Seattle Changes Everything for the Flyers

[AJgoal]

6 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

The way I'm reading this (and you didn't post the picture version, so I may still be confused), NMCs are automatically protected.  Are their protections considered among the 3?  Or would they be in addition to?   If they're among the 3, I have to reconsider the 8-1 thing. 

 

They count against the number. So Giroux must be protected, and he takes up a slot.

 

6 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

If in addition to, then I'm protecting Coots, Patrick, and Konecny.   Jake has an NMC, right?   If not, I'm doing everything in my power to trade him between now and then,.   And I'm not resigning Simmonds.  I'm trading him and getting picks and a first-year-pro prospect.

 

Voracek does not. Only Giroux has an NMC amongst current Flyers.

[AJgoal]

I get it, and it certainly sucks that the Flyers are likely to lose a good, young player. But the fact is that it's just one good, young player. Unless Dale Tallon somehow figures out how to swap Brains with Hextall, I'm confident that they won't make any stupid deals to outsmart themselves into giving up two good players instead of one. And the quality of the Flyers' pipeline should make the loss of their 4th best defenseman or 5th best forward manageable.

[ruxpin]

5 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

They count against the number. So Giroux must be protected, and he takes up a slot.

 

 

Voracek does not. Only Giroux has an NMC amongst current Flyers.

 

You're really not helping me.  LOL

Then you almost have to try to trade Voracek, right?   Or, you leave him exposed under the idea he's 30 at that point with an $8.25M cap hit and either that's cost-prohibitive for a new franchise and they don't take him OR they do and you're out from under a 30 year old with an $8.25M cap hit for four more years.

 

I don't know what to do with whomever we leave exposed because of Giroux, though. Maybe 7-3-1 is the way to go.  Maybe you do trade up in the draft this year and grab one of the high end defensemen with the thought that they'll eventually replace whichever of Morin, Hagg, and Sanheim/Myers you're going to lose.   I'm thinking that with our defensemen, unless you leave Patrick exposed, Seattle would be nuts to take forward from the Flyers.

[ruxpin]

3 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

I get it, and it certainly sucks that the Flyers are likely to lose a good, young player. But the fact is that it's just one good, young player. Unless Dale Tallon somehow figures out how to swap Brains with Hextall, I'm confident that they won't make any stupid deals to outsmart themselves into giving up two good players instead of one. And the quality of the Flyers' pipeline should make the loss of their 4th best defenseman or 5th best forward manageable.

 

Yeah, I'm slowly coming around to that thinking, as well. (I did say "slowly.")

[ruxpin]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Maybe you do trade up in the draft this year and grab one of the high end defensemen with the thought that they'll eventually replace whichever of Morin, Hagg, and Sanheim/Myers you're going to lose

 

Is trading with any of Arizona, Vancouver, or Chicago at all a realistic option for that end?

[AJgoal]

Just now, ruxpin said:

 

Is trading with any of Arizona, Vancouver, or Chicago at all a realistic option for that end?

 

Probably not (Maybe Chicago, are they 7?)? I think you'd have to make two trades (Like the Eagles did to eventually get up to #2) - one to get into the top 10, then one to go up even higher. Most teams don't want to trade back that far when they have a very high pick, but given the depth of the draft, you might be able to get to 7-9, then jump up to the top 5 or so. 

[King Knut]

19 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

So, I'm going 8-1.   Pick a defenseman to leave exposed.    I'm picking Hagg.   That leaves 3 forwards.  The way I'm reading this (and you didn't post the picture version, so I may still be confused), NMCs are automatically protected.  Are their protections considered among the 3?  Or would they be in addition to?   If they're among the 3, I have to reconsider the 8-1 thing.  If in addition to, then I'm protecting Coots, Patrick, and Konecny.   Jake has an NMC, right?   If not, I'm doing everything in my power to trade him between now and then,.   And I'm not resigning Simmonds.  I'm trading him and getting picks and a first-year-pro prospect.

 

I really hate this expansion crap.   Teams work really hard and manage assets to get to the place they can compete and suddenly Freddie First Year shows up and screws it all.  I know, "whaaa," but damn.

