NHLPA would never agree to that.
- Antilles

Actually he makes a good point. Give teams to June 24th to sign their free agents both ufa and rfa. Have the draft in the "dead" period between that date and July 1st.

Actually he makes a good point. Give teams to June 24th to sign their free agents both ufa and rfa. Have the draft in the "dead" period between that date and July 1st.
- Feds91Stammer

That I could see, no new contracts between expansion draft and July 1. But not letting players sign with their former team as free agents (after July 1) if the team didn't protect them won't happen. Players aren't going to give up the right to test the market and remain where they are, and they know teams won't protect expiring contracts.

That I could see, no new contracts between expansion draft and July 1. But not letting players sign with their former team as free agents (after July 1) if the team didn't protect them won't happen. Players aren't going to give up the right to test the market and remain where they are, and they know teams won't protect expiring contracts.
- Antilles

Well if no team qualifys an offer, the player should be able to resign. You would have to some sort or guidelines for what a "qualifing" offer is.

Or maybe any signing would have to go thru the waiver wire.

The NHLPA should not have a say in which team a player represents in the Nhl, as long as he gets a fair salary and fair terms regarding safety and work conditions.

Well if no team qualifys an offer, the player should be able to resign. You would have to some sort or guidelines for what a "qualifing" offer is.

Or maybe any signing would have to go thru the waiver wire.

The NHLPA should not have a say in which team a player represents in the Nhl, as long as he gets a fair salary and fair terms regarding safety and work conditions.
- Cloud

lol. Sorry, but this is a little absurd. Players shouldn't have a say in which team they play for? Based on your principles, we should do away with the entire concept of unrestricted free agency. Which is frankly, ridiculous.

Take Ben Bishop for example. He has earned the right to play for whichever team he chooses, by playing 7+ seasons in the NHL. That's what the players and owners negotiated as the requirement. If he wants to go to free agency, and see what is out there, then decides he has it too good in TB and wants to sign there; you can't just take away his right to do so and force him to go to whatever team claims him. You can't tell him, just because some team like Calgary offered him a contract, he is no longer allowed to play in TB. Players negotiated for certain rights. You make not like them having them, but the NHL can't just unilaterally take them away.

lol. Sorry, but this is a little absurd. Players shouldn't have a say in which team they play for? Based on your principles, we should do away with the entire concept of unrestricted free agency. Which is frankly, ridiculous.

Take Ben Bishop for example. He has earned the right to play for whichever team he chooses, by playing 7+ seasons in the NHL. That's what the players and owners negotiated as the requirement. If he wants to go to free agency, and see what is out there, then decides he has it too good in TB and wants to sign there; you can't just take away his right to do so and force him to go to whatever team claims him. You can't tell him, just because some team like Calgary offered him a contract, he is no longer allowed to play in TB. Players negotiated for certain rights. You make not like them having them, but the NHL can't just unilaterally take them away.
- Antilles

Well thanks to this expansion every player who once have signed a contract for a certain city can be ordered to pack up his stuff and move to a whole new town. Theres alot of players who are exposed who have played in the league for more then 7 years, why should it be different?

Ii is unusual surcimstanses who should effect everyone the same. Both teams and players.

Well thanks to this expansion every player who once have signed a contract for a certain city can be ordered to pack up his stuff and move to a whole new town. Theres alot of players who are exposed who have played in the league for more then 7 years, why should it be different?

Ii is unusual surcimstanses who should effect everyone the same. Both teams and players.
- Cloud

No, not every player can be taken, only those without a NMC. It's not effecting everyone the same. And being forced to finish your current contract doesn't effect your salary. Forcing you to sign with a team before the draft, or risk going to antother team by signing after, does effect your bargaining power. It changes players willingness to go to UFA; and changes the number of teams willing to bid on you as a UFA. Either way it effects your salary. There is zero motivation for the players to allow that.

Take Alexander Steen for example. Next year is the last in his contract. If he was under contract the year after, he would for sure be protected. He won't be if he isn't. You would be forcing him to decide if he wanted to stay in St. Louis before UFA status, or removing them as an option if he did go to UFA, which might effect how much he got, less teams bidding. Players aren't going to accept something that lowers their salary negotiating power.

No, not every player can be taken, only those without a NMC. It's not effecting everyone the same. And being forced to finish your current contract doesn't effect your salary. Forcing you to sign with a team before the draft, or risk going to antother team by signing after, does effect your bargaining power. It changes players willingness to go to UFA; and changes the number of teams willing to bid on you as a UFA. Either way it effects your salary. There is zero motivation for the players to allow that.

