Who Would the Flyers Protect in An Expansion Draft?

[pilldoc]

Another dog day of August until  training camp begins..... ok everyone this one should create some good debate.

 

http://thehockeywriters.com/who-would-the-flyers-protect-in-an-expansion-draft/?utm_content=buffer4de0a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Expansion talk has taken over NHL circles over the past 24 hours. Despite the fact that it is premature to suggest four new teams could be added to the league by 2017, it would not be unreasonable for the NHL to add a team or two by the year 2020. Considering the growing popularity of the sport, expansion into markets like Quebec City or Seattle would make perfect sense.

 

To populate the rosters of new expansion teams, the NHL would likely turn to an expansion draft as it has in the past. An expansion draft was most recently held in 2000 when the Minnesota Wild and Columbus Blue Jackets were added to the league. It seems like a matter of time before another expansion draft is held.

 

In that event, who should the Flyers protect in the draft? There are a couple of guidelines and options to choose from, based on the rules from 2000:

• Option 1: Protect 1 goalie, 5 defensemen, and 9 forwards. There is no experience requirement for the goalies left unprotected. One defenseman and two forwards left unprotected must have played at least 40 games in the year before, or 70 games combined over the last 2 years.
• Option 2: Protect 2 goalies, 3 defensemen, and 7 forwards. In this scenario, every goalie left unprotected must have played in 10 games the previous season, or 25 games combined over the last 2 years. One defenseman and two forwards left unprotected must have played at least 40 games in the year before, or 70 games combined over the last 2 years.

In both scenarios, first and second year pros are automatically exempt. In addition, all unsigned draft picks are exempt unless they are from European clubs, and were drafted at least 4 years prior. The final rule was that only one defenseman or goalie could be taken from each existing team, and each existing team could lose a maximum of two players. This condition would have to be relaxed if four teams were added, but we’ll continue as if it’s still in place.

 

The Flyers in an Expansion Draft

I think every Flyers fan would universally say that Option #1 is a better choice for the franchise. Steve Mason is the only goalie worth protecting, and it allows the franchise to protect an additional 2 forwards and 2 defensemen. Before we begin protecting, let’s eliminate the players that are automatically exempt:

• Forwards: Michael Raffl, Scott Laughton, Petr Straka, Nick Cousins, Taylor Leier, Brandon Alderson, Pierre-Edouard Bellemare, Derek Mathers, Tyrell Goulbourne, Nicolas Aube-Kubel, Oskar Lindblom, Radel Fazleev
• Defensemen: Robert Hagg, Shayne Gostisbehere, Samuel Morin, Mark Alt, Maxim Lamarche, Jesper Pettersson, Reece Willcox, Valeri Vasiliev, Terrance Amorosa, David Drake, Travis Sanheim, Mark Freidman
• Goalies: Anthony Stolarz, Rob Zepp, Merrick Madsen

They are all either unsigned draft picks, or in their first or second pro season.

In deciding who to protect, most of the decision are no-brainers. The following would absolutely be protected, without question:

• Forwards: Claude Giroux, Sean Couturier, Jakub Voracek, Wayne Simmonds, Matt Read, Brayden Schenn
• Defensemen: Braydon Coburn, Mark Streit, Andrew MacDonald
• Goalies: Steve Mason

That leaves three forwards, and two more defensemen that the Flyers would need to make a decision on.

 

Players left over to Protect:

 

Forwards: (pick 3 to protect)

RJ Umberger

Vinny Lecavalier

Zac Rinaldo

Jason Akeson

Ryan White

Jay Rosehill

Chris VandeVelde

Andrew Johnston

Marcel Noebels

Blair Jones

Zack Stortini

Andrew Gordon

 

Defense: (pick 2 to protect)

Luke Schenn

Kimmo Timonen

Niklas Grossmann

Michael Del Zotto

Nick Schultz

Chris Pronger

Matt Konan

Brandon Manning

Oliver Lauridsen

 

Goalie: (none left to protect)

Ray Emery

 

So who do you pick?  I would protect Jason Akeson for sure.  The final spot would come down to Umberger or Rinaldo.

For defense depending on how he plays this year I would pick Del Zotto and probably our favorite whipping boy L. Schenn.

 

Lets hear your thoughts.......

[Howie58]

Pilldoc:

 

You beat me to the punch...was thinking of posting.  

 

I found it hard to argue with the conclusions.  I would love to see Vinny picked up (though I wonder if an aging VLC would be embraced by some).  Grossman would be no great loss.  Umby versus other might be a debate but what the heck, his contract only has two years left. 

 

The author assumes past rules will hold in future expansion.  We would like to think this is the case.  Maybe Bettman and company think a more liberal allowance for youngins and/or vets should be made to broaden the pool.  Then the discussion might include more critical assets and tougher choices.  