 

Seriously, "parity" is shorthand for "product dilution" (which causes upward salary pressure).  Contract a handful of teams and call it a day.  Or at least move a couple to these newer markets and give up on Miami and Phoenix at the very least.   Maybe move the Islanders since NY metro can't figure out where to put them.

 

You have to protect Giroux unless he waives.  His NMC demands it as per the rules.

He could waive, like Fleury, but he'd have to have a pretty bad two seasons for the Flyers to want him to.  His contract would almost be up.  Then again, maybe Seattle doesn't want him because his contract is almost up.

 

Jake has no NMC.  The Saving grace of Hextall's contract with him.  

 

But NMC's aren't automatically protected... you have to BURN a protection on them.  So Giroux is one of the three automatically unless he waives, so either way, that likely leaves ONLY 2 forwards.  If they leave Frost in Juniors and Allison in college (both are now long term the smarter choices), and no one else absolutely explodes between now and then, you can still only protect 2 of TK, Patrick and Coots.  

 

In my book, unless something totally unforseen happens (and it usually does) I have to expose at least one D man I REALLY don't want to expose.  

 

They haven't ratified the rules yet so there's a chance they could tweak them to make it 9 or 10 players outright or maybe 6 forwards, 3 D, plus a floater to use for either... maybe if he's under 25 or something?  

 

No matter what, I'm in total agreement, this dilution and expansion is good for everyone but the people playing, coaching & watching in the building or watching at home.

 

It ain't right.  

 

[brelic]

22 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Thank you for that!   

 

I don't know what my problem is with retaining this.  I swear ToughFighter™ has a better grasp on this than I do!

 

Okay, so a couple questions:

It's first- or second-year professionals.   Does this mean under contract or simply on a professional team?  I'm assuming at the very least the Phantoms count.  So, if Carter Hart, for example, is only starting on the Phantoms this coming year, he will only have finished his 2nd year at the time of the draft and would, therefore, be exempt.  Correct?   So, we wouldn't have to use a "protected" on him and could protect any one of Stolarz, Lyon, or Sandstrom.  Am I correct on this?

 

From the article (and also from  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_NHL_Expansion_Draft) state that -

 

 Only players with more than two years of professional experience — NHL or AHL as defined in the collective bargaining agreement — were included in the draft.^[6]

 

So it sounds like overseas might not count?

 

22 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

With that criteria, we're pretty much screwed (as @King Knut stated) on defense and with any forwards who played this past season on any professional level. 

 

So, I'm going 8-1.   Pick a defenseman to leave exposed.    I'm picking Hagg.   That leaves 3 forwards.  The way I'm reading this (and you didn't post the picture version, so I may still be confused), NMCs are automatically protected.  Are their protections considered among the 3?  Or would they be in addition to?   If they're among the 3, I have to reconsider the 8-1 thing.  If in addition to, then I'm protecting Coots, Patrick, and Konecny.   Jake has an NMC, right?   If not, I'm doing everything in my power to trade him between now and then,.   And I'm not resigning Simmonds.  I'm trading him and getting picks and a first-year-pro prospect.

 

RIght now, only Giroux (NMC) and Simmonds (NTC) have restrictions. Voracek can be left exposed... which might not be a bad strategy if you want to protect younger guys. But then you lose him for nothing.

 

Also, even going 8-1, that means something like -

 

G, Coots, Patrick, TK, Provorov, Ghost, Sanheim, and one of Morin, Myers, Hagg, plus a goalie. Your only option is leaving one of those 4 forwards exposed. 

 

22 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I really hate this expansion crap.   Teams work really hard and manage assets to get to the place they can compete and suddenly Freddie First Year shows up and screws it all.  I know, "whaaa," but damn.

 

Seriously, "parity" is shorthand for "product dilution" (which causes upward salary pressure).  Contract a handful of teams and call it a day.  Or at least move a couple to these newer markets and give up on Miami and Phoenix at the very least.   Maybe move the Islanders since NY metro can't figure out where to put them.

 

 

Totally agree. Not a fan of expansion or the expansion draft rules. 

