Mock NHL Expansion Draft: Islanders protected list
As I mentioned in the FanShot earlier today, a bunch of SB Nation hockey sites are coordinating a "what-if?" summer diversion: Namely, if the NHL expanded to 32, where do they go (vote here), and what players would those teams have? (Two mystery GMs to be named later will do the drafting.)
That second question will be in part determined by each SBN team site, which means we need to get down to the business of protecting, finalizing a list by Thursday.
After the jump are the ground rules, based on a combo of rules used in prior NHL expansion drafts. As you'll see, these rules are awfully friendly to the fantasy New York Islanders GM in all of us. Though I'll have to decide on a final list to submit to the overlords, I will need and use your collective input to make sure I didn't overlook anyone:
Protected List Rules
- Teams can protect either "1 goalie, 5 defensemen and 9 forwards" OR "2 goalies, 3 defensemen and 7 forwards."
- If you go the two goalie route, at least one goalie left unprotected must have played in at least 10 games last season OR 25 games in the last two seasons combined. One game = at least 31 minutes.
- Each team must leave unprotected at least one defenseman who appeared in 40 games last season OR 70 games in the last two seasons combined.
- Each team must leave unprotected at least two forwards who appeared in 40 games last season OR 70 games in the last two seasons combined.
- Players who have played in 49 or fewer games are automatically exempt and do not need to be protected. [Note: This last rule was a bit arbitrary, but it was a way of including important young players (like John Tavares) while protecting those still in development.]
Decision 1: 1/5/9, or 2/3/7?
Our first decision is pretty easy, given the Islanders goalie situation, and it actually sets us up perfectly for the rest of the process: Only two goalies have NHL experience, so we only need to protect one goalie: Why? Because Rick DiPietro has a 15-year deal and uncertain knees, so no way on this planet would an expansion team claim him. (Ironically, if we had the need to protect two goalies, DiPietro would not be eligible to be our unprotected guy because he hasn't played 25 games over the last two seasons.)
Protected: Dwayne Roloson
Unprotected: Rick DiPietro (all other goalie properties are exempt)
That means we get to protect five D and nine forwards, which makes the rest of this exercise a whole lot easier.
Decision 2: Which defenseman?
Thankfully, Andrew MacDonald has played exactly 49 NHL games (yay for poorly timed foot injuries!), so he is exempt. That means we get to choose five others to protect, leaving two unprotected. The candidates:
Mark Streit, James Wisniewski, Jack Hillen, Mark Eaton, Milan Jurcina, Radek Martinek, Bruno Gervais
Personally, I'd venture Bruno is one, while the second decision is between Jurcina and Martinek. Martinek is the better defenseman, but is he healthy enough to hold on to? Or is his health history enough to scare off another team? Jurcina has an attractive salary, Martinek has an attractive game (when healthy). Since we can only lose one of these guys, I'm protecting Martinek, reasoning that Gervais and Jurcina are a wash -- if we lose one, the other one stays and fills that 7th-D role. Meanwhile, the risk of losing Martinek is scarier, because if he's healthy again he's a guy who can actually handle facing the Ovechkins of the world.
So I'm proposing:
Protect: Streit, Wisniewski, Hillen, Eaton, Martinek (A-Mac is exempt)
Unprotected: Gervais, Jurcina
Secondary question: Since that wasn't so hard, who would you choose if we could only protect three D-men?
Decision 3: Which forwards?
We can only protect nine, but we have to leave two unprotected. Again, thanks to the draft's rules, our decisions are pretty straightforward. Here are the eligible candidates:
Josh Bailey, Blake Comeau, Andy Hilbert, Trent Hunter, Zenon Konopka, Matt Moulson, Frans Nielsen, Kyle Okposo, Rob Schremp, Jon Sim, John Tavares.
Incredibly, Hilbert meets the criteria of a guy we can leave unprotected (40 games last season OR 70 games over the last two seasons) thanks to him seeing 4 games for the Wild last year, which pushed his two-season total up to 71. In the name of Zenon Konopka, whew!
Due to a rule that we maybe should have altered, Matt Martin, Jesse Joensuu, Trevor Gillies and P.A. Parenteau do not qualify because they have not played 49 NHL games yet...
...which means this exercise is an unbelievable cakewalk as far as our team is concerned. Simple solution:
Protected: Bailey, Comeau, Hunter, Konopka, Moulson, Nielsen, Okposo, Schremp, Tavares
Unprotected: Hilbert, Sim
Hey, I didn't write the rules. I just leveraged 'em.