 

Best,

 

Howie

[DaGreatGazoo]

NMC/NTC clauses are a big key in my mind.

If those players are automatically protected it could change things. Likewise, if they aren't--it could as well.

I'm pretty darn sure the Flyers would NOT protect VLC unless required to, as an example.

[pilldoc]

@Howie58

 

Great Minds think alike.

 

Yes I agree the author makes alot of assumptions.  Also the make-up of this team could drastiacally change around this time next year.  It certainly is a fun excercise in speculation.  The core group to protect is certainly a no brainer.  Where it gets interesting, would be which role players you would want to protect? 

 

Like I said...the dog days of summer till training camp.

[pilldoc]

NMC/NTC clauses are a big key in my mind.

If those players are automatically protected it could change things. Likewise, if they aren't--it could as well.

I'm pretty darn sure the Flyers would NOT protect VLC unless required to, as an example.

 

Agree...I was not thinking about that until you just posted it.  Excellent point. What happened back in 2000?  I don't remember.  Of course I know the CBA has changed since then.

[AJgoal]

I posted my list in the general hockey thread on the subject, under the assumption that expansion wouldn't happen next summer, but the following summer. Under the old rules, Vinny, Umberger, Pronger(!), Grossmann, and L. Schenn must be protected, as they have NMCs/NTCs.

[AJgoal]

Assuming that we're looking at expansion in two years (summer 2016), here's how I would go. With the current forward core, the Flyers are pretty much trapped into only protecting one goalie. I'm assuming players with NMC/NTCs will need to be protected, and that RFAs will be re-signed:

 

Goalie (1):

 

Protect: Mason

 

Exposed: Stolarz, Zepp

 

Defense (5):

 

Protect: Coburn (UFA), Pronger, Hagg, Gostisbehere, MacDonald/Alt

 

Exposed: Schenn (UFA), Grossmann (UFA), Streit, MacDonald/Alt

 

Hagg and Ghost are going to have two pro years under their belts. Coburn is currently the Flyers' best Dman. Pronger has an NMC. There's one spot left for MacDonald, Alt or someone else that may come along.

 

Forwards (9):

 

Protect: Giroux, Lecavalier, Simmonds, Umberger, Voracek, Couturier, Schenn, Read, Laughton

 

Exposed: Raffl, Akeson, Rinaldo, Cousins, Leier

 

Umberger and Vinny's NMCs hurt, because the Flyers will be forced to protect them, and make decisions regarding Akeson, Raffl, Schenn, Read, and Laughton. I kept the players I felt have the best upside (Schenn, Read, Laughton), but I'd rather move or buy out Vinny and Umberger after this season if Akeson and Raffl shine and keep all five.

[pilldoc]

I posted my list in the general hockey thread on the subject, under the assumption that expansion wouldn't happen next summer, but the following summer. Under the old rules, Vinny, Umberger, Pronger(!), Grossmann, and L. Schenn must be protected, as they have NMCs/NTCs.

 

Thanks AJ.  Wasn't sure what the old rules were.  Would love to move Vinny via this way.  RJ / Grossman / L. Schenn I had protected anyway, but it sucks that you have to protect Pronjer.  No one will pick him anyway so why waste a spot.  Can the player voluntarily waive his NMC/NTC?  Again just curious?

[AJgoal]

Thanks AJ.  Wasn't sure what the old rules were.  Would love to move Vinny via this way.  RJ / Grossman / L. Schenn I had protected anyway, but it sucks that you have to protect Pronjer.  No one will pick him anyway so why waste a spot.  Can the player voluntarily waive his NMC/NTC?  Again just curious?

 

I believe they could.

[pilldoc]

 

Assuming that we're looking at expansion in two years (summer 2016), here's how I would go. With the current forward core, the Flyers are pretty much trapped into only protecting one goalie. I'm assuming players with NMC/NTCs will need to be protected, and that RFAs will be re-signed:

 

Goalie (1):

 

Protect: Mason

 

Exposed: Stolarz, Zepp

 

Defense (5):

 

Protect: Coburn (UFA), Pronger, Hagg, Gostisbehere, MacDonald/Alt

 

Exposed: Schenn (UFA), Grossmann (UFA), Streit, MacDonald/Alt

 

Hagg and Ghost are going to have two pro years under their belts. Coburn is currently the Flyers' best Dman. Pronger has an NMC. There's one spot left for MacDonald, Alt or someone else that may come along.

 

Forwards (9):

 

Protect: Giroux, Lecavalier, Simmonds, Umberger, Voracek, Couturier, Schenn, Read, Laughton

 

Exposed: Raffl, Akeson, Rinaldo, Cousins, Leier

 

Umberger and Vinny's NMCs hurt, because the Flyers will be forced to protect them, and make decisions regarding Akeson, Raffl, Schenn, Read, and Laughton. I kept the players I felt have the best upside (Schenn, Read, Laughton), but I'd rather move or buy out Vinny and Umberger after this season if Akeson and Raffl shine and keep all five.

