I'm pretty sure the NHL released an official list of players that have to be protected for expansion. Maybe that will show NMCs?

If someone has a(n) NMC, they have to be protected UNLESS they decide to waive it. Then the team may protect them but they don't need to.

Yes that's the rule however I think some players will likely waive for the purpose of helping their team out since they are most likely not to be selected by Vegas (i.e Beauchemin) That's why I liked the idea to have the GMs vote on who would likely waive and who wouldn't so we can get everyones opinion.

I'm willing to move both Nicolas Roy ('A' prospect) and Nicholas Merkley ("A" prospect) for a big time scoring forward.

Yes. Callahan is another one of those. But what about Bieksa? He seems unlikely to be taken, however, he doesn't seem to want to waive his NMC/NTC/Whatever it is.

NMC List (Let me know if there are any errors)

Anaheim (4)
Kevin Bieksa
Ryan Getzlaf
Ryan Kesler
Corey Perry

Arizona (1)
Alex Goligoski

Boston (4)
David Backes
Patrice Bergeron
Zdeno Chara
David Krejci

Buffalo (1)
Kyle Okposo

Calgary (0)

Carolina (1)
Jordan Staal

Columbus (5)
Sergei Bobrovsky
David Clarkson
Brandon Dubinsky
Nick Foligno
Scott Hartnell

Chicago (8)
Artem Anisimov
Corey Crawford
Niklas Hjalmarsson
Marian Hossa
Patrick Kane
Duncan Keith
Brent Seabrook
Jonathan Toews

Colorado (2)
Francois Beauchemin
Erik Johnson

Dallas (2)
Jamie Benn
Jason Spezza

Detroit (1)
Frans Nielsen

Edmonton (3)
Milan Lucic
Andrej Sekera
Cam Talbot

Florida (1)
Keith Yandle

Los Angeles (1)
Anze Kopitar

Minnesota (4)
Mikko Koivu
Zach Parise
Jason Pominville
Ryan Suter

Montreal (2)
Jeff Petry
Carey Price

Nashville (1)
Pekka Rinne

New Jersey (1)
Ryane Clowe

N.Y. Islanders (3)
Johnny Boychuk
Andrew Ladd
John Tavares

N.Y. Rangers (4)
Dan Girardi
Henrik Lundqvist
Rick Nash
Marc Staal

Ottawa (1)
Dion Phaneuf

Philadelphia (1)
Claude Giroux

Pittsburgh (5)
Sidney Crosby
Marc-Andre Fleury
Phil Kessel
Kris Letang
Evgeni Malkin

San Jose (0)

St. Louis (0)

Tampa Bay (4)
Ryan Callahan
Valtteri Filppula
Victor Hedman
Steven Stamkos

Toronto (1)
Nathan Horton

Vancouver (3)
Loui Eriksson
Daniel Sedin
Henrik Sedin

Washington (0)

Winnipeg (2)
Dustin Byfuglien
Toby Enstrom

I'll make a follow up post so as to keep this one clean.

From one article I read, they assigned a %:

Anaheim (4)
Kevin Bieksa (95%)

Columbus (5)
David Clarkson (95%)
Scott Hartnell (70%)

Chicago (8)
Marian Hossa (35%)
Brent Seabrook (10%)

Colorado (2)
Francois Beauchemin (85%)

Edmonton (3)
Andrej Sekera (75%)

Minnesota (4)
Jason Pominville (80%)

Montreal (2)
Jeff Petry (25%)

Ottawa (1)
Dion Phaneuf (90%)

Pittsburgh (5)
Marc-Andre Fleury (99%)

Tampa Bay (4)
Ryan Callahan (50%)
Valtteri Filppula (45%)

That might not mean anything, but at least it is a neutral 3rd party source. If we can come to an agreement on these players to start with, we might be able to knock some names off the list.
I think we can also remove quite a few names by agreeing on who definitely will not be waiving as well, such as Crosby, so that could be the next step to pare that list down.

What do people think about using this as a starting point? Decide on these players using a certain % as a cut-off point, then do the names that are consensus to not waive, and see what's left.

I think someone is interested in becoming the Dallas GM.