Take Alexander Steen for example. Next year is the last in his contract. If he was under contract the year after, he would for sure be protected. He won't be if he isn't. You would be forcing him to decide if he wanted to stay in St. Louis before UFA status, or removing them as an option if he did go to UFA, which might effect how much he got, less teams bidding. Players aren't going to accept something that lowers their salary negotiating power.
- Antilles

I see your point but i dont agree with you. It could acctually be the other way around. If Blues doesnt want to protect Steen in favour of another younger player under contract, then they will have to give him an offer that no other team wants to match when he is a free agent. That would probably increase his salary.

Agents know what market value their players have and will negotiate a fair salary. If Steen really wants to stay and sign with a discount, then he have to do that before the expansion and Blues will have to protect him. Its a sacrifice for the team, but they are not the only one who will suffer from the expansion. But i dont see it as a sacrifice for Steen, as he will be payed either way.

Its a tricky situation whatever way you slice it.

I see your point but i dont agree with you. It could acctually be the other way around. If Blues doesnt want to protect Steen in favour of another younger player under contract, then they will have to give him an offer that no other team wants to match when he is a free agent. That would probably increase his salary.

Agents know what market value their players have and will negotiate a fair salary. If Steen really wants to stay and sign with a discount, then he have to do that before the expansion and Blues will have to protect him. Its a sacrifice for the team, but they are not the only one who will suffer from the expansion. But i dont see it as a sacrifice for Steen, as he will be payed either way.

Its a tricky situation whatever way you slice it.
- Cloud

The "he'll get more money because of an offer no one will want to match" is an idea we already know wouldn't happen. It's the same thing as restricted free agency, and look how incredibly rare offer sheets are. Teams aren't willing to do that.

Agents have an idea what fair market value is for their clients. A lot of times, they are wrong. That's why it's pretty common for players to test the market then sign with their original team.

I'm not sure why you think it's a tricky situation. Expansion drafts aren't a new thing; and when they happen, players who about to be unrestricted free agents are still about to be unrestricted free agents. The NHLPA isn't going to give that up. And the NHL cannot legally have an expansion without their consent on the rules. of it. Part of the CBA.

NHLPA would never agree to that.
- Antilles

NHLPA had no issue with this policy for compliance buyouts after the last lockout.

Uncommon if not unique circumstances lead to uncommon if not unique solutions

NHLPA had no issue with this policy for compliance buyouts after the last lockout.

Uncommon if not unique circumstances lead to uncommon if not unique solutions
- uf1910

Compliance buyouts were players getting paid twice. Quite a bit different. And you say had no issue. It took a lockout and not getting paid for months to agree to everything.

This isn't unique. It's happened quite a few times before. There are reasons it has always worked a certain way, and no reason to think it's suddenly going to change. Because there is nothing unfair about giving every team and equal chance to sign someone.

Bob McKenzie said that the Lightning can't go more then 9MM per year to keep Stamkos. Pierre LeBrun said Yzerman told Stamkos he still wants to keep him and Stamkos has said he wants to stay.

So lets say McKenzie is right and they pay him 9MM per year so he stays the captain, how does Yzerman structure the team over the next two summers with all the other contracts due to stay competitive and under the cap?

Bob McKenzie said that the Lightning can't go more then 9MM per year to keep Stamkos. Pierre LeBrun said Yzerman told Stamkos he still wants to keep him and Stamkos has said he wants to stay.

So lets say McKenzie is right and they pay him 9MM per year so he stays the captain, how does Yzerman structure the team over the next two summers with all the other contracts due to stay competitive and under the cap?
- stammerman

2016-2017
Palat 3.34 Johnson 3.34 Kucherov 7
Drouin 3.194 Stamkos 9.5 Namestnikov 1.5
Marchessault 1.25 Richard .575 Callahan 5.8
Paquette 1 Boyle 2 Brown 1.25
Condra 1.25
39.98

Hedman 4 Stralman 4.5
Garrison 4.6 Sustr 1.45
Coburn 3.7 Koekkoek 1.45
Witkowski .75
20.45

Bishop 5.95
Montoya 1.25
Buyout 1.84
Retain 1.5
10.54
=70.97

2017-2018
Marchessault 1.25 Johnson 5 Kucherov 7
Drouin 4 Stamkos 9.5 Namestnikov 1.5
Gourde .75 Richard .75 Callahan 5.8
Erne .894 Paquette 1 Brown 1.25
Vermin .75
39.444

Hedman 8 Stralman 4.5
Koekkoek 1.45 Sustr 2.25
Coburn 3.7 Deangelo 1.263
Dotchin .74
21.903

Bishop 6.5
Montoya 1.25
Buyout 1.84
Retain 1.5
11.09
=72.437

We lose Killorn first year, Palat the second year.

