2017 NHL Off Season

[iHeart]

all we can do now is see what happens on sunday

[iHeart]

so apparently Bieksa is going to be a golden knight

 

http://www.tsn.ca/ducks-avoid-asking-bieksa-to-waive-nmc-have-deal-in-place-1.777843

[bustamente]

Talk that Vegas will pick up Fleury and flip him, Calgary and Winnipeg are said to be in the mix. 

[Goalie]

27 minutes ago, iHeart said:

so apparently Bieksa is going to be a golden knight

 

http://www.tsn.ca/ducks-avoid-asking-bieksa-to-waive-nmc-have-deal-in-place-1.777843

Sounds like he wont be actually since they didnt ask him to waive 

[Goalie]

18 minutes ago, bustamente said:

Talk that Vegas will pick up Fleury and flip him, Calgary and Winnipeg are said to be in the mix. 

Rumors fleurys wife was in vegas looking for houses last week. 

[Goalie]

3 hours ago, iHeart said:

all we can do now is see what happens on sunday

Is it sunday? I think thats the day the lists come out. Think we find out during the nhl awards show. Is that Sunday? 

[iHeart]

14 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Is it sunday? I think thats the day the lists come out. Think we find out during the nhl awards show. Is that Sunday? 

let me check google, but my laptop isn't as fast as my computer at work

 

*after checking* the NHL awards are next wednesday I thought for sure we were going to find out everything on sunday

Edited June 14, 2017 by iHeart

[FrostyWinnipeg]

1 hour ago, bustamente said:

Talk that Vegas will pick up Fleury and flip him, Calgary and Winnipeg are said to be in the mix. 

Would he not have to waive his NMC again?

[bustamente]

15 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Would he not have to waive his NMC again?

Probably, all depends on if he wants to play and finish his contract in Vegas or go to a contending team  Calgary more so than Winnipeg, 33 early next season still has plenty of tread both teams could benefit by trading for him but whats the price they'll have to pay.

[Brandon]

6 hours ago, bustamente said:

Talk that Vegas will pick up Fleury and flip him, Calgary and Winnipeg are said to be in the mix. 

I thought the rumor was for Raanta 

[The Unknown Poster]

Is Vegas allowed to talk to contract players before making their selections?  If they take Fleury with the intention of flipping him, would he have to agree? 

The waiving of NMC is a bit cloudy on this.  If the receiving club has to sign an addendum to the contract accepting the NMC, the leverage for the player is he wont waive unless the receiving team does so,  But in the case of Vegas' expansion draft, how can they get Vegas to pre-emptively agree to that on players they haven't yet selected?  Players have until Friday to either agree or decline to waive their NMC...so how would that work?

If Fleury waives and is selected by Vegas, his his NMC no longer in play?

[Rich]

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc

Quote

• The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  • This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  • If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified

It sounds like the player has a chance to decide to waive or not based on if they acquiring team agrees to add the addendum.

It does get very murky with the expansion draft when players are waiving without knowing if they will even be picked.   I would imagine when a player waived for expansion they could say "only if Vegas adds the addendum" and Vegas would have the choice to accept that or not.

[The Unknown Poster]

The reason that doesnt work is, the NMC waiver list has to be in by Friday at 4:00.  But Vegas doesnt have to make their selections until...Sunday?  Or whenever.  So how can Toby, for example, say yes Ill waive but only if Vegas accepts my NMC when Vegas cant even make that decision yet?

Unless the NHL has something in place whereby all existing NMC, even waived, are only for purposes of selection to Vegas and the clauses automatically follow.

Another speculation is Dano was signed to the one year deal to flip to Vegas as the price to not select an unprotected Myers.  ie. if the Jets could go 7-3 they probably protect Dano but Vegas wants him so Jets leave him exposed and Vegas takes him.  Plus Jets send a pick or Petan (always the one rumoured) as part of the price.

[JCon]

17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Another speculation is Dano was signed to the one year deal to flip to Vegas as the price to not select an unprotected Myers.  ie. if the Jets could go 7-3 they probably protect Dano but Vegas wants him so Jets leave him exposed and Vegas takes him.  Plus Jets send a pick or Petan (always the one rumoured) as part of the price.

I don't see how the Dano signing has anything to do with the expansion draft. He's signing a one-year, one-way deal at that price whether he's with the Winnipeg or Vegas.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

19 minutes ago, JCon said:

I don't see how the Dano signing has anything to do with the expansion draft. He's signing a one-year, one-way deal at that price whether he's with the Winnipeg or Vegas.

