Seattle Expansion Protection List

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, Hoss said:

If this team even considers protecting Girgensons it’s legitimately one of the dumbest moves in team history. He’s a nothing burger and he just missed an entire season.

Are we also concerned that the team will protect Okposo?  The odds are only minutely greater that Girgensons will be protected.  (Yes, you were responding to another post, but still, neither guy is getting protected.)

[Justin C]

I wonder if there is any way you can talk Skinner into waiving his NMC. I mean, there is no way Seattle takes that contract. You can try telling him you want him here, you probably can have a guarantee from Seattle they won't take him, and you tell him by allowing exposure it helps protect someone else playing well here now and you are still a part of the team.

I know asking him to waive but not sit well with Skinner but I wonder if it is something to ponder. Assuming that works how I think that works.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Justin C said:

I wonder if there is any way you can talk Skinner into waiving his NMC. I mean, there is no way Seattle takes that contract. You can try telling him you want him here, you probably can have a guarantee from Seattle they won't take him, and you tell him by allowing exposure it helps protect someone else playing well here now and you are still a part of the team.

I know asking him to waive but not sit well with Skinner but I wonder if it is something to ponder. Assuming that works how I think that works.

It would be great if he would & have even suggested it be looked into, but it would take a very Kid Gloves approach to even make that ask.  Any confidence Adams can pull that off?  (Maybe with ownership's tactful assistance.  😉 )

[rakish]

So @Taro T, what's the latest rule, you waive and the clause is gone forever, or not.

 

[Taro T]

24 minutes ago, rakish said:

So @Taro T, what's the latest rule, you waive and the clause is gone forever, or not.

 

The MOU makes it appear that it remains in effect outside of the window that the player waives it for.  And if a player gets traded the NMC/NTC travels with him.

Haven't seen anything specific regarding whether the expansion draft would be different.  But it is hard to find a source for all the expansion draft rules that isn't strictly a recap.  So, my assumption/understanding is that the NMC would reinstate after the expansion draft.

[Hoss]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Are we also concerned that the team will protect Okposo?  The odds are only minutely greater that Girgensons will be protected.  (Yes, you were responding to another post, but still, neither guy is getting protected.)

Neither will be protected, methinks. I just can’t grasp why Girgensons’ name even came up.

1 hour ago, rakish said:

So @Taro T, what's the latest rule, you waive and the clause is gone forever, or not.

 

This is something that’s been debated but basically the team that a player waives it for/to can choose to keep it in the contract which the Sabres would most definitely do if it meant not having to protect Skinner.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Hoss said:

Neither will be protected, methinks. I just can’t grasp why Girgensons’ name even came up.

This is something that’s been debated but basically the team that a player waives it for/to can choose to keep it in the contract which the Sabres would most definitely do if it meant not having to protect Skinner.

Actually, in the MOU the portability of the NTC/NMC was addressed.  Under the prior CBA a team trading for a player with a NMC/NTC didn't have to honor it.  Now, if a team trades for a player with one, the clause automatically travels with him.

Agree that the Sabres would gladly (well, gladly may not be the right word) see that NM clause reestablished after the expansion draft if it meant they could protect all 4 middle 6 F's that are old enough to be exposed to that draft without exposing any of last season's top line.  (Those are the 7 they want to protect.)

[Hoss]

23 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Actually, in the MOU the portability of the NTC/NMC was addressed.  Under the prior CBA a team trading for a player with a NMC/NTC didn't have to honor it.  Now, if a team trades for a player with one, the clause automatically travels with him.

Agree that the Sabres would gladly (well, gladly may not be the right word) see that NM clause reestablished after the expansion draft if it meant they could protect all 4 middle 6 F's that are old enough to be exposed to that draft without exposing any of last season's top line.  (Those are the 7 they want to protect.)

Gotcha, I didn’t know they made that change but it’s logical. I was surprised when they said otherwise in previous years.

