Author Topic: Potential Expansion Draft Rules  (Read 11352 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WhatIfGodWasALeaf

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 6972
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #150 on: June 20, 2017, 01:31:03 PM »
Per CJ the Leafs are still negotiating a potential trade with the GK, Lou wasn't subject to the informal trade freeze declared last night by McPhee because of travel issues he ran into.

#LoopholeLou

Offline louisstamos

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1546
    • View Profile
    • Treestar
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #151 on: June 20, 2017, 01:32:17 PM »
Per CJ the Leafs are still negotiating a potential trade with the GK, Lou wasn't subject to the informal trade freeze declared last night by McPhee because of travel issues he ran into.

#LoopholeLou

Whatever he has on Bettman *has* to be good!  :P

TMLfans.ca

Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #151 on: June 20, 2017, 01:32:17 PM »

Online herman

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 19516
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #152 on: June 20, 2017, 01:46:11 PM »
Per CJ the Leafs are still negotiating a potential trade with the GK, Lou wasn't subject to the informal trade freeze declared last night by McPhee because of travel issues he ran into.

#LoopholeLou

www.twitter.com/reporterchris/status/877212182043385857

So we simply have to outbid ANA/NYI/MIN on their steering deals.
#BeBlessed

Offline Zee

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 12705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #153 on: June 20, 2017, 02:24:50 PM »
Per CJ the Leafs are still negotiating a potential trade with the GK, Lou wasn't subject to the informal trade freeze declared last night by McPhee because of travel issues he ran into.

#LoopholeLou
;D  Why would Lou get an extension?  So he couldn't travel, did his phone not work as well?

Offline Zee

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 12705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #154 on: June 20, 2017, 02:26:04 PM »
Quote
@TSNBobMcKenzie

VGK say they have six trades in place. If we're speculating - emphasis on speculating - likely to be with ANA, CBJ, CHI, NYI, PIT, TB.


6 trades, this could be interesting when they announce everything.  Never remember one team involved in so many deals in one day.

Offline Jolly good show chaps

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Pip pip
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #155 on: June 20, 2017, 02:55:17 PM »
Per CJ the Leafs are still negotiating a potential trade with the GK, Lou wasn't subject to the informal trade freeze declared last night by McPhee because of travel issues he ran into.

#LoopholeLou

www.twitter.com/reporterchris/status/877212182043385857

So we simply have to outbid ANA/NYI/MIN on their steering deals.

Surely those steering deals went through beforehand  (over the weekend or Monday) but havent been announced as per league decision and so can't be gazumped?

Online herman

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 19516
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #156 on: June 20, 2017, 03:24:30 PM »
Surely those steering deals went through beforehand  (over the weekend or Monday) but havent been announced as per league decision and so can't be gazumped?

My understanding is that there are no rules or regulations governing the schedule of the steering deals Vegas might make with teams. The only thing is that Vegas needs to submit are their expansion draft picks by 10 am tomorrow.

McPhee said earlier in the week that no such deals are final and that he would give opportunities for every team to negotiate for their hostages rosters before they ink the picks.

I don't think that means McPhee will simply keep all lines open and circumvent those steering deals when the situation presents itself (those deals only get cashed in after the draft, right?), but if a delicious offer does come up for an unprotected player (e.g. Manson) from another team(s), if I were McPhee I'd bring that back to the originating team and ask them to bolster their steering efforts, cut a three-way deal, or simply take a knee on the play.

Edit: apparently, that's exactly what he's done.

https://www.nhl.com/news/column-golden-knights-hold-the-upper-hand-ahead-of-expansion-draft/c-289997332

Quote
If teams are bidding on an exposed player, or if he is going to take an exposed player himself, McPhee is being direct with the GM of that player's team. Want to keep him? Here's what it's going to take.

"We're basically saying, 'Do you want to hear what's going on with your team, or are you just content to sit and we're going to do what we're going to do?' " McPhee said. "Most of them want to talk about it, and then we tell them exactly what's going on. 'Is there something you want to do about it or not?' "
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 03:30:07 PM by herman »
#BeBlessed

Offline Jolly good show chaps

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Pip pip
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #157 on: June 20, 2017, 04:57:15 PM »
But (for example) would Anaheim have exposed Manson and Vatanen without a pre-arranged deal with Vegas made before they determined who they would eventually protect?

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 26396
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #158 on: June 20, 2017, 05:04:04 PM »
But (for example) would Anaheim have exposed Manson and Vatanen without a pre-arranged deal with Vegas made before they determined who they would eventually protect?

Yeah, in situations like that where there was a handshake agreement already completed prior to the lists being submitted there's no way Vegas would turn around and try to extort more from a team.