I disagree, they have 30 selections and only about 23 roster spots. If they were to take Chara and then flip him at the deadline for a late 1st or a 2nd + that'd be the best option for them to pursue. They have no farm system and no chance at winning anytime soon. The best way to start winning is to build your prospect pipeline and an early pick is better then whatever else they could get from my team. I mean do you really believe the guys they have to pick from (Adam McQuaid, Riley Nash, Alex Burmistrov.... ect) are better than a late 1st or a 2nd and a prospect? I tell you what, I'll trade you any one of those guys for your 1st round draft pick! Let's make a deal here I'm giving you what you must think is excellent value, your pick of the leftovers like Vegas is going to have for a 1st or even a 2nd round pick + a medium prospect. I'll be waiting for your response.

I am

You'd have to be super active, and before you make a team or anything you should ask rangersandislesfan in you can join.

I don't understand why you are getting so upset over my opinion of Chara waiving, but I'm sure it can be discussed in a more rational manner.
We can also have the owner of a player choose to not have their player waive, so you can keep Chara and his NMC if you're that concerned.

Horton, Clowe, and Clarkson don't need to be protected as their careers are over.

Not sure what you mean.

okay, you can be dallas if you use the site let's say at least once a week. at least.

I'm not really upset at all, I just write aggressively and think it's irresponsible of you to state that your so sure a player is going to waive, when it's never even been talked about by anyone with their ear to the ground covering the NHL. I haven't heard Pierre Lebrun or Bob McKenzie say anything about Chara waiving because he simply will not be asked to. Why would we risk losing our #1 defenseman? So we can protect 2 of Adam McQuaid, Kevan Miller and Collin Miller? Well the way I see it we lose one anyways and they're all about the same in terms of value. In real life I think we protect Collin Miller and say "take your pick of the other 2 because they are absolutely redundant" I mean if you watched them play closely during a game in the lower bowl at TD Garden and I was sitting next to you, leaned over to you and said "Adam McQuaid and Kevan Miller have the same Mother" Theres a significant chance you would believe me if all you were basing it from was the way they play. They're the same guy doing the same thing on the same type of contract and we're losing one of them in real life if Vegas wants them anyways. Why would it be important to protect both in the first place if we have Carlo and McAvoy as 2 of our 3 RHD next year anyways? If anything we pay Vegas to take one of our RHD, just to move cap. If we waive Chara and he's taken, we have Torrey Krug as our top pair LHD and freakin Joe Morrow as a top 4 LHD, with a RHD having to play the left on the 3rd pair. It just makes zero sense, which is why I'm like "wtf is this guy talking about having Chara waive in the first place, thats delusional" the only way it would effect the outcome of the expansion draft would be if they actually took Chara, which would royally screw the Bruins over in terms of next year.

Bottom line is we're protecting Chara, Krug and one of our 3 RHD. Getting Chara to waive and even if he's not taken doesn't help. Those 3 RHD are all in the same ballpark in terms of value and we're losing one anyways. We can't protect all 3 under any condition or we lose a better player. Chances are they either: A. Pick Malcolm Subban or B. Take one of the RHD Miller's. That's really whats likely to happen, although I could see them selecting Riley Nash as well. If they were smart enough to take Nash, which I'm not sure they are, they'd be getting a fringe 3C being paid 900K for 1 year.

So are we allowed to make trades with Vegas where they send something to a current team for the agreement that 1st or 2nd year professionals need to be protected? Same with NTCs?

That seems like a more rational argument to me. We still disagree on whether Vegas would have interest in Chara, but you've made a better case for protecting him.
I don't think it's somehow irresponsible to suggest Chara could waive either. There is a logic/reasoning behind it, and it doesn't necessarily mean he won't be protected.

If he waives it gives Boston flexibility in discussions with Vegas at least. They can gauge the interest in Chara there and show that they are prepared to protect one of the Millers, using that as leverage to perhaps negotiate a scenario where Vegas selects McQuaid. If discussions don't go well, they can still protect Chara. Waiving his NMC doesn't automatically make him available. Just consider that there are more scenarios that involve him waiving, while there's only one real path to take if he doesn't.

Those are rough odds that some hockey writers came up with, for a player to waive his NMC. Since it isn't us making the decision, it is less biased.
If we say players under 50% using that source will not waive, and players above 50% will (for the purpose of our game), we've made a quick and simple decision on a group of players in one shot.

We can then list several players that definitively will not waive:
Bobrovsky
Crawford
Kane
Keith
Toews
Benn
Lucic
Kopitar
Price
Lundqvist
Giroux
Crosby
Malkin
Kessel
Letang
Hedman
Stamkos
(and more, I just selected what I feel are the more obvious ones.)

