Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Madcombinepilot
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Saskatoon, Sk.

Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Madcombinepilot » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:14 pm

so, looking at the lineup, and guessing into the future, a few things can be planned for. Since there was no call for an expansion draft before the July 1/2018, I simply cant see there being a draft in 2019. IMO, soonest it could be is 2020 (if its announced next spring)


Baertshi**- Horvat** - Boeser**
Goldobin** - Petterson - Virtanen**
Grandlund** - Sutter** - Erickson**
Schaller88 - Beagle** - Rousell**
Gagne** - Liepsic**
-------
Gadovich - Gaudette - Lind
Archibald - Dahlen - Jasek
Carcone - Gaunce - Boucher
McEwan - Laplante - Motte
Kero - Zuikinov - Palmu


Edler** - Tanev**
Gudbrabdson** - Stetcher**
Del Zotto** - Pouliot**
Hutton**
Biega**
-------
Joulevi - Brisbois
Hughes - Chatfield
Sautner - McEnney
Woo


Markstrom**
Nilsson**
------
Demko
DiPetro
Bachman
Gartieg


Players with ** need (or will need) to be protected in 2020

Above the --- is the Canucks, and below is Utica (not really projecting lineups, just remembering all the players) we are going to be pretty bulletproof come expansion time. It might look bad at first glance with everyone except Petterson needing protecting, but if we are going forward on the premise that the rules regarding protected players are the same, we are actually in pretty good shape contract wise.

This year, we HAVE to move out a body (at least 1) before the opening of the season. Too many roster players (not discussing the talent of the players, just stating the obvious).

On forward, IMO, that player is Gagne. With the July 1st grit added, and the resigning of Grandlund, Gagne is the only real choice. Having Liepsic as the 13th forward is not ideal, but we still really don't know what we have in Liepsic (or what his potential is), but we know exactly what Gagne is all about. This reduces a player anyone would even considering protecting.

We are protecting Baertschi, Horvat and Boeser. The only thing that could change is if we find (or develop) an improvement on Baertschi in the next 18 months.

Goldobin is having a “show me” year. Its make or break for Gobby on this team this year. Make and we protect him, Break and we move him for a bag of pucks. Never know, Gobby could be the improvement on Baertschi..

Virtanen is protected. While in a similar boat to Goldobin, if he keeps showing improvement with the flashes of what we all hope him to be, we can’t take the risk of not protecting him (if Benning trades him early, or loses him in expansion and he turns into the next Bertuzzi, the media will lynch him. If Virtanen doesn’t pan out, he is simply a failed prosepect)

Grandlund (with his versatility, and shiny new CHEAP contract) is a 2nd or 3rd round pick at the trade deadline this year. Every team needs his kind of player at his kind of cost as injury insurance going into the playoffs. I’ll be amazed if he is here at the end of the year.

Sutter – what a controversial player in the media and fans.. He takes the tough defence and gets crapped on when deployed on offence.. I think it’s the extra $500k on his contract that make most people love or hate him. But, depending on the development of Gaudette and Dahlen, depends if we expose or protect him. We will need an elite shut down center. He fits the bill right now, and the way salaries are trending, he will fit the bill for the next year or two.


Ericksson is exposed. This is not a democracy or a debate

Liepsic is an enigma. If he shows the right stuff, we have the ability to protect him. I liked his puck pursuit last year, but it was such a small sample size, he really needs to show us what he has for a year.

4th line grinders are always available. If we lose one of Schaller, Beagle, or Rousel on the expansion, and it harms us in terms of our playoff chances, we are in more trouble than ever as a franchise. If we want to protect one of them because of the intangibles they bring to the team, we can.


Defence is a different beast.
Hutton is prime to be squeezed out as he is in the coaches doghouse already, and doesn't seem to mesh under the system we are playing (not sure if he sucks, peaked, is uninterested, bad teammate, whatever, don't really care. It is what it is). He is the easiest to move.

Edler – The old man. I hope he is traded (no surprise, coming from me :) ). By the time 2020 comes around and we are a competitive team, he is too old. I would like to see the asset for him sooner than later. He is simply to fragile. If he could stay healthy, and play like he does at the worlds, I could change my mind. But its so frustrating to watch him here, opposed to the big ice in Europe..

Tanev. This team will need a shut down defender, and Tanev is one of the best. He is also fragile. One of Tanev or Edler needs to be moved for youth, and the other will probably be resigned and under a contract that needs to be protected. Just please don’t send the other to Toronto.