 

 

I noticed MDZ was missing from your list.  Are you assuming he is a 1 yr experiment only?  What if he has a banner year this year and the Flyers decide to extend his contract?  One would think the Flyers might wanted him?  Again jsut curious.

[AJgoal]

You could slot him in where MacDonald or Coburn are. If he plays well and the Flyers extend him, I would definitely keep him.

[Howie58]

Player sorting aside, I suppose this may bring some kind of realignment. would assume the league would try to re-balance schedules while preserving a degree of inter-conference play.  That might bring back four divisions per conference and a likely replay of our usual NYC-Pitt aligned setting.  

 

Meanwhile, the NMC is interesting.  I never even pondered that.

 

One point that comes to mind here is the context of expansion now versus earlier expansions.  The pool of talent outside Canada/US plus the salary cap have to make it a lot easier to build a good team quickly.  By the same token, "lost" players can be replaced sooner.  Think about it--we picked up Parent and Favell from Boston in the original expansion.  That was quite a duo.  Today, even if a team lost two goalies via expansion think of the Finns, Russians, (heck, even Czechs and Swiss) out there. The day and age when my backyard Panthers rode a group of expansion castoffs to the finals en route to decades of second-tier status may be over.  Seen in that light, this really would be a good time to dump old, expensive talent if possible.  There is a world of talent awaiting. 

 

Best,

Howie

[aziz]

I miss waiver drafts.

[Titaniumklf]

I read somewhere that the league might expand over two seasons instead of one. If that's the case, how much does that change things for every team? I wonder if it would then be a maximum loss of two players for EACH of the two seasons, back to back. That could be a lot more devastating to a team like the Flyers, who have a lot of promising talent.

Also, players that have a NMC, does that just get stripped from the player if an expansion team wants him?

[King Knut]

Expansion is without a doubt the very last thing this league needs.

It might make me quit the NHL for good. It's a terrible terrible terrible horrible atrocious god forsaken hell scape of an idea.

Seriously. And I don't like it to boot.

That said for fun's sake:

Who among those would still even be under contract in 2017?

I'd protect Luke Schenn of your list. No one else.

Kansas City and Vegas can have the lot of 'em.

Another dog day of August until training camp begins..... ok everyone this one should create some good debate.

http://thehockeywriters.com/who-would-the-flyers-protect-in-an-expansion-draft/?utm_content=buffer4de0a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Expansion talk has taken over NHL circles over the past 24 hours. Despite the fact that it is premature to suggest four new teams could be added to the league by 2017, it would not be unreasonable for the NHL to add a team or two by the year 2020. Considering the growing popularity of the sport, expansion into markets like Quebec City or Seattle would make perfect sense.

To populate the rosters of new expansion teams, the NHL would likely turn to an expansion draft as it has in the past. An expansion draft was most recently held in 2000 when the Minnesota Wild and Columbus Blue Jackets were added to the league. It seems like a matter of time before another expansion draft is held.

In that event, who should the Flyers protect in the draft? There are a couple of guidelines and options to choose from, based on the rules from 2000:

• Option 1: Protect 1 goalie, 5 defensemen, and 9 forwards. There is no experience requirement for the goalies left unprotected. One defenseman and two forwards left unprotected must have played at least 40 games in the year before, or 70 games combined over the last 2 years.
  
• Option 2: Protect 2 goalies, 3 defensemen, and 7 forwards. In this scenario, every goalie left unprotected must have played in 10 games the previous season, or 25 games combined over the last 2 years. One defenseman and two forwards left unprotected must have played at least 40 games in the year before, or 70 games combined over the last 2 years.
  

In both scenarios, first and second year pros are automatically exempt. In addition, all unsigned draft picks are exempt unless they are from European clubs, and were drafted at least 4 years prior. The final rule was that only one defenseman or goalie could be taken from each existing team, and each existing team could lose a maximum of two players. This condition would have to be relaxed if four teams were added, but we’ll continue as if it’s still in place.

The Flyers in an Expansion Draft

I think every Flyers fan would universally say that Option #1 is a better choice for the franchise. Steve Mason is the only goalie worth protecting, and it allows the franchise to protect an additional 2 forwards and 2 defensemen. Before we begin protecting, let’s eliminate the players that are automatically exempt:

• Forwards: Michael Raffl, Scott Laughton, Petr Straka, Nick Cousins, Taylor Leier, Brandon Alderson, Pierre-Edouard Bellemare, Derek Mathers, Tyrell Goulbourne, Nicolas Aube-Kubel, Oskar Lindblom, Radel Fazleev
  
• Defensemen: Robert Hagg, Shayne Gostisbehere, Samuel Morin, Mark Alt, Maxim Lamarche, Jesper Pettersson, Reece Willcox, Valeri Vasiliev, Terrance Amorosa, David Drake, Travis Sanheim, Mark Freidman
  
• Goalies: Anthony Stolarz, Rob Zepp, Merrick Madsen
  

They are all either unsigned draft picks, or in their first or second pro season.