[dudacek]

33 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Neither will be protected, methinks. I just can’t grasp why Girgensons’ name even came up.

This is something that’s been debated but basically the team that a player waives it for/to can choose to keep it in the contract which the Sabres would most definitely do if it meant not having to protect Skinner.

I see Taro covered the second point.

As to the first, Girgensons is an established NHLer who has certainly proven more than Bjork, Asplund and Thompson from a production point of view, probably has more to offer in a PK/forechecking role as well, and he's only 3-4 years older.

(Just answering your question. I would not protect him.)

[Drag0nDan]

28 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I see Taro covered the second point.

As to the first, Girgensons is an established NHLer who has certainly proven more than Bjork, Asplund and Thompson from a production point of view, probably has more to offer in a PK/forechecking role as well, and he's only 3-4 years older.

(Just answering your question. I would not protect him.)

I'm resigned to the fact that we lose one of those 3, or borgen.  I'd like to see seattle take miller or girgs, but I'm not really willing to offer much to facilitate.  

My list - Eichel, Reinhart, Olofsson, Skinner, Mitts, Thompson, Asplund.

D - Dahlin, Joki, Risto.  I think Risto has more trade value than Borgen, and Borgen isn't guaranteed gone if we expose him.  I also think the team tries to upgrade at defenseman this season - either through trades or free agency.  

G- Uhh Tokarski I guess...?  

Worst case in this you lose Bjork or Borgen.  I'd be surprised to see them take Bjork tbh, so i see no reason to protect him.  Borgen or Miller - depends on the team preference and need.  Do you need a young player who projects as a steady bottom pair guy who will block shots or do you need someone to help QB a PP and blast shots into shin pads?  Girgs would be a wildcard, but I'd again be shocked if he's taken.  The thing is - he essentially replaces Bjork if he's taken anyway as a bottom 6 winger who can play PK.  

[dudacek]

50 minutes ago, Drag0nDan said:

I'm resigned to the fact that we lose one of those 3, or borgen.  I'd like to see seattle take miller or girgs, but I'm not really willing to offer much to facilitate.  

My list - Eichel, Reinhart, Olofsson, Skinner, Mitts, Thompson, Asplund.

D - Dahlin, Joki, Risto.  I think Risto has more trade value than Borgen, and Borgen isn't guaranteed gone if we expose him.  I also think the team tries to upgrade at defenseman this season - either through trades or free agency.  

G- Uhh Tokarski I guess...?  

Worst case in this you lose Bjork or Borgen.  I'd be surprised to see them take Bjork tbh, so i see no reason to protect him.  Borgen or Miller - depends on the team preference and need.  Do you need a young player who projects as a steady bottom pair guy who will block shots or do you need someone to help QB a PP and blast shots into shin pads?  Girgs would be a wildcard, but I'd again be shocked if he's taken.  The thing is - he essentially replaces Bjork if he's taken anyway as a bottom 6 winger who can play PK.  

Pretty much exactly where I am.

Ideally, I trade one of our 3rds for a goalie from a team that can't protect theirs and I trade the other to Vegas to take Colin Miller.

Edited April 26, 2021 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I see Taro covered the second point.

As to the first, Girgensons is an established NHLer who has certainly proven more than Bjork, Asplund and Thompson from a production point of view, probably has more to offer in a PK/forechecking role as well, and he's only 3-4 years older.

(Just answering your question. I would not protect him.)

I wouldn't protect him but I think Pegulas love him. 

[Marvin]

After I looked at the other players likely to be protected, it is clear that they are prioritising #3C over any other position in a 7-3-1 scenario.  There are numerous defencemen whom I would prefer to have over Ristolainen from the viewpoint of analytics.  Therefore:

1. I would protect Asplund, Mittlestadt, and Bjork over Thompson because there are numerous better wings available.

2. I would protect Dahlin, Borgen, and Jokiharu over Ristolainen because there are numerous better defencemen who are cheaper.

