Who do you protect in buffalo. No movement clause players need to be protected. My list would be

Kane
Oreilly
Eichel
Reinhart
Fasching
Girgensens
Larssen

Ristolainen
Bogosian
Mccabe
Lehner
- Wissler

this is probably close. i think id leave ennis open because i dont really like him and we need his salary to get to the 25% (of our previous years team salary that we have to expose). girgensons and larsson are the bubble players for me, and i expect one or both of them to be moved before this is an issue. im protecting mccabe over pysyk all day long.

this is probably close. i think id leave ennis open because i dont really like him and we need his salary to get to the 25% (of our previous years team salary that we have to expose). girgensons and larsson are the bubble players for me, and i expect one or both of them to be moved before this is an issue. im protecting mccabe over pysyk all day long.
- rover16

Personally I'd protect both McCabe and pysyk over girg and Larsson. Sabres might consider 8 skaters rather than 7/3

this is probably close. i think id leave ennis open because i dont really like him and we need his salary to get to the 25% (of our previous years team salary that we have to expose). girgensons and larsson are the bubble players for me, and i expect one or both of them to be moved before this is an issue. im protecting mccabe over pysyk all day long.
- rover16

Girgensons may not even be here

Girgensons may not even be here
- SABRES 89

Who will you hate now that the fat pig is gone?

Pro Hockey at any level is the key phrase.

NHL
AHL
KHL
SEL

and any of the other European leagues are Pro Hockey leagues.

If 2017 is the expansion then he'll be going into his 3rd pro season in NA and thus isn't exempt.
- dadeadhead

Doesn't make sense. A 1st year pro would be defined as between signing his pro contract and playing his 1st pro game(s) beyond 10. A second year pro would be coming back for year 2 (see Sam, Jack). By June 2017, they would have not completed 2 seasons (July 1st is new league year).

They have not entered their 3rd pro year yet. Looking at it the other way is illogical. A 1st year pro in 2017 wouldn't even be a 1st year pro yet because they haven't been drafted yet and so can't be signed.

Looking at it like this would be as such:

June 25th, 2015: Jack is a 1st year pro (not true)
June 24th, 2016: Jack is a 2nd year pro
June 23rd, 2017: Jack is a 3rd year pro

If the league is going by this illogical schedule, then they might as well say only players with one full professional season are exempt. Seeing as the season ends on June 30th.

Doesn't make sense. A 1st year pro would be defined as between signing his pro contract and playing his 1st pro game(s) beyond 10. A second year pro would be coming back for year 2 (see Sam, Jack). By June 2017, they would have not completed 2 seasons (July 1st is new league year).

They have not entered their 3rd pro year yet. Looking at it the other way is illogical. A 1st year pro in 2017 wouldn't even be a 1st year pro yet because they haven't been drafted yet and so can't be signed.

Looking at it like this would be as such:

June 25th, 2015: Jack is a 1st year pro (not true)
June 24th, 2016: Jack is a 2nd year pro
June 23rd, 2017: Jack is a 3rd year pro
- TheSabresTaco

"Going into his 3rd" key words are going into

At the end of 16/17 season he will have finished his 2nd season of pro hockey going into his 3rd.

Can teams lose more than 1 player? I read somewhere they get one from each team...
- muffin_man

No. One player per expansion team.

"Going into his 3rd" key words are going into

At the end of 16/17 season he will have finished his 2nd season of pro hockey going into his 3rd.
- dadeadhead

Then what defines a 1st year pro? Signing his contract and never playing a single game?

i.e. Karabacek, Martin

Under this logic, only players drafted prior to 2017 can have the status of "1st year pro"

No way this passes. GM's will lose their poop.

Who will you hate now that the fat pig is gone?
- Der Kaiser

He's not gone........... yet

Then what defines a 1st year pro? Signing his contract and never playing a single game?

i.e. Karabacek, Martin
- TheSabresTaco

Eichel is a 1st year pro going into his 2nd.

Pavel Zacha is not because his contract didn't kick in.

Eichel is a 1st year pro going into his 2nd.

Pavel Zacha is not because his contract didn't kick in.
- dadeadhead

The language is confusing, as you can imagine.

1st and 2nd year pros are exempt, but 2nd year pros going into their 3rd year are not. Possibly, prior to rule change.

He's not gone........... yet
- SABRES 89

I think we should fire Disco and bring in Porky

The language is confusing, as you can imagine.

1st and 2nd year pros are exempt, but 2nd year pros going into their 3rd year are not. Possibly, prior to rule change.
- TheSabresTaco

IMO it should be anyone on an EL deal is exempt.

But that's common sense and we all know they aren't using any of that.

