21-22 Status Thread

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

You can retain 1 and only 1 exclusively by paying them above their asking price (I think 10% over but need to verify). This costs a pretty penny in FPs though. I will need to check this as well but I believe this will cost 75FPs this year.

Now the question is for players that teams decide to do this with I will argue that that means they need to be protected by the owning team or list losing them in the expansion draft. Last time we didn't have to worry about that because we didn't have the ability to retain 1 UFA in this manner.

The other issue is non carded guys and protecting them. I think these guys should be protected as well and are not exempt because they don't have a card. A prime case in point is a player like Kucherov (a Pharaoh) who I feel should not be exempt and needs to be protected.

*edit cleaned up my last paragraph as with the misspellings, it was tough to follow.

[Matt-Colorado]

Jun 14, 2021 12:47:39 GMT -5 Glenn-Philadelphia said:

You can retain 1 and only 1 exclusively by paying them above their asking price (I think 10% over but need to verify). This costs a pretty penny in FPs though. I will need to check this as well but I believe this will cost 75FPs this year.

Now the question is for players that teams decide to do this with I will argue that that means they need to be protected by the owning team or list losing them in the expansion draft. Last time we didn't have to worry about that because we didn't have the ability to retain 1 UFA in this manner.

The other issue is non carded guys and protecting them. I think these guys should be protected as well and are no exempt because they don't have a card. A prime case in point is a player like Kucherov (a Pharaoh) who I feel should not but exempt and needs to be protected.

Issue 1:
Similar to the NHL where NMC players must be protected, unless the player waives the NMC (which we can't simulate).
-I would suggest any player under contract on a FP resigning must be protected.

Issue 2:
This is a tricky one, and I see your point of view Glenn, but I would argue that players without cards for whatever reason (season long injury, overseas) aught to be exempt from the expansion draft and don't need to be protected, unless the team with the player's right chooses to allow the expansion team to select that player as part of a trade.

[Brenden-Oregon]

First, a question. Was it ever decided if I would be allowed to select players who are UFAs as the selection from that team? Obviously I'd be only able to select a few, if at all. And that brings up another question if so. How would I sign them without any FP? Would it be exempt?

Now onto the other issues:

1. I would suggest having anyone planning on using FP on a player have to disclose that BEFORE the expansion draft and therefore have to protect them, thus eliminating a "freebie" protected player. And then having any player who wasn't disclosed for the FP resign ineligible after the expansion draft.

2. I would say anyone who played overseas or wasn't on an NHL roster is exempt. Players who had a season long injury with no card who otherwise would've been playing (Kucherov) should have to be protected since they have to be in the NHL expansion draft.

[Scott-New York]

If the expansion team doesn't have the option of selecting UFA's then there is no need to change any rule from the previous expansion.

[Brenden-Oregon]

Jun 14, 2021 17:06:00 GMT -5 Scott-New York said:

If the expansion team doesn't have the option of selecting UFA's then there is no need to change any rule from the previous expansion.

There wasn’t a rule in place because the 75 FP (from what Glenn said) being used to not allow a player to hit UFA wasn’t in place until after it. I tend to look at the 75 FP being used as pretty much a in season contract extension since that player has no chance of hitting UFA and any player receiving such extension will be protected (i.e. Scott Laughton extended right before the trade deadline this season).

Now if that is the case and the 75 FP was implemented after the first expansion, i would think that it needs to be a rule that the player has to be protected. I’d be making this case even if I weren’t the expansion team. It would be a freebie where that player wouldn’t even be hitting the open market. That wouldn’t be right being able to protect an extra player that you know you’re keeping just because we don’t have in season contract extensions.

[Scott-New York]

It's a freebie every year and the player doesn't hit the open market. The expansion rules do not allow for UFA's to be selected by the expansion team so it doesn't need to be changed. If we're going to change the rule to allow the expansion team to select UFA's, then the teams should also have the option of protecting them regardless of whether they intend to keep them or not. By allowing your team to select UFA's, we are giving you an advantage that the previous expansion club did not have and having to make unnecessary rule changes for the sake of one club.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Jun 14, 2021 13:15:47 GMT -5 Brenden-Oregon said:

First, a question. Was it ever decided if I would be allowed to select players who are UFAs as the selection from that team? Obviously I'd be only able to select a few, if at all. And that brings up another question if so. How would I sign them without any FP? Would it be exempt?

Now onto the other issues:

1. I would suggest having anyone planning on using FP on a player have to disclose that BEFORE the expansion draft and therefore have to protect them, thus eliminating a "freebie" protected player. And then having any player who wasn't disclosed for the FP resign ineligible after the expansion draft.

2. I would say anyone who played overseas or wasn't on an NHL roster is exempt. Players who had a season long injury with no card who otherwise would've been playing (Kucherov) should have to be protected since they have to be in the NHL expansion draft.

In the last expansion draft UFAs could not be targeted the expansion team. The same will apply this year.

I think that teams wishing to sign a UFA via franchise points will need to disclose this and protect them prior to the expansion draft taking place.

This, and the entire off season order of things will need to be spit balled and hammered out in the very near future.

[Scott-New York]

Please read my post previous to yours, this is unnecessary if we are not allowing Oregon to select UFA's.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

I have read it. I think that if a team is going to extend a UFA then they need to protect that team asset for the expansion draft. Oregon will not be able to target UFAs (as was the case last expansion because these players are all unrestricted). I would argue that a player who the team wants to extend via the 75 FP avenue should be protected because at that point they are no longer a UFA.

[Eric-Baltimore]

Jun 14, 2021 18:15:56 GMT -5 Glenn-Philadelphia said:

I have read it. I think that if a team is going to extend a UFA then they need to protect that team asset for the expansion draft. Oregon will not be able to target UFAs (as was the case last expansion because these players are all unrestricted). I would argue that a player who the team wants to extend via the 75 FP avenue should be protected because at that point they are no longer a UFA.

I would agree with this. The extensions take place before the UFA process. So I see it as these players never reached the open market and would need to be protected.

[Scott-New York]

I don't see where it makes any sense to protect a player from expansion that is not eligible for expansion. It really seems like liberal logic in a way.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

It makers perfect sense. When we did the expansion last time there was no provision to absolutely guarantee you will be able to retain a UFA. There is now. It is my juxtaposition that players retained this way are not UFAs when they are extended, they are under contract and an asset of the team.

[Glenn-Philadelphia]

Boys, here are my thoughts about the sequencing of this summers league buisness.

Thanks Brenden for your input as well.


1. 75 FP resign player announced (and processed by the league)
2. Protection lists made
3. Expansion draft held
4. Team decision on all RFA (y/n on resigning or letting go to UFA only)
5. Entry Draft
6. RFA
7. UFA
8. Contract Length Determinations

Please feel free to comment, remind me of any missed steps or errors in the sequencing.

Thanks,
Glenn

[Scott-New York]

I actually agree with that fully. However, I guess I don't understand protecting someone who is not eligible to be selected.

[Eric-Baltimore]

I think we need to include the resigning of players on minor league deals somewhere before the expansion draft. Along the same lines as extended UFAs, resigned minor leaguers would be eligible for expansion selection unless protected.