3. Given whom we will be exposing, if I were the Kraken GM, I would take Girgensons because he gives me a lot of flexibility.  If I am scared off by his injury, then probably I would take Colin Miller.

[Hoss]

There are two "easy" steps to making sure the expansion draft goes as we want: convince Skinner to let us expose him and trade Risto for the best offer you get instantly. Instead of trading away an asset to make sure Borgen or someone similar isn't taken just get the best value you can get for Risto now and protect Borgen. If you lose Tage Thompson or Anders Bjork so be it.

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, Hoss said:

There are two "easy" steps to making sure the expansion draft goes as we want: convince Skinner to let us expose him and trade Risto for the best offer you get instantly. Instead of trading away an asset to make sure Borgen or someone similar isn't taken just get the best value you can get for Risto now and protect Borgen. If you lose Tage Thompson or Anders Bjork so be it.

The only way I can see this work is if we can trade Risto for a good forward from a team that has too many forwards and a big hole on defence. Maybe there's a team like that out there.

Otherwise when you say trade Risto, you mean not for anyone as good as him or Borgen, at least not currently? If you are trading him it's for futures — assets you don't have to protect.

Also, if you are trading him, you are trading him to a team that is going to protect him, right? Otherwise why would they make the trade?

I'm thinking the list of teams that thinks Risto is significantly better than their current #3, and has $5.3 million in cap space, and is willing to trade a good pick or prospect for him prior to the expansion draft is relatively small.

Are we really better off with Borgen and a 3rd than we are with Thompson and Risto? Especially when Risto's value might go up after the expansion draft when acquiring him doesn't put another defenceman on that team at risk?

If all you're going to get for him is a 3rd, why not just leave Risto unexposed? That way you get to keep Borgen, Thompson and Bjork.

Seems like a lot of effort to protect a 3rd pairing defenceman in Borgen, who Seattle may not even like.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by dudacek

[dudacek]

Here's my solution to the expansion draft: trade a 3rd-rounder for the best defenceman you can get that some other team is struggling to protect. You can probably get someone decent, especially with that flat cap.

Leave two of that guy, Risto or Borgen unprotected — whichever two you value the least, it doesn't matter.

Seattle can only pick one player and you've just acquired that player or his replacement for a 3rd-rounder.

Effectively, you walk away from an expansion draft designed to rob you of your 11th-best player having lost only a 3rd-rounder.

How do you lose?

Edited April 27, 2021 by dudacek

[NCBufFan]

37 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Here's my solution to the expansion draft: trade a 3rd-rounder for the best defenceman you can get that some other team is struggling to protect. You can probably get someone decent, especially with that flat cap.

Leave two of that guy, Risto or Borgen unprotected — whichever two you value the least, it doesn't matter.

Seattle can only pick one player and you've just acquired that player or his replacement for a 3rd-rounder.

Effectively, you walk away from an expansion draft designed to rob you of your 11th-best player having lost only a 3rd-rounder.

How do you lose?

What if they grab asplund or Thompson? 

Edited April 27, 2021 by NCBufFan

[Hoss]

3 hours ago, NCBufFan said:

What if they grab asplund or Thompson? 

I’m fine if we lose Tage in the expansion draft. I’ve seen improvements from him but he’s going to be 24 at the beginning of next season and has yet to show me anything that makes me think he has an NHL future.

[dudacek]

6 hours ago, NCBufFan said:

What if they grab asplund or Thompson? 

Personally I'm protecting both, so under my scenario it would be Bjork or Girgensons. And that's even better because you've kept Risto and Borgen and you've essentially traded Bjork for somebody's #4 defenceman

But to your point, you're going to lose someone; it's unavoidable. My scenario was about minimizing impact to the roster.

[Hoss]

https://theathletic.com/2532217/

Not posting the full text (please don't) but they believe Seattle will take Miller without us having to send them anything. I don't think I want to send anything to Seattle and think the chances they take Miller are somewhat high anyways.

