I'm almost 100% positive NMC will have to be protected. NTC will be fair game.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Oh really? Everything I've read says the GM's wont go for it and they need their votes in order for their to be a new team in the first place.

No source. But there is no answer on either. Anyone claiming they will count is lying through their ass. I've read from legit NHL people that owners will not pass something that makes roster exempt players count as their 10 skaters saved. They are all ready making sacrifices and this one will likely be too much for them to agree on.
- bluengold12

I mean but without a source it's your word against what I've seen from multiple outlets. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not going to get my hopes up based on a hockeybuzz post that isn't cited.

We'll see, though. If that happens, it'll help keep both Pysyk and Ennis

There is no consensus. In fact if there is one it's that the owners will not agree to that. Bettman isn't a dictator and knows he needs to work with the owners to get a compromise. I guarantee you the owners won't agree to that. Conversely it's only no movement not no trade clause. You're not getting traded if you get drafted by another team so that makes people like Moulson open to getting picked.
- bluengold12

You have teams with a bunch of verterans with NMC and they wont count, so pretty much they get to keep their entrire roster becuase of bad contracts? It will never happen that way.

I said NMC not NTC if you read my post. Also, Bettman is as close to a dictator as you can get. Don't foget he only needs support from 12 owners to make whatever decision he wants to. And this isn't something being discuseed with them anyway. Its the NHLPA that is trying to figure out the NMC and NTC conditions becuase there is no current rule because this wasnt planned for.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

"this is not true. at all. This is what they are discussing right now on what to do with NMC and NTC "

The players will fight that no movement players must be exempt and the NHL won't want to get into an argument for that even though Gm's and the league would like to get rid of them. That being said. The owners and GMs will likely fight for the new players and ones with prior to the next league year that have no movement clauses to be put on a separate exemption list.
This will still leave very good players open to being taken.

I mean but without a source it's your word against what I've seen from multiple outlets. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not going to get my hopes up based on a hockeybuzz post that isn't cited.

We'll see, though. If that happens, it'll help keep both Pysyk and Ennis
- Zschalberg

No I've seen my word from multiple outlets. It's not my hope. It's what the Gms and owners want and will require in order for Bettman and Dailey to get what they want.

"this is not true. at all. This is what they are discussing right now on what to do with NMC and NTC "

The players will fight that no movement players must be exempt and the NHL won't want to get into an argument for that even though Gm's and the league would like to get rid of them. That being said. The owners and GMs will likely fight for the new players and ones with prior to the next league year that have no movement clauses to be put on a separate exemption list.
This will still leave very good players open to being taken.
- bluengold12

You are seriously going to quote half of a sentence? LMAO like its not posted for everyone to see what the rest of it said. I'm done.

You have teams with a bunch of verterans with NMC and they wont count, so pretty much they get to keep their entrire roster becuase of bad contracts? It will never happen that way.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Chicago, based on NMC alone, will be able to keep Towes, Kane, Hossa, Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Crawford. That's 6 skaters and a goalie. If it's true, you'll have 16 skaters and 2 goalies protected.

If anything, there should be a limit as to how many NMC players you can protect. I just haven't heard anything about it yet until now.

You are seriously going to quote half of a sentence? LMAO like its not posted for everyone to see what the rest of it said. I'm done.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

I just quoted what was relevant. I saw your whole post but you mentioned NTC so I mentioned why it wouldn't be included.

Chicago, based on NMC alone, will be able to keep Towes, Kane, Hossa, Seabrook, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Crawford. That's 6 skaters and a goalie. If it's true, you'll have 16 skaters and 2 goalies protected.

If anything, there should be a limit as to how many NMC players you can protect. I just haven't heard anything about it yet until now.
- Zschalberg

I'm sure this will be discussed. But they are the exception to the league.

I just quoted what was relevant. I saw your whole post but you mentioned NTC so I mentioned why it wouldn't be included.
- bluengold12

The full sentence so that people can lurk without jumping pages

this is not true. at all. This is what they are discussing right now on what to do with NMC and NTC right now the consensus is that NMC will need to be protected and take one of your slots.

The full sentence so that people can lurk without jumping pages
- Zschalberg

Correct but he clearly stated they are discussing what to do with both the NTC and the NMC so I was just stating that NTC won't stand a chance to be exempt.

From what I red .. this is true and they are still in discussions with the players assoc.

this is not true. at all. This is what they are discussing right now on what to do with NMC and NTC right now the consensus is that NMC will need to be protected and take one of your slots.

From what I red .. this is true and they are still in discussions with the players assoc.

this is not true. at all. This is what they are discussing right now on what to do with NMC and NTC right now the consensus is that NMC will need to be protected and take one of your slots.
- cabin

There is nothing out there that states the must count against the 10 skaters.

Correct but he clearly stated they are discussing what to do with both the NTC and the NMC so I was just stating that NTC won't stand a chance to be exempt.
- bluengold12

I'm just helping the lurkers.

We'll see what happens. If NMC is its own category I can't see it being a catch all otherwise, again, I'd sign every player this year to short contracts with NMCs and then have my 10 that I can still retain. That leaves even less players open than it did during the 2000 draft.

For example, the Sabres could then retain, by NMC alone, Foligno, Girgensons, Larrson, D-Lo, Risto, McCabe, Johnson. That's 6 skaters and a goaltender on top of our 10 and a goalie. That's not counting the players in Rochester who could get the same type of deal including Schaller, Ruwhedel, etc. It would make it so that the teams would be picking mainly AHL players or from a much smaller pool.

