CanucksCorner.com Forums

I don't think it will be very interesting if Elmer trades back five picks and picks up another Granlund / Vey caliber of player .

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I don't think it will be very interesting if Elmer trades back five picks and picks up another Granlund / Vey caliber of player .

I'm with you on this. It would be a waste of a year to just trade down rather than pick up a shot at a first line player. I can't see any GM offering something better than what we can pick at 5 - if anything, trade up!

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I don't think it will be very interesting if Elmer trades back five picks and picks up another Granlund / Vey caliber of player .

Well I think I'm agreeing with you Blob.

A lot of talk in the media about how Stevie Y is going manage his salary cap over the next little bit here. So many of his good players on cheap contracts set for big pay raises. He must be loving the Garrison contract right now. Ole Mikey Gillis, gotta love him. Great trade by Benning getting rid of him and that boat anchor contract.

RoyalDude wrote:A lot of talk in the media about how Stevie Y is going manage his salary cap over the next little bit here. So many of his good players on cheap contracts set for big pay raises. He must be loving the Garrison contract right now. Ole Mikey Gillis, gotta love him. Great trade by Benning getting rid of him and that boat anchor contract.

Weak trolling Dude. When Bolts fans talk about which contracts they need to ditch, Jason Garrison's isn't the first that comes up. Or second, or even third for some.

dbr wrote:

RoyalDude wrote:A lot of talk in the media about how Stevie Y is going manage his salary cap over the next little bit here. So many of his good players on cheap contracts set for big pay raises. He must be loving the Garrison contract right now. Ole Mikey Gillis, gotta love him. Great trade by Benning getting rid of him and that boat anchor contract.

Weak trolling Dude. When Bolts fans talk about which contracts they need to ditch, Jason Garrison's isn't the first that comes up. Or second, or even third for some.

lol no shit. Garrison's deal goes down to $3.6M next year and $2.5M the year after. He's putting up .5PPG and playing 20 minutes a night in the playoffs. He'd be attractive to teams looking to meet the floor, or maybe new to the league looking to control costs at the start. He'd also be an easy buyout. Callahan, Fillpula and even Carle are the guys they really need to think about.

Garrison could be attractive to an expansion team too.

Did his no trade clause go with him?

micky107 wrote:Did his no trade clause go with him?

Yes (they pretty much always do, contrary to what most sources seem to think).

But apparently a NTC wouldn't mean the Bolts would have to protect him:

https://twitter.com/garylawless/status/ ... 9274516480

More #nhl expansion draft info. sources indicate no-moves must be protected by teams. no-trade clauses not exempt and can be left exposed.

No doubt Garrison would be exposed in an expansion draft.

Callahan + Filppula as well of course.

I'd say Filppula gets bought out this summer.

Not sure how the bolts get rid of the cap-dump that Callahan has become.

Now there's a boat-anchor of a contract!

Boaty McBoatface.

I suppose they... could... buyout Callahan as well (lotsa money owed).

They might be tempted though because I think Callahan might have to take a protected spot (NMC - 2017 only).

Doc is right, of course, always! The team trading for a player with a NTC has the option to extend it once the trade is made, or not. Most players agreeing to waive to go to a team will insist that the acquiring team extends the trade protection before they sign the waiver to be traded there. There are exceptions but they are few.

If we are lucky we lose Sbisa to expansion one year then Dorsett the next. Of course if we still have Higgins and Burrows they will be exposed but since they will be UFA July 2017 it is unlikely they get claimed. The good news in all of this, to me, is that we can only lose one player per drafting team. There will be some interesting players exposed but none of our top talent, we don't have that much anyway and I don't think players on ELC need to exposed. But then again the final rules haven't been written.

30 teams will be in the same position. Teams with a lot of NMC will be hampered. Fortunately we will only have the twins.

I could see LA exposing Brown, Chicago exposing Hossa, whereas SJS would have to protect both Thornton and Marleau. Some GM's are said to be trying to trade a number of players they feel they would have to expose to get picks/prospects. Look for MAF to be traded if the Pens can do it.

Hockey Widow wrote:The team trading for a player with a NTC has the option to extend it once the trade is made, or not.

This is only for players whose NTCs haven't kicked in yet.

If the NTC is already in effect, it auto-stays in effect (even after the player waives for a trade).

This is something that most hockey pundits don't seem to realize.

And so they perpetuate the Traded-to Team Always has the Option Myth...

I gotta look through that bloody CBA thing again to see if they covered anything about ELCs if expansion happens.
Could take a few days..

Strangelove wrote:

More #nhl expansion draft info. sources indicate no-moves must be protected by teams. no-trade clauses not exempt and can be left exposed.

No doubt Garrison would be exposed in an expansion draft.

Callahan + Filppula as well of course.

I'd say Filppula gets bought out this summer.

Not sure how the bolts get rid of the cap-dump that Callahan has become.

Now there's a boat-anchor of a contract!

Boaty McBoatface.

I suppose they... could... buyout Callahan as well (lotsa money owed).

They might be tempted though because I think Callahan might have to take a protected spot (NMC - 2017 only).

Callahan's got a NMC which has a limited NTC for 2018/19 and 19/20. Not sure if that means he retains his No-Move but has to provide a trade list. If he keeps the NMC that screws them come expansion time. Fillpula has a NMC with some form of trade protection as well. Kind of grey as they look like combination deals, ie they can't be waived but they can be asked to submit trade lists.

Could get interesting for Tampa. Johnson, Palat, Kucherov, Kilorn, Hedman and Bishop will all be up for contracts between now and 2017. Hedman and Bishop, if they stay, will be eligible UFA's and I would imagine demand some form of NTC/NMC (not that they would leave them exposed). Drouin (if he stays) will be off is ELC by then and need to be protected.

Hockey Widow wrote: I don't think players on ELC need to exposed. But then again the final rules haven't been written.

I think the NHL and the NHLPA have agreed to the rules, they just haven't been made public yet.

A couple of things have apparently been leaked though.

One being that 2nd-year pros don't need to be protected (Virtanen + McCann would be good in 2017).

Hockey Widow wrote: Look for MAF to be traded if the Pens can do it.

Likewise Bishop and Frederik Andersen?

In past expansion drafts though, teams have given picks to expansion teams to keep them from plucking a player.

Perfectly legal.

micky107 wrote:I gotta look through that bloody CBA thing again to see if they covered anything about ELCs if expansion happens.
Could take a few days..

It seems that first and second year players on ELC's will be exempt.

So if the expansion draft happened next year, would Virtanen, McCann, Tryamkin and Hutton need to be protected? IIRC, the league year starts July 1st... so if the expansion draft happened in June would that mean they are still technically in their second year? Doc?