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, AJgoal said:

 

Probably not (Maybe Chicago, are they 7?)? I think you'd have to make two trades (Like the Eagles did to eventually get up to #2) - one to get into the top 10, then one to go up even higher. Most teams don't want to trade back that far when they have a very high pick, but given the depth of the draft, you might be able to get to 7-9, then jump up to the top 5 or so. 

Yeah, I thought Arizona might be a stretch at #5, but was thinking maybe--maybe--Vancouver at 7 or Chicago at 8.

 

The Rangers are 9, so I don't like the chances of that.   Maybe Edmonton at #10 and you still (maybe) get Ty Smith Boqvist, or Dobson.  Or you just see what's what at #14.  Edmonton really needs to think defense themselves, so I'm not bullish on that.

 

 

[ruxpin]

@brelic

 

I'm starting to think that we might not have to worry about who we expose among the forwards so long as it's not Patrick.  If Hagg is the only defensive choice exposed, I could see forwards being in danger, but otherwise you have to think Seattle grabs our dman, right?  Unless it's Voracek.   That's becoming the best option of all worlds to me.  It's not a Voracek hate thing, but I'm thinking if he were taken, it does get us out of $8.25M in cap hit for the following four years and maybe gives us other spending options.   I'm not a fan of losing him for nothing, but if we can go out use the money on maybe two decent players (we'd need to add to the $8.25M) maybe it's not a total loss.

 

Just to clarifying, anyone who just completed their second pro year would be exempt?  So anyone starting as a pro this September would be okay?   The fact it's after the season is confusing me on the count.   Or would you wait until September 2019 to start them just to be sure?  If it's the latter, just about anyone and everyone that is eligible stays in Juniors this coming season.

[AJgoal]

Just now, ruxpin said:

Just to clarifying, anyone who just completed their second pro year would be exempt?  So anyone starting as a pro this September would be okay?   The fact it's after the season is confusing me on the count.   Or would you wait until September 2019 to start them just to be sure?  If it's the latter, just about anyone and everyone that is eligible stays in Juniors this coming season.

 

Correct. It's why Morin and Hagg were exempt this past year.

[ruxpin]

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Correct. It's why Morin and Hagg were exempt this past year.

 

Thanks.  That's what I thought, but...I don't know what my problem is getting my mind around this.   It's not just the migraine.

[brelic]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

@brelic

 

I'm starting to think that we might not have to worry about who we expose among the forwards so long as it's not Patrick.  If Hagg is the only defensive choice exposed, I could see forwards being in danger, but otherwise you have to think Seattle grabs our dman, right?  Unless it's Voracek.   That's becoming the best option of all worlds to me.  It's not a Voracek hate thing, but I'm thinking if he were taken, it does get us out of $8.25M in cap hit for the following four years and maybe gives us other spending options. 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's what I'[m thinking too. So let's say the Flyers go out and sign a guy like Tavares, then leaving Voracek exposed in two years might be a smart move if that's the direction they want to go.

 

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

 

Just to clarifying, anyone who just completed their second pro year would be exempt?  So anyone starting as a pro this September would be okay?   The fact it's after the season is confusing me on the count.   Or would you wait until September 2019 to start them just to be sure?  If it's the latter, just about anyone and everyone that is eligible stays in Juniors this coming season.

 

That's my reading of it. After the 2019-2020 season, I would consider Hart a second-year professional because the third year hasn't started yet... but then again, who knows?

[AJgoal]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Thanks.  That's what I thought, but...I don't know what my problem is getting my mind around this.   It's not just the migraine.

 

Essentially, how I remember it is that the league year hasn't started yet, so they're still technically in their second year (until July 1). It's why there was such a row about expiring NMCs, and did they need to be protected.

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, brelic said:

So let's say the Flyers go out and sign a guy like Tavares, then leaving Voracek exposed in two years might be a smart move if that's the direction they want to go.

 

My thought on this, though, is then you still have a situation where you're protecting Giroux and Tavares and now leaving one of Patrick, Coots, or Konecny exposed.   I love Konecny, but gotta go with him in that circumstance, right?   Unless you sign Tavares for only two years and he's not eligible for the expansion draft because he's on an expiring contract?   I can't imagine Tavares would only sign for two years, though.

 

If they sign any high end forward this summer, maybe the 2-year thing is the way to go, though?

