Buds Board Keepers League

Shoalzie wroteCOLONWell, our finals ends after Thursday night so it won't matter for us.

If you're in another league that is playing out with the Canucks-Flames games...they would be smart enough to only count the regular season. I can't speak for Fantrax of course.

I've never seen playoffs and reg season at the same time. I wonder if Fantrax and Yahoo would be confused haha.

kyuss wroteCOLONa couple of things about the protection sheet:

- for some reasons the first player I protect won't show up in the first column (Barkov right now)

There's supposed to be a formula in cells B2:B12. Don't delete anything off these sheets. Barkov is there now.

Only use the red check boxes to pick your protected players.

- under the exposure requirement column, I don't see the row for goalies, I think NHL teams have to make 1 available as well. Did we amend on the NHL rules for that matter?

There's no GP rules for goalies. The only rule in the NHL with goalies is you have to expose at least one goalie that is either under contract next season or is an RFA this summer. We aren't using those rules since we have no control over who is an actual free agent in the NHL.

It's the same reason we aren't honoring no-move clauses...that's out of our control.

- is Mittelstadt indeed exempt? not sure why him and many other players aren't highlighted in green at capfriendly either ("Players who meet or are projected to meet the exposure requirements are highlighted in green")

He's available in the draft until I see CapFriendly change their lists. He's beyond a 2-year pro...he's already played out his original ELC and onto a 4th year under contract. I don't see how he'd be exempt.

- nitpicking but.. my brain keeps telling me the 'Available Players' row on top should be green rather than red, considering the protected players are flagged in red, and the ones who meet requirements to be available are flagged in green

It's just a color choice. I used red for that heading and for those check boxes because it's part of Seattle's color scheme.

Navy blue is their main uniform color but the red is more noticeable since we have a lot of blue in the BBKL color scheme and that's what I used for the sheets.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLONa couple of things about the protection sheet:

- for some reasons the first player I protect won't show up in the first column (Barkov right now)

There's supposed to be a formula in cells B2:B12. Don't delete anything off these sheets. Barkov is there now.

Only use the red check boxes to pick your protected players.

thanks.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

- under the exposure requirement column, I don't see the row for goalies, I think NHL teams have to make 1 available as well. Did we amend on the NHL rules for that matter?

There's no GP rules for goalies. The only rule in the NHL with goalies is you have to expose at least one goalie that is either under contract next season or is an RFA this summer. We aren't using those rules since we have no control over who is an actual free agent in the NHL.

It's the same reason we aren't honoring no-move clauses...that's out of our control.

well the number of games the players play is also out of our control. Since the NHL rule applies also to RFAs goalies, the fact we can't sign goalies to contracts like NHL teams doesn't affect their eligibility. Unless I'm missing something.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

- is Mittelstadt indeed exempt? not sure why him and many other players aren't highlighted in green at capfriendly either ("Players who meet or are projected to meet the exposure requirements are highlighted in green")

He's available in the draft until I see CapFriendly change their lists. He's beyond a 2-year pro...he's already played out his original ELC and onto a 4th year under contract. I don't see how he'd be exempt.

that's why I'm asking: it doesn't look like he's available in your sheet, nor at capfriendly (he is not highlighted in green)

Mittlestadt is eligible for the draft. In Cap Friendly, he is only highlighted in green if he meets the exposure GP requirement. If he was exempt, he'd be on the team's Exempt list.

So Mittlesatdt isn't in green because he is an RFA. He needs to be under contract ND meet the GP threshold.

In our draft mittelstadt is both eligible for expansion, and can be used to meet your 2 forward requirement.

kyuss wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

- under the exposure requirement column, I don't see the row for goalies, I think NHL teams have to make 1 available as well. Did we amend on the NHL rules for that matter?

There's no GP rules for goalies. The only rule in the NHL with goalies is you have to expose at least one goalie that is either under contract next season or is an RFA this summer. We aren't using those rules since we have no control over who is an actual free agent in the NHL.

It's the same reason we aren't honoring no-move clauses...that's out of our control.

well the number of games the players play is also out of our control. Since the NHL rule applies also to RFAs goalies, the fact we can't sign goalies to contracts like NHL teams doesn't affect their eligibility. Unless I'm missing something.

The spirit of the 27/54 rule is just so that teams are required to expose players with NHL experience. We followed similar GP rules on the last draft with Vegas...the threshold was higher since we weren't coming off two shortened seasons.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

- is Mittelstadt indeed exempt? not sure why him and many other players aren't highlighted in green at capfriendly either ("Players who meet or are projected to meet the exposure requirements are highlighted in green")

He's available in the draft until I see CapFriendly change their lists. He's beyond a 2-year pro...he's already played out his original ELC and onto a 4th year under contract. I don't see how he'd be exempt.

that's why I'm asking: it doesn't look like he's available in your sheet, nor at capfriendly (he is not highlighted in green)

He's on your sheet...I saw him when I fixed your Barkov issue.

What I'm figuring with the players highlighted in green on CapFriendly, those are players that are under contract next season and meet the GP exposure requirement. Just like with the goalies, the NHL teams need to expose players under contract for next season that also meet that 27/54 GP requirement.