However, I'm thinking: 1) It's no surprise that a mock-expansion draft wouldn't leave many prime unprotected bits from the Islanders roster, and 2) That's probably just as well, as a draft like this should be designed not to hurt teams that are still climbing their way back from the bottom. Viva le rebuild!
Secondary question: As with the D-men, if we chose two goalies and thus could only protect seven forwards, which ones would you choose? For me it's Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Moulson, Nielsen, Schremp, Comeau, leaving Konopka and Hunter at great risk.
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As far as D men go, Unprotect Martinek. Although a decent defenseman, his injuries have been a bigger distraction to the team than anything else.
Get out of the sticks, Charles, move to Queens!! Come, Get some respect a Professional team deserves!!
Distraction?
Do you really think they are distracting? It seems like once he’s hurt, it’s a depth problem, but it never sounds like a distraction to me — not in the DiPietro medical drama sense, anyway.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
I would unprotect Martinek for a simple reason, He only has 1 year left on a UFA contract. I don’t think a team would take him for just a year.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
It’s like Bill Torrey wrote the expansion draft rules for us the way Sam Pollock gamed the system for the Canadiens in the 60’s and 70’s.
Still – protecting an extra goalie means losing two extra d and fw, each? Sounds harsh. I’m surprised it’s not 2/4/8 or 1/5/9.
Regarding Martinek: like RDP, he has too much salary to justify the injury risk, and is now 33. HOWEVER – I think he hasn’t reached 70 games in the past two seasons, and therefore we also have to unprotect a guy who DOES fit the minimum GP criterion in order to expose him. (Bruno Gervais, come on down.) If anything, I think I’d protect RDP (oddly enough) and unprotect Rollie. I don’t think it’s likely we’d lose him: other teams will be exposing better keepers (Tim Thomas would be a mortal lock to go, for example). For better or worse, right now the Isles are pot-stuck with RDP: the only way they get any value out of him is to play him and hope he’s up to snuff over 60 games a season.
I am so on the fence with it, however. I could see protecting Rollie even though this may be his last season, and may only play 30 games in it. Part of my thinking is, losing RDP would actually be a big problem for the Islanders. Rollie may break down; Koskinen and Lawson aren’t ready yet; Niemi may just laugh at Snow’s phone calls. It would almost be easier to replace Roloson – but the big BIG IF is, can the Rick be what he was three years ago?
Outsourcing all grammar and rhetoric repairs to Dominik.
Ack, good call on Martinek
He is indeed under 70 games.
The penalty for a second goalie does sound harsh — I guess they must date back from the days when teams had more solid tandems (::cough Healy/Fitz::) and the league wanted to make sure there was someone decent left over for the Panthers and Ducks of the world.
I think RDP with his deal would be such kryptonite for an expansion team. If he were healthy, he’d be someone to build around who couldn’t get away, but with his recent history…no way someone claims him.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
Way too easy, even at 7 players. There really is nothing to disagree about. If we were cut to 3 D men then I would put up Hillen and Martinek. Even without Martinek’s injuries I think Eaton is better.
So you’d protect Eaton over Hillen (assuming Streit and Wis were your other two in a 3-man scenario)? I’d still protect Hillen; I think he still has room for improvement and he’s under team control for longer.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
I agree with your lists
it is unusual for me to totally agree with a post but here I am in agreement
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
DiPietro Over Roloson
Going by my previous logic of expansion teams wouldn’t take a UFA with just 1 year left. Also given that Rollie has previously refused to show up for Expansion teams that have drafted him.
I think in the last Expansion draft the Bluejackets took 6 goalies. If I’m taking 3 or 4 goalies in the expansion draft then one of them would be DiPietro. He’s worth a gamble on, and there’s always the chance that he would retire if he can’t return to form. How many other possible 1st Line goalies are going to be available?
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Case and Point
The 2000 NHL Expansion draft had 7 Goalies taken by the Jackets and Wild. Such incredible talents as
Rick Tabaracci
Jamie McClennan
Mike Vernon
Frédéric Chabot
Dwayne Roloson
Chris Terreri
Zac Briek
So basically a bunch of Has Beens and Never Were’s. I would expect that this mock draft would result in an even smaller pool of less then quality backups. I would take a chance on a Hurt Rick over just about any of these guys.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Okay, so here's a question
If you want to protect DiPietro, is it worth exposing Hillen or Eaton to protect both DiPietro and Roloson?
I still feel like Roloson is a bigger claim risk. Although he might take his ball and go home in this scenario, they could also ride his old legs to a respectable first season.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
I’d say only protect one of them and hope that the expansion teams don’t go with Rollie. It was only a year ago that the Islanders were the only team among many openings to offer Rollie a two year deal. I mean imagine what might have been if for example the Flyers had taken a chance on Rollie last year.