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

 

Okay, so a couple questions:

It's first- or second-year professionals.   Does this mean under contract or simply on a professional team?  I'm assuming at the very least the Phantoms count.  So, if Carter Hart, for example, is only starting on the Phantoms this coming year, he will only have finished his 2nd year at the time of the draft and would, therefore, be exempt.  Correct?   So, we wouldn't have to use a "protected" on him and could protect any one of Stolarz, Lyon, or Sandstrom.  Am I correct on this?

 

 

Hart would no longer be exempt at the time of the expansion draft just as Stolarz was not exempt last time around.  This is why Neuvirth is still on the Flyers at all.  They wanted to protect Stolarz, but he wasn't exempt because of the minors so they had to sign someone to fill that qualification.  People complained about doubling down on Neuvy over Mason, but they literally signed the guy in the hopes that Vegas would take him.  Hexy didn't sign Neuvy because he wanted him, he ironically signed him specifically because he was the guy Hextall would prefer to have lost and unsurprisingly (against all hopes) he didn't lose him at all.  

 

Assuming we'd want to protect Hart, Stolarz and Lyon (if still in the organization) would be exposed and Sandstrom (if he makes it over here this season would be exposed.  I do not believe Sandstrom would qualify if he only starts playing professional hockey in north america in 2019, but I'm not sure.  The SHL is on the list of leagues that don't count I believe.

 

 

 

[King Knut]

20 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

My thought on this, though, is then you still have a situation where you're protecting Giroux and Tavares and now leaving one of Patrick, Coots, or Konecny exposed.   I love Konecny, but gotta go with him in that circumstance, right?   Unless you sign Tavares for only two years and he's not eligible for the expansion draft because he's on an expiring contract?   I can't imagine Tavares would only sign for two years, though.

 

If they sign any high end forward this summer, maybe the 2-year thing is the way to go, though?

 

My thinking is to sign Tavares specifically with the intention of taking two cracks at a cup with him, then exposing him in the draft.  

 

I have not found a way to look at this draft yet (I don't know that the teams ratified the same expansion draft rules yet, I think that's still presumed, but I haven't really seen anything) that doesn't screw us over.  

 

All this kinda flew under my radar when it went down because I was focused on the games that were actually happening, but in light of all this, Hextall's best bet would seem to be package their picks in the first round and trade up to get one of the highly touted D men in this year's draft who would presumably be just about ready to crack the NHL (but still be exempt) by the time of the 2020 draft.

 

Dahlin will probably go first and Buffalo probably won't give up the first overall for to mid-firsts even if Hextall throws in Simmer or someone, so maybe they can trade up the the top ten to get Boqvist, Hughes, or Bouchard?  Dobson and Wilde are both pretty well rated too.  

 

The Flyers COULD conceivably achieve the first overall from Buffalo for their 14th, 19th AND someone like Sanheim or Myers... but that's an awful big gamble.

 

If they were to do this though, whoever they draft just CAN'T make the team this year, no matter how good he is or the whole thing if for nothing.

 

 

[ruxpin]

26 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Hart would no longer be exempt at the time of the expansion draft just as Stolarz was not exempt last time around

 

I think @AJgoal is right on this that Hart would be exempt.  He'd only be finishing his 2nd season.  Stolarz, the way I'm counting, was finishing his third at the time of the Vegas draft.  

 

Double check that because I'm wrong more than right today (yeah, give me "today")

[King Knut]

4 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I think @AJgoal is right on this that Hart would be exempt.  He'd only be finishing his 2nd season.  Stolarz, the way I'm counting, was finishing his third at the time of the Vegas draft.  

 

Double check that because I'm wrong more than right today (yeah, give me "today")

 

Stolarz was finishing his third, so I hope you're right because then they could protect ONE of the other three.  They likely won't need to protect Sandstrom at all if the SHL isn't included in the "professional leagues"  if it is, he's already eligible.  

 

Long story short though, I'm not at all worried about the goalie. 

Best case scenario, if it all works out the way we're thinking and neither Hart nor Sandstrom are eligible, Seattle has a choice of Stolarz and Lyon.

