Expansion Draft

[Dane-Hamilton]

I think if we go exposure we need to modify quite a bit. Every NHL team has 20 NHL players not all GHL teams have 20 NHL players.

[Ian-Halifax]

Whatever we decide to do, any chance we can get the final details hammered out today?

[Scott-New York]

Aug 13, 2016 12:14:53 GMT -5 Dane-Hamilton said:

I think if we go exposure we need to modify quite a bit. Every NHL team has 20 NHL players not all GHL teams have 20 NHL players.

Definitely a Democrat

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

I would be in favor of waving the need to expose x amount of players. The teams with deeper talent pools (like mine) are going to be exposing top notch guys anyways. That would make things very simple if we just focused on who are eligible to be selected (Non bridged RFAs expiring 2018 and later, and the guys that each team will be protecting 7-3-1 or 8-1

[Scott-New York]

So we will level heavier taxes on the rich, as a punishment for being so well to do...

[Dane-Hamilton]

Aug 13, 2016 18:35:16 GMT -5 Glenn-Philadelphia said:

I would be in favor of waving the need to expose x amount of players. The teams with deeper talent pools (like mine) are going to be exposing top notch guys anyways. That would make things very simple if we just focused on who are eligible to be selected (Non bridged RFAs expiring 2018 and later, and the guys that each team will be protecting 7-3-1 or 8-1

I agree with this, multiple good goalies and D will be exposed. Forwards will likely be around 70-80 but with the draft pick and trades they can add top talent on offense

[Scott-New York]

In my mind, this will bring the talent pool down for the expansion team because they have to pick from all 30 teams, also opens up the opportunity for teams to game the system by trading away talent that would be left exposed and picking up other assets

[Chris-Alaska]

So is no exposure requirements the final ruling? If not then can you please state when the final ruling is made Glenn? I'm personally fine with or without exposure requirements but would still like to know the official final ruling when it's determined

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Aug 13, 2016 18:56:57 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

In my mind, this will bring the talent pool down for the expansion team because they have to pick from all 30 teams, also opens up the opportunity for teams to game the system by trading away talent that would be left exposed and picking up other assets

In my mind it doesn't bring the talent pool down that much as some teams are in a position right now that they don't have a lot of talent that needs to be protected so exposing players which meet the requirements but still may not be the most desirable assets won't be a problem. In regards to the other teams trading away assets well that's going to happen one way or another (see my Rielly trade last night). While this is making these guys unavailable to the expansion team, these assets can strengthen some of our current teams as well. The only team that could really benefit by this is a team that has 7 star forward, 3 star d-men, 1 stud goalie and trash for the rest of the team.

That being said, and in answer to Ian's and Chris's questions, there will be no requirement on needing to expose guys unless someone counters with a compelling argument in the next 24 hours. If none is forthcoming, then we will have this process hammered out.

[Scott-New York]

None is forth coming, we are obviously heading further and further from the actual NHL mold so I will have to accept that, for now

[Dane-Hamilton]

Aug 14, 2016 14:43:19 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

None is forth coming, we are obviously heading further and further from the actual NHL mold so I will have to accept that, for now

Don't get your argument just seems like coming from a place of envy for teams that have made trades to remove assets that won't be protected (this is done in NHL as well)
I'd be surprised if Murray and Fleury are both penguins by the deadline.

As far as further from NHL take expansion rules and replace NHL with GHL you get

Forwards and D with 40 GHL games played this coming year or 70 in the last 2 and contracted and a goalie contracted in 2017-18. Do you honestly think any team will struggle with those. If they did they can play a 4th liner 40 games which the NHL could do as well if needed another exposed.

Adding exposure requirement in GHL is just adding a rule for the sake of having more rules.

[Scott-New York]

So you're saying that the rules the NHL has in place are just there for the sake of adding more rules?

As far as envy goes, you couldn't be further from the truth, all I am doing is making sure that I understand the rules simply because we seem to be dead set against following the mold the NHL has already set forth. But God forbid we actually make you manage your team.

[Phil-Cornwall]

I have no idea who can be protected on my team or not. I cannot keep up with all the possible rule changes - this way or that. Until Glenn codes in the designation on who is protected or not...I have no idea to plan for it.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Again if you don't understand what the law of diminishing return is please look it up. The benefit that would be gained by following the NHL to a T (and exponentially increasing the coding difficulty and requirements) is simply not worth it given its targeted benefactor being a currently unowned entity. Also what needs to be considered is that this is a one time thing (yeah yeah 2 time thing when the NHL is all said and done)

[Scott-New York]

Well, it would be even simpler just not to code anything, just let the expansion team pick any player they like from each team, why don't we do that?