[GASabresIUFAN]

At this point you do nothing.  You expose either Asplund or Bjork at forward and Borgen and Miller on D.  Seattle gets one of those players and if they take Miller without incentive we come out ahead on the deal.  We shouldn’t and KA shouldn’t over think this.  

Don’t be surprised when KA protects Bjork.  He just acquired that guy for Hall and he may want to guarantee his more physical play in the lineup.  With Girgensons returning, R2’s fast adjustment, Skinner and VO, LW is a position of depth and losing Asplund would hurt the least up front. (Yes R2 is playing RW because of our need on that side).

I do like the idea of using a 3rd to get a signed goalie.  We have no NHL goalies signed for next season.

Edited April 28, 2021 by GASabresIUFAN

[dudacek]

Bjork the Sabre is starting to look a lot like Bjork the Bruin: 0/1/1/-6 in his past 7 games.

He can skate, plays with pace and works hard, but he doesn't pass the puck well and twists himself into dead ends carrying it. I question his hockey IQ and haven't budged from my initial impression of Girgensons, although he seems less developed. He looks a lot like a AAAA offensive player who isn't skilled enough to play that game in the NHL and hasn't quite figured out the game he does need to play to be an effective NHL 3rd or 4th liner.

Adams would be foolish to bet on him over the more savvy Asplund or the more gifted Thompson. Bjork is the kind of guy you expect to lose in an expansion draft. And if you are a good team you shrug your shoulders because he is eminently replaceable.

Edited April 28, 2021 by dudacek

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Bjork the Sabre is starting to look a lot like Bjork the Bruin: 0/1/1/-6 in his past 7 games.

He can skate, plays with pace and works hard, but he doesn't pass the puck well and twists himself into dead ends carrying it. I question his hockey IQ and haven't budged from my initial impression of Girgensons, although he seems less developed. He looks a lot like a AAAA offensive player who isn't skilled enough to play that game in the NHL and hasn't quite figured out the game he does need to play to be an effective NHL 3rd or 4th liner.

Adams would be foolish to bet on him over the more savvy Asplund or the more gifted Thompson. Bjork is the kind of guy you expect to lose in an expansion draft. And if you are a good team you shrug your shoulders because he is eminently replaceable.

I’m not saying I agree about protecting Bjork.  I don’t, but I’m presenting another possible point of view.  

[LGR4GM]

20 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Bjork the Sabre is starting to look a lot like Bjork the Bruin: 0/1/1/-6 in his past 7 games.

He can skate, plays with pace and works hard, but he doesn't pass the puck well and twists himself into dead ends carrying it. I question his hockey IQ and haven't budged from my initial impression of Girgensons, although he seems less developed. He looks a lot like a AAAA offensive player who isn't skilled enough to play that game in the NHL and hasn't quite figured out the game he does need to play to be an effective NHL 3rd or 4th liner.

Adams would be foolish to bet on him over the more savvy Asplund or the more gifted Thompson. Bjork is the kind of guy you expect to lose in an expansion draft. And if you are a good team you shrug your shoulders because he is eminently replaceable.

I wouldn't protect Bjork and I don't think Seattle will take him. He isn't young with lots of upside, his contract doesn't help get to the cap floor, he doesn't play a position of need (C, D, Goalie). Sorry wingers are just easy to find especially in the expansion draft. 

[dudacek]

13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I’m not saying I agree about protecting Bjork.  I don’t, but I’m presenting another possible point of view.  

 

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I wouldn't protect Bjork and I don't think Seattle will take him. He isn't young with lots of upside, his contract doesn't help get to the cap floor, he doesn't play a position of need (C, D, Goalie). Sorry wingers are just easy to find especially in the expansion draft. 

It's possible Adams targeted Bjork as a guy he could see himself protecting.

I would hope he instead targeted him more as a player who could be taken, or slide into the roster spot of a player who is.