Then we remove the unhealthy players (Horton, Clowe, Clarkson).
That cuts the list of players we need to make a decision on significantly.
Now we're left with ~38 players, 4 of which didn't waive (NMC), so 34 left to make a decision on. We've almost cut the list in half, and we didn't need to anything to make those decisions.

Anaheim (3)
Ryan Getzlaf
Ryan Kesler
Corey Perry

Arizona (1)
Alex Goligoski

Boston (4)
David Backes
Patrice Bergeron
Zdeno Chara
David Krejci

Buffalo (1)
Kyle Okposo

Carolina (1)
Jordan Staal

Columbus (2)
Brandon Dubinsky
Nick Foligno

Chicago (4)
Artem Anisimov
Niklas Hjalmarsson
Marian Hossa (NMC)
Brent Seabrook (NMC)

Colorado (1)
Erik Johnson

Dallas (1)
Jason Spezza

Detroit (1)
Frans Nielsen

Edmonton (1)
Cam Talbot

Florida (1)
Keith Yandle

Minnesota (3)
Mikko Koivu
Zach Parise
Ryan Suter

Montreal (1)
Jeff Petry (NMC)

Nashville (1)
Pekka Rinne

N.Y. Islanders (3)
Johnny Boychuk
Andrew Ladd
John Tavares

N.Y. Rangers (3)
Dan Girardi
Rick Nash
Marc Staal

Tampa Bay (1)
Valtteri Filppula (NMC)

Vancouver (3)
Loui Eriksson
Daniel Sedin
Henrik Sedin

Winnipeg (2)
Dustin Byfuglien
Toby Enstrom

I am in the middle of exams right now but give me a week. I will be moderate until then. Team probably won't be up until the weekend

I don't understand the question. 1st or 2nd year professionals don't need to be protected, and NTC's have no impact on expansion.
I think Vegas should be allowed to negotiate and post their deals now, accepting players and/or picks for expansion agreements.
In the week prior to the expansion draft, they should be able to place bids on pending UFAs from teams they do not have an agreement with.
They can also start trading their own assets at that time (but cannot trade a player back to their original team until January 2018, that's a league rule).
They can not buy out players acquired through the expansion draft until the end of next season either, so everyone should keep that in mind.

There is no more scenarios to take if he waives. Kevan Miller and Adam McQuaid are the same thing. McQuaid is playing top 4 with Krug, but Kevan Miller can do the same. The only avenue that would change this scenario would be if Vegas could take both. Then we might have a slight problem, but it wouldn't be a big deal. Having Chara waive really changes nothing at all, which is why I'm saying it's dumb just to bring up. It's not realistic and it doesn't help anything. If they want one of our RHD then they get one no matter what, unless your as bright as you've acted so far and would suggest that we'd not protect Krug as well. That'd be another piece from a pure genius mind that you could add to your premise that waiving Chara would be useful. Man I think you're on a roll, everyone needs to get out of your way or we'll all surely fall down like bowling pins during a strike. Why not go for a turkey and keep this up? I'm glad you are so clairvoyant and you would come up with the suggestion that Chara waiving would be possible. It simply gives me something to easily disprove as it is extremely easy to refute. Even a small child wouldn't suggest that Boston would waive Chara. Sure their reasoning would probably be as illogical as yours and they'd be like "he's the biggest in the NHL, so they keep him for sure." The surprising thing is that a small child would come up with a conclusion that suggested a greater understanding of reality than you. The only way I could even see you bringing this up in the first place where you aren't convicted as being 100% off base is if you were merely suggesting that Chara was a nice enough guy to waive because he likes Boston and if Boston's GM was a big enough dink to ask him to waive that he would do it. That's literally the only thing you could have been trying to prove without making yourself seem completely 100% false and practically unfit to be apart of this game.

Apparently you're a little too sensitive to the subject to discuss it in a civilized manner. If you can't handle speculation and debate, especially in a fantasy scenario, perhaps you are the one who is unfit to be here. I'm also done talking about this now, unless a more rational party is involved.

I am civilized, I just never saw how you saying you were 90% sure of something that would never happen was helpful. If your premise was just that the guys you singled out liked their teams enough to waive and not be burdens then I think you'd have a point, but you never stated that. You just said you were 90% sure of random stuff that's not likely to happen so you put a bullseye on your backside. I apologize if you are getting a bad feeling from this, but I am simply just saying that what you said isn't helpful or likely, therefore you shouldn't have said it, or have stated it in another manner.

Will you be on here quite a bit in a week? if so, you can be dallas.