If they're listed in black, those are players that are RFA/UFA this summer and/or they haven't met the 27/54 GP requirement.

I just want to reiterate with the GP exposure rule, those GP statuses will be updated after the regular season is over. The final game of the (regular) season is Wednesday, May 19.

You'll see more players that fit the 27/54 requirement. You can get a preview of which players meet the requirement on CapFriendly's draft simulator because they update that list in real time.

https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle

I can also make a list of which players are waiver exempt heading into next season if that would help anyone with making their choices. I will set up that list once the season is done. I begin to roll over my information in the database towards next season when the regular season ends.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON
There's no GP rules for goalies. The only rule in the NHL with goalies is you have to expose at least one goalie that is either under contract next season or is an RFA this summer. We aren't using those rules since we have no control over who is an actual free agent in the NHL.

It's the same reason we aren't honoring no-move clauses...that's out of our control.

Did I miss something? I thought teams have to expose at least one goalie under contract or who is RFA. Teams with one goalie shouldn't be exempt from exposing someone they should have to trade for a goalie. I didn't remember last expansion teams having no goalies exposed, but I could be mistaken.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLON
There's no GP rules for goalies. The only rule in the NHL with goalies is you have to expose at least one goalie that is either under contract next season or is an RFA this summer. We aren't using those rules since we have no control over who is an actual free agent in the NHL.

It's the same reason we aren't honoring no-move clauses...that's out of our control.

Did I miss something? I thought teams have to expose at least one goalie under contract or who is RFA. Teams with one goalie shouldn't be exempt from exposing someone they should have to trade for a goalie.

This is what I remember. They just don't need to hit a minimum gp.

We have no qualifiers when it comes to protecting/exposing goalies...if you have 5 goalies that are eligible for the draft. You protect one and the other 4 are available for Seattle.

What I was referring to earlier is the NHL's rules for goalies. NHL teams have to have a goalie that is either signed for '21-22 or they're a pending RFA that is available to Seattle. We don't use that rule. It's just a coincidence if you expose a goalie that meets the requirement.

ok so I'm not the only one puzzled by the goalies thing

Shoalzie wroteCOLONWe have no qualifiers when it comes to goalies...if you have 5 goalies that are eligible for the draft. You protect one and the other 4 are available for Seattle.

What I was referring to earlier is the NHL's rules for goalies.

Going by the sheet you set up it doesn't look like teams need to expose at least 1 goalie under contract or RFA

Ok now I see you edited your post with this

We don't use that rule. It's just a coincidence if you expose a goalie that meets the requirement.

when was this decided? is this what we did for Vegas as well?

Shoalzie wroteCOLON He's on your sheet...I saw him when I fixed your Barkov issue.

I know, but he doesn't have the green flag even if I think he met the GP requirements even before this season, so it didn't look like he needed protection there.

Mik...

Shoalzie wroteCOLONI just want to reiterate with the GP exposure rule, those GP statuses will be updated after the regular season is over. The final game of the (regular) season is Wednesday, May 19.

You'll see more players that fit the 27/54 requirement. You can get a preview of which players meet the requirement on CapFriendly's draft simulator because they update that list in real time.

https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle

I can also make a list of which players are waiver exempt heading into next season if that would help anyone with making their choices. I will set up that list once the season is done. I begin to roll over my information in the database towards next season when the regular season ends.

kyuss wroteCOLONok so I'm not the only one puzzled by the goalies thing

Shoalzie wroteCOLONWe have no qualifiers when it comes to goalies...if you have 5 goalies that are eligible for the draft. You protect one and the other 4 are available for Seattle.

What I was referring to earlier is the NHL's rules for goalies.

Going by the sheet you set up it doesn't look like teams need to expose at least 1 goalie under contract or RFA

Ok now I see you edited your post with this

We don't use that rule. It's just a coincidence if you expose a goalie that meets the requirement.

when was this decided? is this what we did for Vegas as well?

We had no requirements for goalies in the Vegas draft. I took the list of eligible goalies from CapFriendly just like I did here...you protect whatever one you want, the others go to the draft.

If you want a history lesson, look at the 2016-17 sheets where I had you protect players for Vegas...this is my sheet for example:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1132942731

No rules or qualifiers with goalies. It was very straight-forward. Protect one goalie...the rest go to the draft.

But team's need to expose at least one goalie, correct? So if they only have 1 goalie that is eligible for the draft, they have to expose them if they don't acquire another.

If they only had one goalie eligible...they wouldn't have to acquire an extra goalie just to put in the draft. I don't think anyone here falls in that category nor did they back in '16-17.

I've seen 2 teams so far that have only 1 goalie eligible for the draft. Unless I'm missing something they would be required to either acquire another goalie to expose or expose their only goalie, but you guys can figure that out, 9therwise, teams could collude to send multiple goalies to a team so I have less goalies available to me in the draft.

Fraser only has Vasi for example, I don’t think he can just not expose a goalie. He’d need to get a goalie on an NHL contract or an RFA to expose would be my thinking.

Bruyns wroteCOLONFraser only has Vasi for example, I don’t think he can just not expose a goalie. He’d need to get a goalie on an NHL contract or an RFA to expose would be my thinking.

He could expose silovs?