Earlier today, the full list of players who require protection from the expansion draft due to no-movement clauses was released, and it’s an interesting study to be sure. Out of the 66 names on the list, four teams are fully unhindered by the clauses. Calgary, San Jose, St. Louis and Washington are free to protect their full compliment of players, having not given out a single NMC that would fall under automatic protection. Even Brent Burns’ new mega-deal doesn’t contain the clause, even though he would already be an obvious protection candidate.
While some of the information may be news to fans, each individual franchise likely had a good understanding of who would be on this list and shouldn’t be shocked by the release today. That doesn’t stop the speculation however, that teams like the Anaheim Ducks and New York Rangers will be looking to make a move to ensure they get something in return a young player instead of exposing him to the draft.
- Alex Prewitt of SI gave some interesting info today about the possibility of salary retention on selected players. Though the new franchise will be able to include salary in pre and post draft trades like any other club, they will not be able to reach a salary retention agreement with any selected player. This likely could have been used as a loophole to make deals with the Vegas club, something that the NHL wants to stop as much as possible. This draft is supposed to be as above-board as possible, with the league even saying everything will have to “pass the smell test”.
- Despite rumors circulating today that MLBÂ free agent Jose Bautista and NFL star Rob Gronkowski were among those who held a minority stake in the Vegas hockey club, Prewitt reports that there is in fact no investors of any kind other than Bill Foley and the Maloof family. While Prewitt admits that there is a group of investors looking to form an LLC to invest in the Golden Knights, nothing has been submitted or approved by league offices, a required step for any investment.
I can tolerate the Golden Knights nickname but I find it very irritating that Bill Foley and Gary Bettman think they can rename the city of LAS Vegas. You wouldn’t say the York Rangers or the Angelas Kings. “Ladies and gentlemen your Antonio Spurs!” See, doesn’t sound right.
They’re not the Vegas Golden Knights. They’re the Las Vegas Golden Knights.
Or how about the other New YORK teams that actually play in New JERSEY?
Not that I’m disagreeing with your point, but in Foley’s defense, he did say he was naming them the “Vegas Golden Knights” since a lot of people call it Vegas instead of Las Vegas. Either way, you’re right, but I can see where Foley is coming from.
The question would be, which teams have players who require protection that the team would prefer to not protect? There will be some hamstrung teams…