Worst case scenario, even if they HAVE to protect Hart and even if Sandstrom is eligible,  there's no way in HELL I'm taking an utterly unproven Sandstrom, Lyon or Stolarz over Sanheim, Morin or Myers. 

 

Unless Hextall moves them before the expansion draft or unless Hextall exposes a much much better forward (like whoever they might sign this off season) we're losing a blue chip D prospect just as he's feeling his NHL oats.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

6 hours ago, King Knut said:

In The Spring of 2020 the Flyers are very likely to lose one of Sanheim, Myers, or Morin in the expansion draft.  Hagg also, but if you could choose between Myers or Sanheim, you're not worrying about Hagg.

It's also slightly possible they could lose Voracek or Simmonds(if he's resigned), less tragic to Flyers fans, but Damn, that's getting a VERY good player for NOTHING. 

It's presumed they'd protect Hart, so that makes me kind of assume we'd have seen and will probably expose Sandstrom by that point, but if not, then Stolarz or whoever they sign in between.   

 

Now if I'm looking at that list, I'm zoning in on the D men.  It will be INCREDIBLY unfair to have to lose one of those three guys.  Hysterically unfair.  So unfair I won't know what to do about it.  

There likely won't be ANYTHING Hextall can do about it other than trade two D men ahead of time rather than losing them for nothing.  This is insanely unfair.  

 

It's unfair to the Flyers, and it's unfair to the fans of other Expansion teams who have simply not had the benefit of such generous draft rules.  I mean it's literally made the expansion team this the cup finalist and favorite to win.

 

Certainly they can ease off a little bit can't they?  Good lord this is unreasonable.  

 

 

Well I'm posting this without reading through this so if it's repeated...oops...I would like to think a lot of GMs have learned from this and will be better prepared next draft.

 

Hextall especially I think will be prepared.

 

By that I think he will move a Myers, Voracek or Sandstrom before he loses them for nothing.

 

And even then you can work a deal like the Jackets did (hopefully with better results) and offer another player(s) and picks as well.

 

[Philly29]

Expansion teams should not be able to get blue chip prospect, no way no howl. This is bullsh*t at is finest, I can't freaking stand this crap. I will go freaking ape **** nuts if we lose anyone of our top end prospects, especially one of Sanheim, Morin, and Myers. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Philly29]

9 hours ago, brelic said:

On the other hand, though, my personal feelings are that the league would be better served by contraction rather than expansion. Take away like 6 teams. Coyotoes, Isles, Sabres, Panthers, Stars, Canes. I think overall you'd end up with a much better product on the ice. 

THANK YOU!

[ruxpin]

10 hours ago, brelic said:

On the other hand, though, my personal feelings are that the league would be better served by contraction rather than expansion. Take away like 6 teams. Coyotoes, Isles, Sabres, Panthers, Stars, Canes. I think overall you'd end up with a much better product on the ice. 

And Pittsburgh. Don't forget Pittsburgh. 

 

 

[King Knut]

6 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Well I'm posting this without reading through this so if it's repeated...oops...I would like to think a lot of GMs have learned from this and will be better prepared next draft.

 

Hextall especially I think will be prepared.

 

By that I think he will move a Myers, Voracek or Sandstrom before he loses them for nothing.

 

And even then you can work a deal like the Jackets did (hopefully with better results) and offer another player(s) and picks as well.

 

 

One can hope he’ll be prepared,  it he’ll literally have to move them for picks or rookies in order to not get nothing for them. 

 

I thought Hextall was extremely prepared last time around.  The choices McPhee had in Philly were essentially a bunch of crap and Raffl. Somehow he passed on Raffl... if he hadn’t it wouldn’t have been the  end of the world.  

 

It’s really only the D men I m worried about.  I don’t think losing a vecchione or vorobyov for the sake of keeping a Patrick or a Lindblom would concern anyone. 

 

Losing a Myers or a Morin(god willing) to keep a Sanheim is a sophie’s Choice I wouldn’t wish on anyone. Meh, Maybe Shero. 

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

And Pittsburgh. Don't forget Pittsburgh. 

 

 

 

Almost did, but for Some reason Bettina saved them.  Still can’t figure that one out.