The only comparable player would be Tugnutt being taken by the Jackets. He was only 32 in his first season with them and the long term plan for the Jackets was for Denis to take over.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Also
You can always trade for Goalies. I’m sure the Bruins would be happy to get rid of Tim Thomas, and the same can be said of the Panthers and Scott Clemensen. There’s also the possibility of Giugere being avaiable and his contract is up at the end of the year.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
God forbid we lost both Rollie and DP in a draft. We would be back to using AHL goalies for a team trying to improve. The best 6 D men in the world can’t help if your goalie can’t stop a shot.
Get out of the sticks, Charles, move to Queens!! Come, Get some respect a Professional team deserves!!
pffft sure they can!
just ask the flyers, i mean Boucher and Leighton were pretty much journeyman ahl goalies before they played for the flyers
In Garth we trust!
Leighton yes, but Boucher has had a pretty solid career. In his Rookie year he came out of nowhere to carry the Flyers to the conference finals. He has been an on and off starter for a few different years and has put together a pretty solid career.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
didnt know he did that well as a rookie
but watching him last season, he didnt look like much more than a good AHL goalie/ NHL backup
In Garth we trust!
Swing by Broad Street Hockey, Boucher had almost no goal support.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
A chance? that’s a 4.5 million a year chance until 2021…. with the only certainty that DP will not play that contract out.
No team would take on Rick’s contract even to clean out dead wood cap space.
Why would a team volunteer to take on liability like that.
Because the Upside on DiP is probably higher then any goalie that would be available in an expansion draft.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
I guess it depends on if you draft 2, 3 or 4 goalies.
Anything more then two and I’d draft DiPietro if he was available.
Also, for consideration, is that is it worse to lose DiPietro forever or Rollie for one season?
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Also given that Rollie has previously refused to show up for Expansion teams that have drafted him.
He reported and thrived with the Wild, didn’t he?
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
He was taken by the Blue Jackets and refused to report to them. He played a season with the AHL Affiliate of the Blues, the Worcester Ice Cats for a season before showing up to camp for The Wild and giving the NHL one more try.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Wow, I don’t have recollection of that. But wait: Wasn’t he a free agent when he was claimed? So he just declined to sign with Columbus, and signed with the Blues instead? He signed with the Blues just a month later, and I know when he did that it was with the hope of winning at least an NHL backup job.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
yep, that’s what it looks like happening. I’ll never understand the whole drafting UFAs as an Expansion team. If I remember right, The Preds drafted Richter, who refused to even negotiate with them and three days later he signed with the Rangers again.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
I wonder if they got compensation picks back then?
Like today, if you lose a certain tier of free agent you get a compensatory draft pick in baseball don’t you? Has this happened in hockey? I think my brain has already shut off for the week.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
Well I do know that since the two expansion teams came in at different times (Thrashers and Predators) that the two different expansions meant if you lost certain players in one draft, you couldn’t lose them in the next. So some teams made deals to trade back for players they wanted with the Preds. I’m pretty sure a few teams did that.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
That was a fun era
This is reminding me of some of the rules. I’m pretty sure in the final expansion draft, the two previous expansion teams were exempt.
This brings up the idea of acquiring players just to expose them to the draft too, which I know happened but I can’t remember the details. All this time I spend on hockey, and I still can’t remember all of it, dammit.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
The 93 Draft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_NHL_Expansion_Draft
After the Ducks and Panthers picked, the Senators, Lightning and Sharks were allowed to select players from the Ducks and Panthers.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
I’m thinking 2000-ish, when teams 27 and 28 weren’t ripe for the picking by teams 29 and 30? Something like that (sorry, I don’t have time to dig it up at the moment).
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
Secondary question: Since that wasn’t so hard, who would you choose if we could only protect three D-men?
Again, I think this is an easy question to answer: Streit, Wisniewski and Hillen.
Streit as the vet, Wisniewski as the D in the prime and Hillen as the developing prospect. Eaton would be the 4th bet – but he is quite old, so the long term repercussions of exposing him are not too bad.
Possible change to the rules
Maybe changing the not played 70 games total for the past two years would make this a little more challenging. The 70 games played seems a bit odd. How about healthy scratches and days on the IR counting. Changing it would make a player like Tamby (not for us) needing protection
I think that change would make this tougher for many teams who lost a player to injury
Just a thought
DF
Just to be clear, a player like Tambellini still needs protecting — any veteran who has played more than 49 NHL career games is at risk.
