|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 27, 2016 19:28:52 GMT -5
Not for nothing ECLS are ECLS. Drafted or not
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 27, 2016 19:30:17 GMT -5
Yes, but much easier to track if it's just 2018 RFA's or later was Glenn's thought process I believe
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Jul 28, 2016 11:32:14 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... I think we're under agreement that 2018 & beyond RFAs will be exempt. I'm assuming that all teams will be able to protect one goalie without really having to worry about exposing any. Now we need to figure out the minimum requirements to guys we need to expose. Scotty pointed out that NHL teams have to expose 2 forwards and 1 defenseman that played in 40 games the previous season or 70 over the previous 2. Another point comes down to 2017 RFAs and minor leaguers. From my understanding, right now, minor leaguers are not exempt and must be protected during the expansion draft. For my example I will use Ben Hutton. He's currently signed at $300k and will need to be bumped up to $450k for me to keep him this season. He will be due a GHL contract next offseason whether I use him for not. Since he's due a GHL contract, would he be protected since he would be signing his ELC and would be an RFA in 2020 or would he have to be protected since, when the expansion draft takes place, he'd still technically be a minor leaguer? Basically, I need to figure out if I need to give him a GHL contract this year or next year so he would be exempt from the expansion draft. Would it make sense to resign minor leaguers prior to the expansion draft next offseason? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Alaska on Jul 28, 2016 18:56:17 GMT -5
I think that if you want to protect a minor leaguer then that player should have to be signed prior to the expansion draft, which would mean this year. I have some players like that too but I most likely wouldn't sign or protect them. Hutton is a little better than them though I'd say so I understand why you would want to guarantee his protection. However he's a rare case as hes panning out quicker than most expected. At least you know you will have a good player signed to a contract rather than the guessing game that I would play if I were signing any of mine. It does suck that you wouldn't want to sign him out long term before knowing what you have for sure as his card is still that of a good minor leaguer. This may be where the bridge deals comes into effect. Good thing we have both discussions somewhat going as these things may coincide. 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... I think we're under agreement that 2018 & beyond RFAs will be exempt. I'm assuming that all teams will be able to protect one goalie without really having to worry about exposing any. Now we need to figure out the minimum requirements to guys we need to expose. Scotty pointed out that NHL teams have to expose 2 forwards and 1 defenseman that played in 40 games the previous season or 70 over the previous 2. Another point comes down to 2017 RFAs and minor leaguers. From my understanding, right now, minor leaguers are not exempt and must be protected during the expansion draft. For my example I will use Ben Hutton. He's currently signed at $300k and will need to be bumped up to $450k for me to keep him this season. He will be due a GHL contract next offseason whether I use him for not. Since he's due a GHL contract, would he be protected since he would be signing his ELC and would be an RFA in 2020 or would he have to be protected since, when the expansion draft takes place, he'd still technically be a minor leaguer? Basically, I need to figure out if I need to give him a GHL contract this year or next year so he would be exempt from the expansion draft. Would it make sense to resign minor leaguers prior to the expansion draft next offseason? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 28, 2016 19:12:06 GMT -5
Minor leaguers are RFA's after their first deal so no need to sign them long term Chris. Except when they've already been signed once before, then they are UFA's after you sign them to a pro deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 28, 2016 19:53:11 GMT -5
I think minor leaguers should be signed if you want to be able to protect them
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Alaska on Jul 28, 2016 20:04:11 GMT -5
Ok, sorry didn't think that the whole way through, well regardless the overall point of my post still stands, just not the correlating with bridge deals aspect. To simplify it, I agree with Scott-NJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 28, 2016 20:31:16 GMT -5
I see both sides of this. If minor leaguers are eligible to be drafted, then they should be eligible to be protected. But I also understand why we would say that you have to give them a contract to protect them as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 29, 2016 7:23:29 GMT -5
I also think that any minor league player cannot be protected and must be exposed to the draft. If you want to protect them, you need to give them a big boy contract. I don't think this will matter though as I doubt any minor league player will be targeted during the expansion draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Jul 29, 2016 8:47:57 GMT -5
I also think that any minor league player cannot be protected and must be exposed to the draft. If you want to protect them, you need to give them a big boy contract. I don't think this will matter though as I doubt any minor league player will be targeted during the expansion draft. Ok. So I need to give Hutton a GHL contract this offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 29, 2016 8:50:37 GMT -5
If you want to identify him as a protected player then I would say yes. Much like if a minor league player gets injured and misses a year/card, he will drop from your roster as he is not under a pro contract with your team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian-Cleveland on Jul 29, 2016 8:57:24 GMT -5
Also want to be 100% sure on this. If I sign him to 3 years at $900k then he'll be an RFA in 2019. He would be exempt from the draft so I wouldn't need to protect him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 29, 2016 9:05:14 GMT -5
I thought there was some discussion on this applying to drafted players only but to keep it simple we could go with any RFA unless someone can suggest why we shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 29, 2016 9:10:30 GMT -5
Keep it simple and cover all RFAs
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 4, 2016 20:06:26 GMT -5
Can we get the test of this set?, as RFA has started but we never wrapped this up
|
|
