|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 17:53:15 GMT -5
NHL rule is simple in itself regarding goalies, you can protect one and must leave one unprotected who is either an RFA or is contracted through 2017-18.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 17:55:28 GMT -5
On to what we are using as a basis for leaving at least two forwards and one Defenseman exposed please...NHL rule says they had to play 40 games the previous season, meaning 2016-17; or 70 in the previous two seasons...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jul 27, 2016 18:09:36 GMT -5
Question about goalies.. Why can't the rule just be that you can protect 1 plus whatever drafted guys you have that are automatically protected? Seems like teams with only 1 good goalie are going to get screwed and the expansion team will end up with 2 awesome goalies. Even if the rule is that you can protect 1 and the rest are available, there will be plenty of solid goalies for the expansion team to choose from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 18:54:11 GMT -5
How is it fair that only certain teams have to leave goalies exposed? Every team should have to leave the same number of players exposed. So if a team doesn't have any extra defense to leave exposed, is it ok for them to protect every solid Defenseman they have and let the rest walk to free agency while you have to leave two decent Defenseman exposed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jul 27, 2016 18:58:02 GMT -5
Yea I don't really see the problem. If I have to leave multiple guys exposed with good cards and another team doesn't they're most likely in worse shape. Unless a team is going to completely gut their team for unproven drafted players, which is also a risk. It's 1 player you lose, it's not the end of the world. It's not like Las Vegas is going to come in and be an amazing team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jul 27, 2016 19:02:01 GMT -5
are there any rules or guidelines drawn up about this expansion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 19:02:30 GMT -5
Actually, they have a chance of being a pretty solid team, that's why the rules limit how many players each team can protect, do me a favor guys, go through your team and look at who would be left exposed, there will be some pretty good players that you won't be able to protect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 19:06:15 GMT -5
are there any rules or guidelines drawn up about this expansion? I posted the NHL rules earlier in this thread |
|
|
|
Post by Owen-Moncton on Jul 27, 2016 19:12:12 GMT -5
Thanks Scotty,
what guidelines are we following?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 19:13:46 GMT -5
That's what we are discussing here, basically how closely to follow what the NHL has already laid out
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Suffolk on Jul 27, 2016 19:15:13 GMT -5
wayyyy tooooo much shit to read. My friggin noggin is spinning. Expansion, Bridge Contracts, RFA's, UFA's...just let me know what the final ruling to all of these topics is/are, and I'll go from there. But, right now, entirely way too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 19:15:30 GMT -5
So far, what we have is that anyone who is an RFA in 2018 or after is ineligible for the expansion draft and is automatically protected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jul 27, 2016 19:18:29 GMT -5
Is it any 2018 or later RFA or just guys that were drafted and still on their ELC?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 19:24:14 GMT -5
That was what I pointed out and I think we're going with any 2018 RFA or later but Glenn would have to clarify that
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Jul 27, 2016 19:26:20 GMT -5
I personally would vote just drafted players are protected, seems closer to the NHL rule about having 2 pro years of experience or whatever it is.
|
|