 

He was RFA so he was not eligible.  People are saying it makes the Jets compliant (two forwards available) but they were before.  However, if they went 7-3, they might have felt they needed someone to lose if they wanted to keep Armia.  My point being, perhaps Toby waived and the Jets can protect 7 forwards:

Scheif, Wheeler, Little, Perreault, Lowry, Copp and ???  if they Jets wanted to protect Armia, that leaves Matthias as the eligiable forward.  So they needed another one.  Speculation being the 7th forward protected would be Armia and then Matthias and Dano would be left for Vegas.

 

[JCon]

10 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

He was RFA so he was not eligible.  People are saying it makes the Jets compliant (two forwards available) but they were before.  However, if they went 7-3, they might have felt they needed someone to lose if they wanted to keep Armia.  My point being, perhaps Toby waived and the Jets can protect 7 forwards:

Scheif, Wheeler, Little, Perreault, Lowry, Copp and ???  if they Jets wanted to protect Armia, that leaves Matthias as the eligiable forward.  So they needed another one.  Speculation being the 7th forward protected would be Armia and then Matthias and Dano would be left for Vegas.

 

RFAs are eligible for selection or why would you sign them?

Edited June 14, 2017 by JCon

[The Unknown Poster]

Hmmm, they dont seem to make note of RFA forwards.  They do mention that if a team makes an RFA goalie available, he must be qualified beforehand.  My assumption was, an unqualified RFA would not be selectable.  But perhaps Vegas can select him but he doesnt qualify as a player a team can use to satisfy their obligation as far as exposure.

The Jets needed to expose two forwards who ARE under contract next season.  If they were going 4-4, that wasnt a problem because they had Armia, Matthias (and either Lowry or Perrault) available to expose to Vegas.  If they somehow go 7-3, they only had Matthias available (unless Im forgetting someone). 

Assuming they'd protect Scheif, Wheeler, Little Perreault, Lowry - that's 5.  They'd protect two of Copp, Armia, Matthias, leaving only one guy.  In that case, they needed to sign someone, Dano, so of the four - Copp, Armia, Matthias, Dano - they can protect two and leave two for Vegas.

I think thats why people assume the signing points to the Jets going 7-3.  If they were going 4-4 there was no urgency to sign Dano this week and he wasnt going to trump Perreault or Lowry as far as who Vegas would select anyway.  But going 7-3, they needed him under contract.

[Atomic]

Unsigned RFA's can be selected but they don't fulfill the minimum requirements for forwards and defencemen.  Teams must expose 2 forwards and one defenceman who are under contract for next year.

Position	#	Criteria
Forwards	2	under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Defense	1	under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Goalies	1	under contract in 2017-18, OR who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2017-18

[Atomic]

So if we protect Little, Wheeler, Scheifele, Armia, Perreault, Lowry, and Copp, there would have only been one forward available to Vegas who fulfills the minimum requirements (Matthias).  Signing Dano gives us 2.

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, Atomic said:

So if we protect Little, Wheeler, Scheifele, Armia, Perreault, Lowry, and Copp, there would have only been one forward available to Vegas who fulfills the minimum requirements (Matthias).  Signing Dano gives us 2.

Which leads to speculation that the Jets are going 7-3 (either Toby waived or they are leaving Myers unprotected).  Otherwise, there was little reason to sign Dano this week.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[Goalie]

For the record Vegas would be forced to honor Tobys NMC if they picked him. Only way around it is if Toby agreed to waive it again. NMC follows enstrom. Its not like the Myers case where his hadnt kicked in yet so jets decided to not keep it. Enstrom has his and will keep it if he gets selected (which he wont be) 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

For the record Vegas would be forced to honor Tobys NMC if they picked him. Only way around it is if Toby agreed to waive it again. NMC follows enstrom. Its not like the Myers case where his hadnt kicked in yet so jets decided to not keep it. Enstrom has his and will keep it if he gets selected (which he wont be) 

So you're saying the addendum clause in NMC's does not apply to expansion claims?

[Goalie]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So you're saying the addendum clause in NMC's does not apply to expansion claims?

Pretty much. Same with Fleury... Hed have to agree to waive it again. 

[iHeart]

http://www.tsn.ca/report-neil-senators-parting-ways-1.779168