2021 Expansion Draft

[Brenden-Oregon]

Older, wiser, and not burnt out from life anymore will do that

[Scott-New York]

I'm a little confused. UFA's are not eligible to be selected in expansion. They do not belong to a team, they are free agents. As far as a team not protecting a goalie or being required to when they don't have an eligible goaltender to protect, its just what it is. If that was the case, they are in goaltending trouble already. If teams can protect all or most of their 'bigs' roster, they are not a very deep team, more than likely, and the expansion team would be forced to select a player from their minors list.

[Brenden-Oregon]

UFAs in the NHL are able to be selected by the expansion team. They then would have exclusive rights until the beginning of free agency. The NHL says Seattle has to select a minimum of 20 players with contracts for 2021-2022 meaning they could select 10 players who are UFA or RFA this season.

For the goalie thing, this is what the NHL says:

In addition, all NHL teams must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the draft:

* One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played in at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* One goalie who is under contract in 2021-22 or will be a restricted free agent at the end of his current contract immediately prior to 2021-22. If a team elects to make a restricted free agent goalie available to meet this requirement, that goalie must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the team's protected list.

My question is are we following the minimum exposed rules or just the protection rules? Not looking at games, just wondering about the required minimum amount of players.

Just looking for some clarification so I can start prepping.

[Phil-Cornwall]

good game tonight on twitch t 705pm Brenden.....check it out....https://www.twitch.tv/ghl_commish

[Chris-Suffolk]

I just wanted to add my 2 thin pennies worth on the Exp. Draft...I don't have an answer for you Brenden, but I am sure we will all come to a fair agreement. I wouldn't want you to suffer like Atlanta Thrashers did, even though they had the 2 Top Draft-hype players in Heatley and Kovalchuk...

But, by the same token, I personally prepared my team and made trades throughout the season, to accommodate expansion rules. I actually have been preparing for this for two seasons...building my team back from the Goaltending position two drafts ago, and Defense this past draft. I would be upset if, the rules changed now, and somehow I lost a player I had planned to protect or one who didn't need protection. Especially since I moved out others to make my plan work out.

Whatever it is, I am sure we will work it out for the betterment of all involved.

[Jon-Seattle]

I think one of the issues will be that with us being a year behind the NHL there is one less teams worth of players to pick from (not to mention waiting for players to play AHL/NHL games before getting a card).

Regardless, I’m one of those teams that won’t have a ton to pick from but would understand opening up the selection process a bit more. I like the thought of the expansion team being able to pick up free agents, UFAs in particular. Seattle also has some access to RFAs as well I think as they are usually third year players unless I’m mistaken (very possible).

Requiring the exposure requirements will also be interesting. I could see a few teams, myself included, possibly having to expose someone just to meet that requirement even if it means they have infilled protection slots.

All that said, Calgary had the same rules in effect so as long as we’re upholding them then it’s entirely on Glenn or the shadow counsel to allow for the modification of those rules.

[Scott-New York]

I see a lot of great ideas and I'm not opposed to any of them, including the selection of 3rd year RFA's and UFA's. However, while giving the expansion team a lot more meat on the bone, it would not be in fair play to change any rules this late in the process. As Chris mentioned, many owners have planned diligently for this process. Pending rule changes need to be proposed and discussed at least a year in advance, so these are changes that could be made for future expansion of one is to take place. As far as each team being required to expose certain players, I'm fairly certain we did not do that with the last expansion and if that's the case, we won't be following that requirement this year. This, of course, is only my opinion as an owner a longer in the tooth and Glenn can will make this all clear as mud moving forward. The next order of business is to get cards out one they've been polished up and set a date for the protected lists from each club. It will be an exciting off season regardless!

[Brenden-Oregon]

May 24, 2021 5:26:30 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

Well, see now that depends...

If they are coming off their entry level contract, they are not eligible for the expansion draft and therefore automatically protected

However, if they are coming off a bridge deal, they are eligible for the expansion draft and would have to be protected.

Why wouldn't all 2021 RFA's be eligible to be taken in the expansion draft? Wouldn't they have been in the league for 3 years now? It also says in the first post on this thread that it's 2022 and later RFA excluded, not 2021.

Automatically Protected
Any drafted player RFA (non bridged) 2018 2022 or later.