In deciding who to protect, most of the decision are no-brainers. The following would absolutely be protected, without question:

• Forwards: Claude Giroux, Sean Couturier, Jakub Voracek, Wayne Simmonds, Matt Read, Brayden Schenn
  
• Defensemen: Braydon Coburn, Mark Streit, Andrew MacDonald
  
• Goalies: Steve Mason
  

That leaves three forwards, and two more defensemen that the Flyers would need to make a decision on.

Players left over to Protect:

Forwards: (pick 3 to protect)

RJ Umberger

Vinny Lecavalier

Zac Rinaldo

Jason Akeson

Ryan White

Jay Rosehill

Chris VandeVelde

Andrew Johnston

Marcel Noebels

Blair Jones

Zack Stortini

Andrew Gordon

Defense: (pick 2 to protect)

Luke Schenn

Kimmo Timonen

Niklas Grossmann

Michael Del Zotto

Nick Schultz

Chris Pronger

Matt Konan

Brandon Manning

Oliver Lauridsen

Goalie: (none left to protect)

Ray Emery

So who do you pick? I would protect Jason Akeson for sure. The final spot would come down to Umberger or Rinaldo.

For defense depending on how he plays this year I would pick Del Zotto and probably our favorite whipping boy L. Schenn.

Lets hear your thoughts.......

[King Knut]

RJ will be off the books by then UFA.

Hopefully in 3 years Morin, Hagg, Ghost et all will be filling in the D so we won't give much of a rip about the likes Grossman.

Pilldoc:

You beat me to the punch...was thinking of posting.

I found it hard to argue with the conclusions. I would love to see Vinny picked up (though I wonder if an aging VLC would be embraced by some). Grossman would be no great loss. Umby versus other might be a debate but what the heck, his contract only has two years left.

The author assumes past rules will hold in future expansion. We would like to think this is the case. Maybe Bettman and company think a more liberal allowance for youngins and/or vets should be made to broaden the pool. Then the discussion might include more critical assets and tougher choices.

Best,

Howie

[pilldoc]

Expansion is without a doubt the very last thing this league needs.

It might make me quit the NHL for good. It's a terrible terrible terrible horrible atrocious god forsaken hell scape of an idea.

Seriously. And I don't like it to boot.

That said for fun's sake:

Who among those would still even be under contract in 2017?

I'd protect Luke Schenn of your list. No one else.

Kansas City and Vegas can have the lot of 'em.

 

 

Agree.  I never said I agreed with the idea of expansion.  This league does not need more teams.  I won't quit on the NHL if happens, but it will severely dilute the talent pool.  This was purely a fun little exercise based on the current makeup of the team.  Who know who will be on the roster in 2 years anyway.

 

For the record I am against any NHL expansion at this time, nor anytime in the next 1-5 years.  The league simply does not need it.

[jammer2]

@pilldoc  One other point that I have not read yet, it's not only the greedy owners with their hands out, wanting to lay their hands on the expansion fee bonanza....the NHLPA is licking their collective chops at the thought of 4 new teams and almost 100 more players putting in Union dues....I can guarantee that much!!

[FreakinFlyersFan]

I found this...this may give us some light on what the Flyers would do come expansion draft

http://thehockeywriters.com/who-would-the-flyers-protect-in-an-expansion-draft/

[pilldoc]

I found this...this may give us some light on what the Flyers would do come expansion draft

http://thehockeywriters.com/who-would-the-flyers-protect-in-an-expansion-draft/

 

sorry to burst your bubble..this was the article I referenced when I started this thread.

I agree it is a good article.  all is good!

[doom88]

Why not protect everyone and vote against expansion?

[jammer2]

Why not protect everyone and vote against expansion?

 

 $$$$$$

[doom88]

 $$$$$$

 

Yeah, because the sun belt expansion went soooo well.

[jammer2]

@doom88  No, just saying, not many owners will vote against the new expansion, because it provides a huge revenue stream for them. A one time lump payment sounds like it would be right up most owners alley. After they join....if they struggle, they can always relocate and get paid again.

[doom88]

@doom88 No, just saying, not many owners will vote against the new expansion, because it provides a huge revenue stream for them. A one time lump payment sounds like it would be right up most owners alley. After they join....if they struggle, they can always relocate and get paid again.

Sadly, you're probably correct.