I'm just helping the lurkers.

We'll see what happens. If NMC is its own category I can't see it being a catch all otherwise, again, I'd sign every player this year to short contracts with NMCs and then have my 10 that I can still retain. That leaves even less players open than it did during the 2000 draft.

For example, the Sabres could then retain, by NMC alone, Foligno, Girgensons, Larrson, D-Lo, Risto, McCabe, Johnson. That's 6 skaters and a goaltender on top of our 10 and a goalie. That's not counting the players in Rochester who could get the same type of deal including Schaller, Ruwhedel, etc. It would make it so that the teams would be picking mainly AHL players or from a much smaller pool.
- Zschalberg

What they'd have to do is make it anything before the 2016-2017 league year. Also Murray likely won't want to have a streaky player like Foligno on a NMC

There is nothing out there that states the must count against the 10 skaters.
- bluengold12

A decision on expansion will come before the 2016 NHL Draft in June. With the league hoping to have expansion teams playing by the 2017-18 season, the draft would likely come around the time of the 2017 NHL Draft. This will give teams at least one full year to make decisions on who to protect, and who to make available.

There has been no decision on what to do with players who have no-movement clauses in their contracts, though it’s expected that they wouldn’t be available for selection.

It doesn't say they count against the 10, which is why it's still in discussion. Like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying without a source one way or another you're in the exact same position we are where you say "It will be this way" and we say "No, it'll be this way" and there's no proof either way to settle it. You can say everything you've seen says so, but that does nothing to convince me. If you're right, we'll revisit this and I'll let you know.

There is nothing out there that states the must count against the 10 skaters.
- bluengold12

And nothing that it doesn't .

What they'd have to do is make it anything before the 2016-2017 league year. Also Murray likely won't want to have a streaky player like Foligno on a NMC
- bluengold12

Murray also wouldn't like to lose an asset for nothing. So I can give him a 2 year deal with a NMC for only the year that we need it for and then it's low risk and high reward.

It doesn't say they count against the 10, which is why it's still in discussion. Like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying without a source one way or another you're in the exact same position we are where you say "It will be this way" and we say "No, it'll be this way" and there's no proof either way to settle it. You can say everything you've seen says so, but that does nothing to convince me. If you're right, we'll revisit this and I'll let you know.
- Zschalberg

Not true. I'm just stating that the GMs likely wouldn't agree to it. And people on here are saying they will likely count against the 10 when it's proven that hasn't been decided yet.

"this is not true. at all. This is what they are discussing right now on what to do with NMC and NTC "

The players will fight that no movement players must be exempt and the NHL won't want to get into an argument for that even though Gm's and the league would like to get rid of them. That being said. The owners and GMs will likely fight for the new players and ones with prior to the next league year that have no movement clauses to be put on a separate exemption list.
This will still leave very good players open to being taken.
- bluengold12

I get what you're saying...
But if NMC guys are exempted & don't count towards the 10 u can protect, that will leave a loophole open for teams to protect A LOT more than 10 players...
Look at how many guys we have to sign in the next 3 years
We sign all those guys we don't wanna lose to NMC deals, and it pretty much circumvents only being allowed to protect 10 guys

I can't imagine the NHL would allow teams to get away with that

Murray also wouldn't like to lose an asset for nothing. So I can give him a 2 year deal with a NMC for only the year that we need it for and then it's low risk and high reward.
- Zschalberg

Trades, trades and more trades. Look at the past expansion drafts.

I get what you're saying...
But if NMC guys are exempted & don't count towards the 10 u can protect, that will leave a loophole open for teams to protect A LOT more than 10 players...
Look at how many guys we have to sign in the next 3 years
We sign all those guys we don't wanna lose to NMC deals, and it pretty much circumvents only being allowed to protect 10 guys

I can't imagine the NHL would allow teams to get away with that
- jdfitz77

That's why it would only be pre existing NMC prior to the next league year.

That's why it would only be pre existing NMC prior to the next league year.
- bluengold12

This is the pre run down on what the GM meetings regarding the expansion.

Now we wait for that meeting ....


http://espn.go.com/nhl/st...ial-expansion-draft-rules

That's why it would only be pre existing NMC prior to the next league year.
- bluengold12

We could still sign anyone who will be up after this year to NMC deals right now then
I think they'd just be setting themselves up to have teams circumvent the spirit of only protecting a certain # of players
It could get messy

Not true. I'm just stating that the GMs likely wouldn't agree to it. And people on here are saying they will likely count against the 10 when it's proven that hasn't been decided yet.
- bluengold12

What? What part about what I said isn't true? That you're saying things and when asked for a source you said you had none?

No source. But there is no answer on either. Anyone claiming they will count is lying through their ass. I've read from legit NHL people that owners will not pass something that makes roster exempt players count as their 10 skaters saved. They are all ready making sacrifices and this one will likely be too much for them to agree on.
- bluengold12

That I said that I don't agree with what you're saying? Or that I'll say you were right, because trust me, I will.

Again, you're making an inference based on what you've seen. I'm doing the same. Neither of us is right. Neither of us is wrong. We're superimposed as right and wrong at the same time until the point where it is officially stated at which case one of us will have made the wrong guess. But that's it.