An NHL example of this would be Rasmus Dahlin needs to be protected by the Sabres in the expansion draft coming off his ELC with 3 years playing in the NHL or pro leagues in North America.

Also, are there any rules for the expansion team besides selecting one player from each team (minus Calgary)?

[Jedediah-Hartford]

I don't think it is so much that 2021 RFAs aren't eligible as much as that the RFA process has to take place first. RFAs that are retained are not able to be moved for a year, and are thereby required to be protected by their clubs. So they aren't exempt so much as they'd have to be on their team's protect list. Am I close?

[Brenden-Oregon]

But if a RFA is still considered to be under club control, they need to be protected regardless of what happens first. In both the first post and then Glenn's post in this thread, both said RFA 2022 and later, meaning all RFA 2021 need to be protected or can be selected in the expansion draft, or at least that's how I'm reading it.

[Phil-Cornwall]

If there is anyone here who doesn't want rules and sims to follow as closely to the real NHL as possible, I haven't met them here yet. I think we all want as close to mirror images of how the NHL runs and operates - much more fun than making stuff up.

Seattle must choose a minimum of 20 players under contract for the 2021-22 regular season and those with an aggregate Expansion Draft value that is between 60-100 percent of the prior season's upper limit for the salary cap. The Kraken cannot buy out players chosen in the Expansion Draft earlier than the summer following its first season.

Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie, under the following conditions.


* All first- and second-year professionals, and all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward protection limits. This is the last 2 drafts in the GHL ?

In addition, all NHL teams must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the draft:

* One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played in at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

* One goalie who is under contract in 2021-22 or will be a restricted free agent at the end of his current contract immediately prior to 2021-22. If a team elects to make a restricted free agent goalie available to meet this requirement, that goalie must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the team's protected list.

* Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a team's player exposure requirements unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection. This one is a little unclear.

[Brenden-Oregon]

So if we went by this, all 2021 RFAs would have to be protected to keep them from being exempt since they have over 2 years of professional GHL league experience. However, it seems like I wouldn't be able to select more than 10 RFA or UFA using these real world rules, which I'm ok with. So really I wouldn't be able to just go after every RFA. But, would this 60-100% even be doable because of who could be exposed and it being guys with small contracts?

I would much rather go with something more real world like this than what my plan B is. But whatever is decided, I'll accept.

[Joe-Adirondack]

I don’t know if this was addressed but if u pick UFA’s off teams u can only use fantasy points to sign one of them

[Scott-New York]

I think you guys are missing the main point here. Don't get me wrong, I also am all for any rules which reflect NHL business but I am mostly playing devil's advocate in this case.

1. You can take the minimum exposure rules and throw them out the window. We did not require teams to expose a certain level of player in the previous expansion so we will not do so this time around either.

2. Bridged players are no longer on entry level contracts so regardless of them being RFA's at the end of their current deals, they will be exposed to expansion if left unprotected.

3. It does appear from the original post that 2017 RFA's were not protected in the 2017 expansion as 2018 has been crossed out and replaced with 2022. If that is the case, then 2021 RFA's should indeed require protection. However, if 2017 RFA's did not require protection, then 2021 RFA's will be automatically protected as well. We have to follow the same rules we used in 2017. I do not recall this in particular and would be fine with either scenario assuming it follows the same set of rules as the 2017 expansion.

[Phil-Cornwall]

Jun 4, 2021 17:11:53 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

I think you guys are missing the main point here. Don't get me wrong, I also am all for any rules which reflect NHL business but I am mostly playing devil's advocate in this case.

1. You can take the minimum exposure rules and throw them out the window. We did not require teams to expose a certain level of player in the previous expansion so we will not do so this time around either.

2. Bridged players are no longer on entry level contracts so regardless of them being RFA's at the end of their current deals, they will be exposed to expansion if left unprotected.

3. It does appear from the original post that 2017 RFA's were not protected in the 2017 expansion as 2018 has been crossed out and replaced with 2022. If that is the case, then 2021 RFA's should indeed require protection. However, if 2017 RFA's did not require protection, then 2021 RFA's will be automatically protected as well. We have to follow the same rules we used in 2017. I do not recall this in particular and would be fine with either scenario assuming it follows the same set of rules as the 2017 expansion.

The red cross out is fairly new...you are correct.