# HFNHL Expansion Rules



## Canuck09

With the NHL announcing expansion to Las Vegas for the 2017-18 season the HFNHL will follow suit. We're going to piggyback off the NHL rules almost completely with a slight deviation/clarification as it relates to our prospects. This thread will serve as our reference point for rules and to answer any questions people may have.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The following rules were approved for the 2017 Expansion Draft: *

*Protected Lists*
* Clubs will have two options for players they wish to protect in the Expansion Draft: 

a) Seven forwards, three defensemen and one goaltender
b) Eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goaltender

* All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices on the prospect list, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).

*Player Eligibility Requirements*
*Players will go through two checks to be deemed as eligible for selection in the expansion draft

i) They have played more than 50 NHL games by the end of the 2016-17 NHL season and are a required signing under league prospect activation rules
ii) They meet NHL eligibility requirements based on 3+ years of professional status

*In short, if a player is active on a roster and eligible for expansion in the NHL he will be eligible in the HFNHL. We will use https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft as a resource to determine eligible NHL players.

*Prospect activation's will be required immediately following the conclusion of the HFNHL playoffs. Deadline to complete is TBD.

*Player Exposure Requirements*
* All Clubs must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the Expansion Draft:

i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and b) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.
ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and b) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.
iii) One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18. If the club elects to make a restricted free agent goaltender available in order to meet this requirement, that goaltender must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the club's protected list.

* Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a club's player exposure requirements, unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection by the League.

*Regulations Relating to Expansion Franchise*
* The Las Vegas franchise must select one player from each presently existing club for a total of 30 players (not including additional players who may be acquired as the result of violations of the Expansion Draft rules).

* The Las Vegas franchise must select the following number of players at each position: 14 forwards, nine defensemen and three goaltenders.

* The Las Vegas franchise must select a minimum of 20 players who are under contract for the 2017-18 season.

* The Las Vegas franchise must select players with an aggregate Expansion Draft value that is between 60-100% of the prior season's upper limit for the salary cap.

* The Las Vegas franchise may not buy out any of the players selected in the Expansion Draft earlier than the summer following its first season.

*The Las Vegas franchise will begin with a $20,000,000 bank balance.

The 30 NHL Clubs must submit their Protection List by TBD. The Las Vegas team must submit their Expansion Draft picks by TBD and the announcement of their selections will be released on made on TBD. 

*2017 NHL Draft Lottery*
The Las Vegas franchise will be given the same odds in the 2017 HFNHL Draft Lottery as the team finishing with the third-fewest points during the 2016-17 regular season.

The Las Vegas franchise's First Round selection in the 2017 HFNHL Draft will be determined in accordance with the 2017 NHL Draft Lottery and, as a result, the Las Vegas franchise will be guaranteed no lower than the sixth overall selection.

The Las Vegas franchise then will select third in each subsequent round of the 2017 HFNHL Draft (subject to trades and other potential player transactions).

*Alignment*
The Las Vegas franchise will begin play in the Pacific Division of the Western Conference in 2017-18. There will be no other changes to the NHL's alignment.


----------



## Canuck09

Look for a separate post/announcement from Brock regarding the search for a GM.


----------



## Dempsey

Will we be allowed to re-sign our own UFA's and then expose them in the expansion draft?


----------



## Canuck09

Dempsey said:


> Will we be allowed to re-sign our own UFA's and then expose them in the expansion draft?




Upcoming UFA are still your property until our FA period begins. Whether you extend them or not they will be eligible to be selected by the expansion team if not protected. If they select players without a contract they will have until our FA period begins to get them signed just like anyone else.

The direct answer to your question is, yes you can, if you like, to meet the requirement noted about exposing the required amount of players with a contract for the upcoming season.


----------



## Lord Stanley

Canuck09 said:


> Upcoming UFA are still your property until our FA period begins. Whether you extend them or not they will be eligible to be selected by the expansion team if not protected. If they select players without a contract they will have until our FA period begins to get them signed just like anyone else.
> 
> The direct answer to your question is, yes you can, if you like, to meet the requirement noted about exposing the required amount of players with a contract for the upcoming season.




I believe in NHL any player with a no trade clause has to be protected, so in theory teams shouldn't be allowed to sign a guy just to leave him unprotected since all pending UFA's that sign are given no trade clauses until the all star break in HFNHL. 

In our league those players if traded the team has to pay equivalent to one year salary, so maybe that should be in effect if teams are signing players just to leave them unprotected?


----------



## MatthewFlames

How much are we getting in expansion fees?


----------



## Canuck09

Lord Stanley said:


> I believe in NHL any player with a no trade clause has to be protected, so in theory teams shouldn't be allowed to sign a guy just to leave him unprotected since all pending UFA's that sign are given no trade clauses until the all star break in HFNHL.
> 
> In our league those players if traded the team has to pay equivalent to one year salary, so maybe that should be in effect if teams are signing players just to leave them unprotected?




This is a good question though I'm not sure entirely applies to us like the NHL.

The expansion rule only applies to proper NMC, not just NTC I believe. We don't have any NMC type situations but we do have what amounts to be a temporary NTC.

