I really like these moves especially the one with Sbisa cause you get a good second line d-man. Also, you land shatty and Hutton but the price of Bishop. But the question is do you resign Shatty? You will not have that much cap space next year after resigning everybody. But one of the most important things is you free up cap space!

Tampa is one of those teams that can get burned by the expansion draft if they are not careful. Will be interesting to see what they do.

Wish you had done this roster for 2017/2018. With pay increases due Hedman and others, I doubt if Shattenkirk fits into the cap. And quite the assumption that so many of the Tampa players waive their NTC/NMC.

If anything, why sign Shattenkirk before the draft, then you can protect any Dman. And Callaghan will waive his NMC. Vegas isn't going to draft him.

Because Shattenkirk is the best dman available and I know Callahan won't be picked up thats why hes on this roster........I never get any of your points, and yeah Hedman's contract kicks in but Desharnais comes off the books, they have enough cap space in this situation to re-sign Drouin to a bridge deal and sign Shattenkirk and Johnson. Worst case scenario is they bury Greene's contract somewhere

Garrison and Coburn only have NTCs and can be exposed in the expansion draft. Only NMCs (like with Callahan and Filppula's contracts) need attention.

NTC are treated like NMC unless player agrees to move or if the player has a limited NTC such as picks ten teams they do not wanna be traded to.

In the description, you write that "Garrison and Coburn can't be exposed in expansion," hence the need for trades, but my point is that they *can* be exposed since they only have NTCs and not NMCs (being picked in the expansion draft falls under the purview of 'movement' as opposed to a 'trade'), so trading Garrison and Coburn for that specific reason is unnecessary.

But but but don't you understand the they have NTC's, they can't be traded!





zaia, they have NTC meaning they can't be traded to LV without permission from them but they can be exposed to the expansion draft regardless. they aren't being traded in this case, they are being moved which only a NMC can void. Not a NTC.

Its not that hard to look up yourself bud. The site literally has a expansion draft simulator!

I'm not completley disagreeing with you on that, however some players have no trade clauses where they give the gm a list of 10 teams they would accept a trade to, therefore if Garrison's or Coburn's are like that then you would have to ask them to waive in order to expose and judging by where they are in their career I highly doubt they would enjoy going to an expansion team. You're right my description was misleading but to state that you can expose them in expansion varies on the limit of their NTC.

Ok? LOL I'm pretty sure Coburn would rather play in LA then go to an expansion team so I don't see why he wouldn't accept and look at my response above genius.

...I think you still missed my original point.
Only players that have NMCs are auto-protected.
Garrison and Coburn do not have NMCs.
Therefore, they can be exposed in the expansion draft.

Your assertion that "NTCs are treated like NMCs unless player agrees to move or if the player has a limited NTC" is incorrect. NMCs and NTCs are two different clauses. It is assumed that players with NMCs have full NTCs, unless a modified NTC is specified in the contract; protection from player movement implies protection from trade. But protection from trade does not imply protection from player movement. A player with an NTC can still be placed on waivers, demoted, or (in this case) selected in the expansion draft.