Rich

The NMC / NTC discussion I think will also be very interesting to watch unfold with the PA. I'm not sure the legalities of how the NMC can be applied to expansion, and the NHL has already said they are negotiating with the PA on how expansion will work, but expansion has to be in the best interest of the PA because it will create more jobs and it will increase the price of free agents as a new team will have a whole bunch of more money to spend. Both things that are in the PA's interest. But do they try to balance or fight that with NMC of players already under contract. A player with a NMC cannot even be placed on waivers. Could you force them to go to an expansion team?

I think it is over thinking it if you look at the flip side of the argument. You can't expose UFAs so you have to expose players under contract, which means you could theoretically only get to protect a smaller number of players then everyone else. Given the fact that teams only have one year to plan for this and most NHL contracts (of "desirable" players anyway) are multi year, you let it fall however it falls. If teams knew 4 - 5 years in advance and could strategically decide how to structure their contracts, it might be a different story. Enstrom also has a NMC so the issues on how that may or may not affect expansion aside, trading him may not be so easy. You will have a limited number of teams you can go to, and each of those teams is already stuck with only 3 D-men they can protect. So what are they going to give up in a trade for someone they may just lose anyway. Unless you are getting under market value for him and the other team wants him to hedge their bets on exposing some other player. I'm sure there is going to be a ton of strategizing and manoeuvring that comes out of this. Going to be very interesting to watch unfold. Last expansion draft teams also traded draft picks for "futures" where the future was don't draft this player we left unprotected. Which to an expansion team, building their prospect pool may be more important than grabbing a 3rd liner where they could pick-up the equivalent in free agency.

Early draft projection from Yahoo has us losing Enstrom. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/what-if-the-nhl-expansion-draft-was-held-today-211129955.html Here would be their projections on what the expansion team would look like:

Chevy is on H&L right now and his understanding is they would be 2nd year players.

That is a huge difference for the Jets. Petan would be in that list as well (doubt anyone would take him with the others we would have to expose). If those players are excluded for 2017, then it would really be in the Jets interest for two teams to come in 2017, because a second team in 2018 or 2019 would include all of those players as well as possibly Connor if he makes the team next year.

It isn't confirmed 2 goalies on the 8 players. So far everything says 1 goalie so I'd go with that Not a guarantee on losing two players either. It could still be only one new team. How is it we lose Comrie when players on ELC seem to be exempt?

Interesting way of looking at it.

Based on the last expansion rules, the overall number of players protected goes down if you protect 2 goalies. So I'm guessing it should read 8 skaters with 2 goalies.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-presents-potential-expansion-draft-plans-1.454239

These were the rules of the last expansion draft. NMC and NTC were not a thing back then, so no precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_NHL_Expansion_Draft Edit: Found this rule as well which would imply prospects were not available last time:

It really depends on the rules the NHL agrees on in the expansion draft. I could see the possibility of prospects being opened up. Team gets to protect x prospects or x prospects and players combined. The NMC and NTC are interesting scenarios. I think it would depend on the language in the standard player contract.

You use this bolded part in many of your posts on wrestling. Maybe it is just me, but I don't find it much fun to have discussion with people who constantly tell me how good or how knowledgeable they are at something. It is usually apparent by their words whether they are or not and I can make that judgement for myself. I don't need people constantly telling me how good they are.

Boston was foolish with the three picks in which they passed on him.

I wish that one person never said that last place has an 80% chance of not getting the 1st overall pick. It seems to really confuse people a lot. Let me put it this way. I offer you one of 14 lottery tickets for $1 Million dollars. I pull out the first one and say this one has a 20% chance of winning BUT an 80% chance of losing, do you want it? Your response is. Oh no, 80% of not winning is not really good at all, give me a different one. I say okay, here is the next one. Well, it turns out that one has a 13.5% chance of winning AND an 86.5% chance of losing. Now since odds mean nothing, you really don't care which one you get ... right?

Odds mean probability. Not guarantees. Unless you have 100% odds, there is a chance you won't get something. But if you have higher odds than someone else, it means you have a higher chance than them It is mathematics and it can't really be argued. You should go work in Vegas. They love how odds mean nothing. Edit: Also, it is nothing like a lotto max ticket. In Lotto Max, every single ticket has the exact same odds of winning. Not true in the NHL draft lottery. Every team has different odds of winning.

No, really. The lower you finish in the standings, the better your odds of getting a better draft pick. That is mathematically indisputable. Your odds may still be better of not getting the first overall vs getting it, but the odds of not getting it are higher the better you finish.

The 1991/92, 1994/95, and and 2004/05 seasons would disagree. It is never as easy as saying they won't hold up a season for one issue. It is ALL issues combined. That is how negotiations work. One side gives up something for something else. I would say having the ability to go to an independent arbitrator is pretty important to the PA, otherwise they are completely at the mercy of Bettman. So take your pick of what they gave up in negotiations to get that put in.

It is never that easy in CBA discussions. I'm willing to bet the discussion goes something like this ... You don't want players to have arbitrator rights on suspensions? Great give us back 60% of HRR. Or better yet, bump it up to 65%. Don't want to do that, then we are keeping arbitration rights.

I didn't say it wasn't bush. The league has absolutely nothing to do with this decision. The league suspended which was the right decision. Some guy who has nothing to do with the league overturned it. The league had no choice. It is like the league got sued and lost. Does that decision reflect on the league? It was the decision of the court.

Cleaned up some more posts in here. Please try to be respectful and keep on topic. If yours was deleted and you never got a PM then it was deleted because content it referenced or quoted was deleted and it had to be removed for the thread to have continuity.

Not to people who really understand that an independent arbitrator means he has nothing to do with the NHL.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/371bff4cb5a045b1a22feba451730f4e/linesman-hit-wideman-out-season-concussion When is the officials CBA up next? Would they take any action before then? Can't believe that suspension was reduced

What would be your plan to get better reffing immediately next season? Agree we need better reffing. I think that means long term investment in salary(how much does a CFL ref make?) and training.

http://nhllotterysimulator.com/ Last team not to be in the playoffs (14th last) has a 1% chance.