2016-2017
Palat 3.34 Johnson 3.34 Kucherov 7
Drouin 3.194 Stamkos 9.5 Namestnikov 1.5
Marchessault 1.25 Richard .575 Callahan 5.8
Paquette 1 Boyle 2 Brown 1.25
Condra 1.25
39.98

Hedman 4 Stralman 4.5
Garrison 4.6 Sustr 1.45
Coburn 3.7 Koekkoek 1.45
Witkowski .75
20.45

Bishop 5.95
Montoya 1.25
Buyout 1.84
Retain 1.5
10.54
=70.97

2017-2018
Marchessault 1.25 Johnson 5 Kucherov 7
Drouin 4 Stamkos 9.5 Namestnikov 1.5
Gourde .75 Richard .75 Callahan 5.8
Erne .894 Paquette 1 Brown 1.25
Vermin .75
39.444

Hedman 8 Stralman 4.5
Koekkoek 1.45 Sustr 2.25
Coburn 3.7 Deangelo 1.263
Dotchin .74
21.903

Bishop 6.5
Montoya 1.25
Buyout 1.84
Retain 1.5
11.09
=72.437

We lose Killorn first year, Palat the second year.
- Artyukhin76

I'd give up picks/prospectz to dump callahan.

I'd give up picks/prospectz to dump callahan.
- muffin_man

He's unmovable.

Here is my team next year. If they can sign Stamkos at 9mm like McKenzie says they have to. They have enough to keep the same team mostly intact and go for the cup one more time. They would lose Paquette and buyout Carle. I also assumed the the players use the cap escalator to 74mm. I am also using Drouin's base salary but leaving room to cover any bonuses he might have. I also gave new salary's that I think are fair for each player - not undercutting to get to cap.

Drouin (894K) Stamkos (9M) Killorn (4M)
Palat (3.33M) Johnson (3.33M) Kucherov (6.75M)
Brown (1.3M) Filppula (5M) Callahan (5.8M)
Boyle (2M) Namestnikov (1.5M) Condra (1.25M)
Vermin (575K)
Total - 44.74M

Hedman (4M) Stralman (4.5M)
Garrison (4.6M) Coburn (3.7M)
Koekkoek (894K) Sustr (1.45M)
Total - 19.14M

Bishop (5.95M)
Vasy (925K)
Total - 6.875M

Total cap - 70.755
Buyout - 1.833333
Bonus - .394167

Total - $72,902,501

With escalator the cap will be 74M giving them some cushion for performance bonuses.

I don't think this happens but it can. Now on to figuring out the following year.

2017-2018 was much harder. I again figured the escalator so the cap is 76.6M to work with. I gave Drouin a 3 year bridge deal for 10.5M like Palat and Johnson got (wishful thinking on my part most likely). I gave Koekkoek a 3 year bridge deal. Everyone else I gave what I think are realistic contracts. I traded Filppula with one year left he is movable. Glad I am not Yzerman - some of this is realistic some of it is not. Will be crazy to see how it ends up.

J. Drouin (3.5) S. Stamkos (9) A. Killorn (4)
O. Palat (4.5) T. Johnson (5) N. Kucherov (6.75)
J. Brown (1.3) V. Namestnikov (1.5) R. Callahan (5.8)
A. Erne (0.874) T. Richard (0.8) E. Condra (1.25)
Total - 44.274

Hedman (8) Stralman (4.5)
Garrison (4.6) Coburn (3.7)
Koekkoek (1.25) Sustr (2.5)
DeAngelo (.863)
Total - 25.413

Vasy (3.5)
Backup (1)
Total - 4.5
Buyout (1.833333)

Total cap hit - 76

With escalator the cap will be 74M giving them some cushion for performance bonuses.
- stammerman

There is a high chance players vote down the escalator clause. They already have something like 15% of their checks withheld, everything I've read suggests they don't want that going up.

There is a high chance players vote down the escalator clause. They already have something like 15% of their checks withheld, everything I've read suggests they don't want that going up.
- Antilles

Everyone with a contract will vote it down, every ufa/rfa will vote it up...

He's unmovable.
- Artyukhin76

Depends what you send along with him...

Depends what you send along with him...
- muffin_man

Unless you strap Drouin to his ass it won't happen. I Yzerman won't do that.

How the hell have you guys not gotten a new blog in a week???

How the hell have you guys not gotten a new blog in a week???
- muffin_man

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your guess is as good as mine. I believe Erik was only going to be around thru the playoffs and Ty is still the regular blogger. I guess they are waiting for some news on the Bolts to break.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your guess is as good as mine. I believe Erik was only going to be around thru the playoffs and Ty is still the regular blogger. I guess they are waiting for some news on the Bolts to break.
- stammerman

You can only write about Stamkos destination theories so many time I guess