I don't have an official answer but will discuss whether fines would be in place in this situation. I don't love the idea of someone genuinely hoping to keep a player, extending them in-season so their NTC kicks in, then losing them in expansion and being fined. It might have to be an offseason only thing but creating separate rules for that alone may get messy. Will have to loop back on this one.



> How much are we getting in expansion fees?




$0


----------



## MatthewFlames

Canuck09 said:


> $0




You forgot a 5 followed by six other zero's. 

In all seriousness though, why am I having to give up a player when I get nothing in return? I vote against expansion. 

Also, I think we should considering a higher bank balance to start with. The sheer number of amazing NHL'ers being exposed means that the new Vegas franchise could run at the cap and compete from day one, but also go broke in a year or two. Are we handicapping the new franchise from the get go, forcing them to the floor at the start?


----------



## Brock

MatthewFlames said:


> Also, I think we should considering a higher bank balance to start with. The sheer number of amazing NHL'ers being exposed means that the new Vegas franchise could run at the cap and compete from day one, but also go broke in a year or two. Are we handicapping the new franchise from the get go, forcing them to the floor at the start?




It's something we're looking at and I do agree with. I want to run some numbers, but something along the lines of the league bank account average at the end of last season (not currently after endorsements). Expansion franchises should have some money, otherwise they wouldn't be getting expansion in the first place.


----------



## Brock

Lord Stanley said:


> I believe in NHL any player with a no trade clause has to be protected, so in theory teams shouldn't be allowed to sign a guy just to leave him unprotected since all pending UFA's that sign are given no trade clauses until the all star break in HFNHL.
> 
> In our league those players if traded the team has to pay equivalent to one year salary, so maybe that should be in effect if teams are signing players just to leave them unprotected?




There will be no fines for teams leaving recently signed players unprotected. Makes absolutely no sense to do this IMO.

There is a MASSIVE difference between resigning someone only to trade them, and resigning someone and then exposing them in an expansion draft.

By resigning to trade, you are preventing players from hitting the free agent market so that you can get something for them. There would be no free agents. Thus the rule.

Teams are resigning players because they want to keep them, BUT they have to leave SOME players exposed in the expansion draft. If we put fines on that, there won't be anyone for the expansion franchise to pick and some teams wouldn't even be able to meet those very minimal requirements. Doesn't effect the quality of the players available for the expansion franchise. They still will get at least one quality asset from each team.


----------



## MatthewFlames

Brock said:


> It's something we're looking at and I do agree with. I want to run some numbers, but something along the lines of the league bank account average at the end of last season (not currently after endorsements). Expansion franchises should have some money, otherwise they wouldn't be getting expansion in the first place.




Makes sense, thank you.


----------



## Dr.Sens(e)

Keep in mind, just because a team signs and/or exposes a pending UFA, it doesn't exactly mean that player will get picked. And if a team wouldn't have protected them otherwise, it means they are now potentially stuck with a player they didn't want long-term.

The protection rules are pretty limited, so each team will have multiple quality players exposed, except for the really weakest of teams who are rebuilding with a completely skewed young core. And even then, I'm not sure everyone has realized just who is going to be made available. I mean, Anthony Duclair was a 19 year rookie this year for my Blues who I just signed in the HFNHL, and he will have to be protected by my Blues. 

In the end, I don't expect the Vegas franchise to be building their team with a bunch of UFA aged players, except for top quality guys with many good years left. So the point is kind of moot in a way.


----------



## Brock

Just as an FYI, we have debated a topic pretty heavily behind the scenes the last few weeks and have come to a conclusion (which will clarify some confusion around the topic).

HFNHL *WILL* have to protect pending UFA's in the expansion draft or risk having them (and their rights) chosen in the expansion draft by Las Vegas. 

This may differ slightly from the NHL (as it appears that pending UFA's will be exempt), but we feel it to be important for the integrity of our league.


----------



## Dr.Sens(e)

Brock said:


> Just as an FYI, we have debated a topic pretty heavily behind the scenes the last few weeks and have come to a conclusion (which will clarify some confusion around the topic).
> 
> HFNHL *WILL* have to protect pending UFA's in the expansion draft or risk having them (and their rights) chosen in the expansion draft by Las Vegas.
> 
> This may differ slightly from the NHL (as it appears that pending UFA's will be exempt), but we feel it to be important for the integrity of our league.




Makes sense, i think.

Can you clarify the timing of everything? 

So the season ends...opportunity to sign your own pending UFA's and make qualifying offers occurs...then expansions lists are due...then Vegas chooses their 30 players...then the HFNHL draft takes place?...then everyone gets another crack to re-sign pending FA's...then UFA market opens? 

Just trying to figure out the logistics and order of things in terms of trades, free agents, the draft, etc.


----------



## Brock

Dr.Sens(e) said:


> Makes sense, i think.
> 
> Can you clarify the timing of everything?
> 
> So the season ends...opportunity to sign your own pending UFA's and make qualifying offers occurs...then expansions lists are due...then Vegas chooses their 30 players...then the HFNHL draft takes place?...then everyone gets another crack to re-sign pending FA's...then UFA market opens?
> 
> Just trying to figure out the logistics and order of things in terms of trades, free agents, the draft, etc.




