have to expose more players, which obviously means better ones. The question is: Who?

In the case of Bryan Murray, he has an idea — even if you don’t.


Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Picking their poison: With NHL expansion draft on the way, GMs need to figure out which players to protect

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Bryan Murray isn’t sure when the National Hockey League family will officially welcome its newest members to the party.

[np_storybar title=”Avoiding the mistakes of past expansions as NHL gets ready for another round” link=”http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/avoiding-the-mistakes-of-past-expansions-as-nhl-gets-ready-for-another-round”%5D

Or if it will happen at all.

But should that day come — and the betting here is that Las Vegas will be the league’s 31st team at some point — the shrewd general manager of the Ottawa Senators already has a game plan in his head of who he might leave unprotected in the subsequent expansion draft.

Asked about the possibility of losing a good player in such a process, Murray replied: “You could, but that’s OK … if you do your job.

“I’ve got a guy in mind right now.”

Murray wasn’t about to show his hand. He’s leaving it up for you to take a wild stab at who it might be.

And there will be plenty of that going on among the fan bases of the 30 NHL cities now that the league has come up with a conceptual framework of what an expansion draft might look like.

Alex Gallardo/The Associated Press

Alex Gallardo/The Associated Press

Who gets protected? Who gets exposed? It’s the type of pick-your-poison guessing game that will be intriguing to watch up until the very moment that the league actually does expand and sees the roster of the new team (teams?) filled out.

This much we do know: Existing NHL teams will be forced to make available a far richer cache of talent than was the case during the previous expansion draft 16 years ago.

“What I would say generally about them is that they are very similar to the expansion draft rules that we had previously, except it is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Wednesday after GMs were briefed on the plans during their annual spring meetings here.

The basic blueprint includes the following:

a) If the league expands by just one team, existing franchises can only lose a maximum of one player.

b) Should the decision be made to add two teams, the 30 current squads could lose no more than two players from its roster.

c) First and second-year pros are automatically exempt.

d) If the league does plan on expanding in time for the 2017-18 season, a final announcement would need to be in place by June so GMs could make appropriate moves as they pertain to the entry draft and free agency. Under that scenario, the expansion draft would likely take place in the summer of 2017.

Here’s where the format gets interesting.

Under the league’s proposed plan, which must still be agreed to by the NHLPA, teams will have the choice of how many players they want to shield from being exposed in the draft.

In Option 1, a team can protect a total of 11 players — seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie.

In Option 2, a team can protect nine players — eight skaters and one goalie.

It is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on

At first blush, Option 1 would appear to be the favourable choice, given the fact that you could protect more players. But if you are a team that is rich on the blueline and want to protect more than three defencemen, Option 2 might be the way to go.

Take Nashville, for example. With a cache of talent on the back end that includes the likes of Shea Weber, Roman Josi, Ryan Ellis and Mattias Ekholm, the Predators might opt to keep all four and go with Option 2.

Meanwhile, with each team allowed to protect just one puckstopper, any potential incoming team should be able to pick up some solid goaltending when all is said and done.

Look at the situation in Anaheim, where it could be argued that both John Gibson and Frederik Andersen are potential No. 1 NHL goalies. If the league does, in fact, announce expansion plans in the next three months to bring a team to Las Vegas or back to Quebec City — or both — Ducks GM Bob Murray might be advised to trade one of them in order to ensure some kind of return rather than losing either in a subsequent expansion draft one year later.

Then there’s the case of a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning, a talent-rich roster which almost certainly will be ripe for the plucking. Under that scenario, does it change management’s thinking as to whether pending unrestricted free agent Steven Stamkos should be retained in order to make the roster numbers more manageable?

In the end, the Las Vegas Black Knights and/or the Quebec Nordiques will certainly have a better talent pool from which to choose than the Blue Jackets and Wild back in 2000, the previous time the NHL held an expansion draft.

At that time 26 of 28 teams (newly admitted Atlanta and Nashville had their entire rosters protected) were permitted to protect either one goaltender, five defencemen, and nine forwards; or two goaltenders, three defencemen and seven forwards. The first six picks were goaltenders, including Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan first and second.

This time around, teams will have to expose more players, which obviously means better ones. The question is: Who?

In the case of Bryan Murray, he has an idea — even if you don’t.


Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques

Picking their poison: With NHL expansion draft on the way, GMs need to figure out which players to protect

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Bryan Murray isn’t sure when the National Hockey League family will officially welcome its newest members to the party.

Or if it will happen at all.

But should that day come — and the betting here is that Las Vegas will be the league’s 31st team at some point — the shrewd general manager of the Ottawa Senators already has a game plan in his head of who he might leave unprotected in the subsequent expansion draft.

Asked about the possibility of losing a good player in such a process, Murray replied: “You could, but that’s OK … if you do your job.

“I’ve got a guy in mind right now.”

Murray wasn’t about to show his hand. He’s leaving it up for you to take a wild stab at who it might be.

And there will be plenty of that going on among the fan bases of the 30 NHL cities now that the league has come up with a conceptual framework of what an expansion draft might look like.

Alex Gallardo/The Associated Press
Alex Gallardo/The Associated PressWith teams only able to protect one goalie in the expansion draft, Anaheim might be motivated to trade one of John Gibson, pictured, or Frederik Andersen to avoid losing a quality keeper for nothing.

Who gets protected? Who gets exposed? It’s the type of pick-your-poison guessing game that will be intriguing to watch up until the very moment that the league actually does expand and sees the roster of the new team (teams?) filled out.

This much we do know: Existing NHL teams will be forced to make available a far richer cache of talent than was the case during the previous expansion draft 16 years ago.

“What I would say generally about them is that they are very similar to the expansion draft rules that we had previously, except it is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Wednesday after GMs were briefed on the plans during their annual spring meetings here.

The basic blueprint includes the following:

a) If the league expands by just one team, existing franchises can only lose a maximum of one player.

b) Should the decision be made to add two teams, the 30 current squads could lose no more than two players from its roster.

c) First and second-year pros are automatically exempt.

d) If the league does plan on expanding in time for the 2017-18 season, a final announcement would need to be in place by June so GMs could make appropriate moves as they pertain to the entry draft and free agency. Under that scenario, the expansion draft would likely take place in the summer of 2017.

Here’s where the format gets interesting.

Under the league’s proposed plan, which must still be agreed to by the NHLPA, teams will have the choice of how many players they want to shield from being exposed in the draft.

In Option 1, a team can protect a total of 11 players — seven forwards, three defencemen and one goalie.

In Option 2, a team can protect nine players — eight skaters and one goalie.

It is designed and intended to create a somewhat deeper draft so the expansion club can be more competitive early on

At first blush, Option 1 would appear to be the favourable choice, given the fact that you could protect more players. But if you are a team that is rich on the blueline and want to protect more than three defencemen, Option 2 might be the way to go.

Take Nashville, for example. With a cache of talent on the back end that includes the likes of Shea Weber, Roman Josi, Ryan Ellis and Mattias Ekholm, the Predators might opt to keep all four and go with Option 2.

Meanwhile, with each team allowed to protect just one puckstopper, any potential incoming team should be able to pick up some solid goaltending when all is said and done.

Look at the situation in Anaheim, where it could be argued that both John Gibson and Frederik Andersen are potential No. 1 NHL goalies. If the league does, in fact, announce expansion plans in the next three months to bring a team to Las Vegas or back to Quebec City — or both — Ducks GM Bob Murray might be advised to trade one of them in order to ensure some kind of return rather than losing either in a subsequent expansion draft one year later.

Then there’s the case of a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning, a talent-rich roster which almost certainly will be ripe for the plucking. Under that scenario, does it change management’s thinking as to whether pending unrestricted free agent Steven Stamkos should be retained in order to make the roster numbers more manageable?

In the end, the Las Vegas Black Knights and/or the Quebec Nordiques will certainly have a better talent pool from which to choose than the Blue Jackets and Wild back in 2000, the previous time the NHL held an expansion draft.

At that time 26 of 28 teams (newly admitted Atlanta and Nashville had their entire rosters protected) were permitted to protect either one goaltender, five defencemen, and nine forwards; or two goaltenders, three defencemen and seven forwards. The first six picks were goaltenders, including Rick Tabaracci and Jamie McLennan first and second.

This time around, teams will have to expose more players, which obviously means better ones. The question is: Who?

In the case of Bryan Murray, he has an idea — even if you don’t.

Source: National Post Quebec Nordiques