The 70 games thing just means that you have to expose/leave unprotected at least one D and two forwards like that.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
If you figure
That expansion teams will have the lesser talent in the NHL, a goaltender that can stand on his head may be key. They face more shots, high goals against etc. You may want to protect the guy you think you can trade long term (if he’s healthy) for a pick or two. The expansion teams second or third rounder should be early round. An expansion draft would probably touch off a bunch of trades. Also, in the past, were expansion drafts before the free agency period or after? I would assume that teams would be reluctant to make trades or sign free agents beforehand and therefore, we would have even less of a problem protecting people (particularly our mangled D because most of the people on our roster had less than the 40/70 GP) and focus on the two goalie problem.
by Keith Quinn on Aug 28, 2010 11:40 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Expansions drafts were always previous to the Entry Draft, so by default they were previous to the FA Market.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Yeah, the SBN overlords really screwed the pooch in that way. This would be better before people re-upped via free agency.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
I say D is more importantthan G
if you get 2 real good D and then draft the d high the 1st couple of years then a good goalie becomes great
Brodier still hasn’t won since Stevens and Daneyko retired, and Neidermeyer left
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
by Rickfansince76 on Sep 2, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
The spam
The bummer about deleting spam (Ms. Cougar has been banned) is it removes everybody’s fun replies! Alas.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
Oh well, I think that this Cougar would be better stalking her prey in the shadows anyhow – given her bad English when she is out in the open.
Oh well, I think that this Cougar would be better stalking her prey in the shadows anyhow – given her bad English when she is out in the open.
Totally.
Anyway, me back to talking hockey.
:D
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Aug 30, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Was that Too Easy?
Dom, nice job breaking it down and I agree with all of your reasoning behind your selections.
I now wonder, after realizing how easy a task that was, if the Isles are really in a position to fight for a playoff spot this season. If the worst that would happen to us in this (mock) expansion draft is we would potentially lose Hilbert, Sim, Jurcina and Gervais. Doesn’t that speak volumes about our poor level of depth on the team? Shouldn’t playoff worthy teams have tougher choices to make in these senarios?
Ultimately yes...with a caveat
Heh, I thought about that too as I was running toward the conclusion. One caveat though is it’s an increasingly top-heavy league, with teams focusing money on their top guys and filling the rest in with veteran/youth bargain depth (just look at Pittsburgh’s forwards and tell me who’s left after your top 9). So in this scenario, any team that can afford to pick just one goalie then has three full lines and 5 D they can protect — that’s not going to leave much of value on the unprotected list.
However, that does get to the bigger question: What would it take for the Isles to make the playoffs? One, everything would have to go right — maybe even to our long-term detriment (i.e. players have unrepeatable career years, but we interpret those years to be repeatable and give them raises they can never live up to). To your point, other teams probably have better depth and more mature stars than we do, so playoffs are a tall order.
But I think that’s how this rebuild is designed: We’re going to collect top-10 pick forwards to go with Nielsen (Okposo, Tavares, Bailey, Nino), and some day those forwards are going to turn into mature studs, and when they do if the blueline holds we’ll have a playoff spot, but every year they don’t we’ll have a lottery pick that adds another one to the stable. If they mature really quickly, maybe this is the year; more likely, this is the year we just miss 8th/9th and end up with a 10th-14th overall pick, but then next year they make the leap.
Heh, that’s the theory anyway. I do think it’s tougher for the Isles because of the Atlantic. The Isles are in a weak conference but a tough division. (As usual, I turned a simple question into a long-winded essay.)
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.
by Dominik on Aug 30, 2010 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great Points
Your Pittsburg example was perfect and you are right about the top heaviness of the teams in the NHL right now. I was kind of hoping for the type of reply that you gave in regard to the hopes of this rebuild but I felt the question had to be asked. I believe in the rebuild and the players that make up our future core. Do you know if the other bloggers have done this same type of thing for each team in the league? If they did, it would be interesting if someone compiled a list of all the players that would have been exposed to this draft.
The other bloggers are working on it
By the end of this week most of the SB Nation team-aligned sites will have their unprotected lists. I will definitely revisit the issue and point to everybody’s lists. It should be interesting — I confess, I haven’t looked at many other teams to imagine what they’d have to do. I’d bet your instinct is right, that we have the least desirable unprotecteds. Having MacDonald just miss the eligibility cut helps.
Lighthouse Hockey: An always-open repair shop for mikb's sarcasm module.

by 