Gudbrandson – Like Goldobin, he is about to have a Show Me year. He HAS to stay healthy. I like his size, leadership, grit. Need those things with the smaller guys like Hughes coming up. I want him to have a great year to force us to sign and protect him.

MDZ and Pouliot - Contracts will expire, so we can resign them or not. depending on how they play. Won’t cost us anything to protect them.

Tryamkin – While not here, if he comes back to the NHL, he will need to be protected. So he is protected, for the same reasons as Virtanen.

Stetcher – hardest decision I think we will have. He needs to have a spectacular season or will be compressed out (hopefully) by the likes of Hughes and Joulevi. If he stays, he still needs to outplay Gudbrandson and/or one of Tanev or Edler (whomever is still here will be under contract).. I just don’t really see that happening, so I see him as here until he is exposed.

Biega is exposed, and nobody takes him :)

For the goalies, Ideally, Nilsson is also moved for a mid to late pick (I would have said late pick, but upgraded it after his showing at the worlds). Demko needs to be brought up this year, and we are only allowed to protect 1 goalie. That would be Markstrom. This gives us the ability to give Demko the NHL games we know he needs. If Nilsson isn't moved, and clears waivers, having him in Utica with Dipetro is not the end of the world. We have the cap space for that. Either way, Nilssons contract is also expired before the draft, so no big deal. If Markstrom and Nilsson are both moved and by 2020 we are riding Demko and Diepetro, that’s why we have Bachmans exposable contract (we have to expose a goalie)

So, out of our current lineup, as we inject the youth like Joulevi, Hughes, Gaudette, Lind, etc we should still have the room to sign 1-2 more UFA players or take a 'need to protect' bad contract back on trade if we are trying to rape a team that's older :)


**edited for formating
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Strangelove » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:31 pm

It's early for this stuff; a lot can change in 2 years; but...

Gaudette, Dahlen, and Demko would have to be protected in a 2020 expansion draft.

Tanev, Biega, Gagne, Shaller, and Markstrom would be exempt as pending UFAs.

(unless extended before that... no doubt Tanev, wherever he is, will be extended before then)

(Seattle would be allowed a special window to to convince free agents to sign with them of course)

I keep thinking they will extend Edler one season, making him an exempt pending UFA in 2020.

(this would be good for Edler as well as for the Canucks)

The good news is we won’t be losing any of our top young players.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10065
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:00 pm

Little early for this .... no ?

Then again there were a few posters running around with their hair on fire at the prospect of losing Markus Granlund. It was all ok. Granlund never got chosen because he was protected and the team moved Hansen to the Sharks. We put the hair fires out with the piss soaked jeans of these posters.

The team ended up losing Luca Sbisa to the Knights and a few posters lamented that he was a top
4 stalwart, which he never was and it was proven in Vegas and he was a garbage fire in the finals. He still doesn’t have a contract. You’d think if he was any good - he would
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Strangelove » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:23 pm

^ None of that actually happened Blob, get your ass back to rehab buddy!
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10065
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:30 pm

Granlund might have made Vegas’s fifth line

LOL
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Strangelove » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:39 pm

Do you also see pink elephants Blobbers?
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Legend
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Uncle dans leg » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:46 pm

Fuck Blob lets talk bro. I've seen some shit too....
nobody forks...with the jesus

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12636
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Hockey Widow » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:46 pm

Were teams not required to protect players who had NMC that had a modified trade list. In other words, without knowing the exact type of trade clause Louie has he may need to be protected. It depends upon the sub category of his NMC.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Strangelove » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:11 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:46 pm
Were teams not required to protect players who had NMC that had a modified trade list. In other words, without knowing the exact type of trade clause Louie has he may need to be protected. It depends upon the sub category of his NMC.
Loui doesn't have a NMC anymore.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12636
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Hockey Widow » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:38 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:11 pm
Hockey Widow wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:46 pm
Were teams not required to protect players who had NMC that had a modified trade list. In other words, without knowing the exact type of trade clause Louie has he may need to be protected. It depends upon the sub category of his NMC.
Loui doesn't have a NMC anymore.


I think it's a modified NMC he has now. He still can't be sent to the minors or waived but he has to now provide a list of some sort. I think the NHL said players with NMC including modified NMC had to be protected.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12636
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Hockey Widow » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:52 pm

I stole this from another site but don't know how accurate it is :

A no trade clause (NTC) isn't a form of a no movement clause (NMC).

Both NTCs and NMCs are considered "individually negotiated limitations on player movement" (CBA 11.8).