Online herman

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 19516
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #159 on: June 20, 2017, 05:28:34 PM »
Why wouldn't you, if you were McPhee? He specifically said no deals were final. I'm pretty sure he's running this like a protection racket.

It's Anaheim's own dumb fault if they lose both their defensemen but won't pony up to protect them.

Edit: I can see VGK laying off Vatanen/Manson if Anaheim protected them with a top 50 pick and Sam Steel/Shea Theodore + random expansion pick, which is easy enough for Anaheim to give up but not so easy for poaching teams to meet.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 05:44:35 PM by herman »
#BeBlessed

Offline Frank E

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 4892
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #160 on: June 20, 2017, 05:42:37 PM »
Why wouldn't you, if you were McPhee? He specifically said no deals were final. I'm pretty sure he's running this like a protection racket.

It's Anaheim's own dumb fault if they lose both their defensemen but won't pony up to protect them.

Well, what your describing isn't a deal at all then.  You either have an agreement or you don't.

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 26396
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #161 on: June 20, 2017, 05:51:17 PM »
Why wouldn't you, if you were McPhee? He specifically said no deals were final. I'm pretty sure he's running this like a protection racket.

It's Anaheim's own dumb fault if they lose both their defensemen but won't pony up to protect them.

McPhee isn't some 40's gangster. He's been in the NHL management community for 25 years. If he shakes Bob Murray's hand (another 25+ year hockey man) and says a deal is agreed upon then it's agreed upon. That's that. If McPhee wanted to shop that offer around then he could have done so earlier.

And like Frank said, these transactions might actually be agreed upon in writing too with the NHL and just not announced yet. Either way, those agreements with teams like Anaheim, Chicago, and the Islanders are all 100%. Apparently nothing was agreed upon with Minnesota before the lists were submitted so that could be a situation where McPhee leverages multiple offers against each other.

Offline slapshot

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #162 on: June 20, 2017, 06:55:29 PM »
I am wondering if a prospect like Bracco might be up for trade bait. Bracco and a 2nd rounder might bring a reasonable decent d-man our way?

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26909
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #163 on: June 20, 2017, 08:19:31 PM »

Anyone else starting to think this has taken what should be a relatively simple process and turned it into a really strange and complicated one? I feel like there would have been ways to handle the expansion process, regardless of how strong/weak a position you want a new franchise to start in, that would have been a lot more straightforward.

Also, I'm starting to think that with all of the emphasis on accumulating things like late picks/ok prospects and holding off on drafting the better players made available to them while not giving them a great draft position you're really flirting with the possibility of building a team that has a clear path to a sort of low-key competitiveness but I don't see them with an easy path to the top.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Online CarltonTheBear

  • Administrator
  • Sittler Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 26396
    • View Profile
Re: Potential Expansion Draft Rules
« Reply #164 on: June 21, 2017, 08:09:28 AM »
Bobbo dropped a bunch of details on the apparent deals Vegas has in the middle of the night:

-Says that in return for passing on Vatanen and Manson, Vegas will select Clayton Stoner and Anaheim will trade them Shea Theodore

-Vegas selects Trevor van Riemsdyk and gets Marcus Krueger from Chicago

-Columbus' deal involves them trading Vegas the 24th overall pick + a prospect in return for Vegas not selecting Jack Johnson. Vegas might also be taking on David Clarkson's contract

-SOMETHING is happening with Florida and Marchessault/Smith, but that's the tough one to pin down. Vegas might get a pick to not select one, or Florida might actually make a deal where Vegas gets BOTH of them in return for other assets from Vegas

-In Minnesota, it appears as though Brodin/Scandella/Staal are safe. Vegas looks to be getting Eric Haula + a prospect instead

-The Islanders are sending the concussed Mikhail Grabovski and a 1st round draft pick to Vegas. There was also talk that this involved Vegas having to select Nikolai Kulemin instead of the other much better unprotected players the Islanders have. That hasn't been confirmed but it does seem as though New York earned some extra protection slots with the 1st rounder

-Pittsburgh is sending something to Vegas to ensure they select Fleury, likely just a draft pick or two

-Tampa might have a deal to steer Vegas away from their younger unprotected defenceman like Koekkoek and Dotchin and instead having them take Jason Garrison and his $4.6mil cap hit instead

With that said, Mirtle also said this:

Quote
James Mirtle‏ @mirtle
Vegas could have side deals with nearly half the other 30 NHL teams I'm told. That's crazy.

So there's still likely a bunch of other smaller deals around too.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 08:11:46 AM by CarltonTheBear »