IMO it should be anyone on an EL deal is exempt.

But that's common sense and we all know they aren't using any of that.
- dadeadhead

Bunch of god damn ass clowns. I don't think it passes. That new rule exposes a whole new tier of quality. Lindholm, Pastrnak, Jack n Sam, Bennett, McJesus, Panarin, Larkin.........

Who would be a better player then ullmark if left exposed?
- Wissler

I would have to do a little research on that, but I'm just looking at the odds in the comment I had made.

Lets say 1/2 of the teams choose to leave a goalie/prospect goalie exposed. That's 15 goalies Vegas gets to choose from not counting UFA vets which I believe they will take one as a starter--the team will be rough enough and I don'ts see them leaving year one to a prospect goalie.

So what will they need? A backup, 2 more for the farm, and probably an additional 2 for the system. That's 5 goalies out of the 15 exposed, and that doesn't include whoever they may draft in the actual NHL draft 2017 which I'm sure they will be included in.

Now we may lose Ullmark, but is it a lock we will? Is he in that top 5 out of 15 that might be exposed? We as Sabres fans like him, but where does he match up to everyone else's goalie prospects?

Will these goalies all be locked up? Fucale, Moran, Husso, Hellberg

We should call up Jim Benning and try to get Chris Tanev.

New potential rules.

First- and second-year pros -- including those playing pro hockey at any level -- will be exempt from the expansion draft. But if they're entering their third year of pro hockey, they're no longer exempt. Teams would have to either protect them or expose them.

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


You're going to see many players traded and draft picks moved with these deals based on not selecting certain exposed players.
- dadeadhead

I don't think this will pass. Murray and other gms seemed admit about getting players going into 3rd year all ready exempt and it seemed like when he spoke at the end of the season it was pretty much agreed upon

I would have to do a little research on that, but I'm just looking at the odds in the comment I had made.

Lets say 1/2 of the teams choose to leave a goalie/prospect goalie exposed. That's 15 goalies Vegas gets to choose from not counting UFA vets which I believe they will take one as a starter--the team will be rough enough and I don'ts see them leaving year one to a prospect goalie.

So what will they need? A backup, 2 more for the farm, and probably an additional 2 for the system. That's 5 goalies out of the 15 exposed, and that doesn't include whoever they may draft in the actual NHL draft 2017 which I'm sure they will be included in.

Now we may lose Ullmark, but is it a lock we will? Is he in that top 5 out of 15 that might be exposed? We as Sabres fans like him, but where does he match up to everyone else's goalie prospects?

Will these goalies all be locked up? Fucale, Moran, Husso, Hellberg
- sskkoo1

2000- 2 new teams 7 goalies selected.
1999- 1 new team 3 goalies selected.
1998- 1 new team 5 goalies selected.
1993- 2 new teams 6 goalies selected.
1992- 2 new teams 4 goalies selected
1991- 1 new team 5 goalies selected.

We should call up Jim Benning and try to get Chris Tanev.
- chilliard77

Lets just get virtanen what the hell

2000- 2 new teams 7 goalies selected.
1999- 1 new team 3 goalies selected.
1998- 1 new team 5 goalies selected.
1993- 2 new teams 6 goalies selected.
1992- 2 new teams 4 goalies selected
1991- 1 new team 5 goalies selected.
- dadeadhead

We'll have to protect Stamkos and Yandle too, right? Vesey, fortunately, we wont have to protect

Eichel and reinhart need to be protected
- Wissler

Jack is exempt I believe .

Lets just get virtanen what the hell
- Der Kaiser

I like your thinking

I know generalfanger has Bogosian as a no movement but this is disputed if it still holds up as Murray stated in an interview before the end of the season he didn't think he had any no movement players on his roster. Could he be wrong? Sure I guess but you'd think he'd know if one of his bigger profile (and highest paid defenceman) had a no movement or not.

So that being said here's my prediction on who they'd save all though I fully expect players such as Reinhart/Eichel to be exempt because they only completed two years and this seemed to be agreed upon after NHL meetings according to Murray, but for the sake of what that article said...

Reinhart, Eichel, O'Riley, Kane, New Player, Fasching or new player
Risto, Bogosian, New Player, McCabe

Jack is exempt I believe .
- GERBE!!!75PTS

Apparently there's an article from March that we all missed. Which is odd because Murray spoke around the same time saying they agreed in meetings that players going into 3rd year would be exempt

Apparently there's an article from March that we all missed. Which is odd because Murray spoke around the same time saying they agreed in meetings that players going into 3rd year would be exempt
- bluengold12

Which makes sense. Technically they are have not started their 3rd year until the season starts.