The strongest limitation on player movement is a full NMC. This means that a player cannot, without their consent, be traded, waived, or loaned to the minors. A full NMC is generally referred to simply as a NMC. This is understood to include a full no trade clause (NTC)

A slightly weaker form would be a M-NTC (modified no trade clause) with a NMC. This means that the player still cannot be waived or loaned to the minors, but the contract includes specific terms whereby the player can be traded without their consent. Within a specified window or timeframe, the player must either (a) specify a pre-determined number of teams the player would be willing to be traded to, or (b) specify a pre-determined number of teams the player would not be willing to be traded to.

A NTC is a no trade clause. Unless otherwise stipulated, this is understood as a full NTC. This means the player cannot be traded without their consent. A NTC does not include a NMC unless so stipulated. A player with a NTC, but no NMC, can still be waived or loaned to the minors without their consent. The NTC just means they cannot be traded without their consent.

A M-NTC is a modified no trade clause. Also known as a limited no trade clause. A M-NTC on its own provides no protection against being waived or loaned to the minors. It provides modified (limited) trade protection. As discussed above, a M-NTC includes specific terms whereby the player can be traded without their consent.

Unless the M-NTC specifically includes a NMC, a M-NTC on its own (like a NTC) offers no protection from being waived or loaned to the minors.

A modified (or limited) no trade clause that includes a no movement clause would usually be written as M-NTC, NMC.

M-NTC is just a modified no trade clause (and does not include a NMC).

So generally, this is how it's understood:

"NMC" = full no movement clause: cannot be traded, waived, or loaned to minors without consent

"NTC" = full no trade clause: cannot be traded without consent (but can be waived or loaned to minors without consent)

"M-NTC" = modified no trade clause (AKA limited no trade clause): includes specific terms whereby a player can be traded without consent (only applies to trades and the player can still be waived or loaned to the minors without consent)

"M-NTC, NMC" = modified no trade clause with a no movement clause: same trade conditions as M-NTC plus (due to the added NMC) the player cannot be waived or loaned to the minors without consent

When it comes to expansion, all players with NMCs must be protected (unless the player agrees to waive his NMC). This would include players with the "NMC" and "M-NTC, NMC" types of limitations on player movement. Players with just a "NTC" or "M-NTC" (but who don't have an added NMC) would not require protection and can be exposed to the expansion draft.
The only HW the Canucks need

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1589
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by ESQ » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:46 am

Madcombinepilot wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:14 pm
Tryamkin – While not here, if he comes back to the NHL, he will need to be protected. So he is protected, for the same reasons as Virtanen.
Does he need to be protected? He's only a second-year pro, I suppose if he plays here 2019-20 he'll need to be protected, but I believe he's still under contract in the KHL for 2019-20.
Hockey Widow wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:52 pm

When it comes to expansion, all players with NMCs must be protected (unless the player agrees to waive his NMC). This would include players with the "NMC" and "M-NTC, NMC" types of limitations on player movement. Players with just a "NTC" or "M-NTC" (but who don't have an added NMC) would not require protection and can be exposed to the expansion draft.
I didn't think that was correct, but sure enough it is - the only example I could find was Pominville with his M-NTC/NMC last time around. But according to CapFriendly, Loui now just has an NTC.

User avatar
Madcombinepilot
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Saskatoon, Sk.

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Madcombinepilot » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:11 am

honestly not sure if needs to be protected or not. He played enough games here, but I don't know how the contract rights work in this regard.
But we need to have the protected spot available, just in case! (or I guess an ACTUAL expert could find out)
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Strangelove » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:15 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:38 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:11 pm
Hockey Widow wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:46 pm
Were teams not required to protect players who had NMC that had a modified trade list. In other words, without knowing the exact type of trade clause Louie has he may need to be protected. It depends upon the sub category of his NMC.
Loui doesn't have a NMC anymore.
I think it's a modified NMC he has now. He still can't be sent to the minors or waived but he has to now provide a list of some sort. I think the NHL said players with NMC including modified NMC had to be protected.
Nope, Loui doesn't have a NMC any longer, he doesn't require protection in an expansion draft.

You might be confusing this with the Bobby Ryan reverse situation in the Vegas expansion draft.

Bobby Ryan had a NMC, but it wasn't the kind of NMC that forces a team to protect him in an ED.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10065
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Seattle Expansion/Canucks players

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:17 pm

Eriksson has an NTC now according to cap friendly. I’d like to see management ship his ass to Utica if he keeps mailing it in next year.
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

Post Reply