Yup. NHL expansion draft is the week before the NHL draft, so we'll probably look at doing our expansion draft the week before our draft. So you'll have some time to resign players both before and after.


----------



## MatthewFlames

Brock said:


> This may differ slightly from the NHL (as it appears that pending UFA's will be exempt), but we feel it to be important for the integrity of our league.




To clarify the risk. Let's say I have Sidney Crosby as a UFA. If Sid isn't eligible to be protected, or picked by Vegas, and then I can just auto-sign him the moment the expansion draft is done, that's where we potentially could lose the integrity. UFA could be abused as extra protections slots. I think this simple rule helps us a lot.


----------



## Lord Stanley

MatthewFlames said:


> To clarify the risk. Let's say I have Sidney Crosby as a UFA. If Sid isn't eligible to be protected, or picked by Vegas, and then I can just auto-sign him the moment the expansion draft is done, that's where we potentially could lose the integrity. UFA could be abused as extra protections slots. I think this simple rule helps us a lot.




I think that in NHL pending UFA players can be selected, however the expansion club has to select a certain amount of players that are under contract, but I could be wrong on this. Also I have heard that the expansion club will be given an opportunity to bargain with potential RFA or UFA players before the other teams.


----------



## LEAFANFORLIFE23

Just so you know I want vegas


----------



## Lord Stanley

LEAFANFORLIFE23 said:


> Just so you know I want vegas





Thanks for the heads up, but your a little late to the party. Maybe try seeing if somebody is looking for an AGM.


----------



## CopperAndBlueGM

One technical eligibility question.

I know players with two or fewer pro years (AHL and NHL) are immune and pro euro league years are not counted as pro years (why I still can't figure out). 

What I am not certain of is how a player that played a handful of games in the AHL/NHL (<6 for example) after the conclusion of another leagues season will be counted in terms of pro years.

Example:
2014/15 Played full time in another league (Europe/CHL/NCAA etc.) but then signed his NHL deal and played a couple of AHL or NHL games at the end of the regular season
2015/16 Played in AHL or NHL
2016/17 Played in AHL or NHL

Is this hypothetical player counted as having played 3 pro years or 2 years and therefore exempt?


----------



## Canuck09

CopperAndBlueGM said:


> One technical eligibility question.
> 
> I know players with two or fewer pro years (AHL and NHL) are immune and pro euro league years are not counted as pro years (why I still can't figure out).
> 
> What I am not certain of is how a player that played a handful of games in the AHL/NHL (<6 for example) after the conclusion of another leagues season will be counted in terms of pro years.
> 
> Example:
> 2014/15 Played full time in another league (Europe/CHL/NCAA etc.) but then signed his NHL deal and played a couple of AHL or NHL games at the end of the regular season
> 2015/16 Played in AHL or NHL
> 2016/17 Played in AHL or NHL
> 
> Is this hypothetical player counted as having played 3 pro years or 2 years and therefore exempt?




To keep things simple we're matching NHL eligibility, with the exception being, prospects in our league that haven't played enough games to be activated prior to the expansion draft.

To see whether this hypothetical player is eligible or not we're going to use a resource like Cap Friendly:

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


----------



## MatthewFlames

CopperAndBlueGM said:


> Example:
> 2014/15 Played full time in another league (Europe/CHL/NCAA etc.) but then signed his NHL deal and played a couple of AHL or NHL games at the end of the regular season
> 2015/16 Played in AHL or NHL
> 2016/17 Played in AHL or NHL




In this specific example you quoted above, Sam Bennett needs to be protected because he played 1 NHL regular season game in season 14/15.

Players who were junior players but played at the end of the season on an ATO or PTO (ie their pro contract not kicking in until the next season) are exempt if that season was 14/15.


----------



## Dr.Sens(e)

MatthewFlames said:


> In this specific example you quoted above, Sam Bennett needs to be protected because he played 1 NHL regular season game in season 14/15.
> 
> Players who were junior players but played at the end of the season on an ATO or PTO (ie their pro contract not kicking in until the next season) are exempt if that season was 14/15.




Yup - same with Anthony Duclair for me.


----------



## Fan.At

Can anyone correct the following about PENDING and RE-SIGNED UFAs in regards to the expansion draft in case it is wrong:

PENDING:
They remain property of their team and have to be protected if the team does not want to risk losing them in the expansion draft.

RE-SIGNED:
Pretty much the same as pending, it is NOT required to protect re-signed UFAs in the draft.

is that correct? (i am working on my offers for pending FAs and this is crucial for my Dubnyk-MarkstrÃ¶m-Budaj situation)


----------



## Dr.Sens(e)

Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, Tony, but I'm pretty sure you have to protect re-signed and pending UFA's in the expansion draft. For each individual, their contract status shouldn't really matter - the contract part is only that every team has to have a minimum # of signed guys at each position). 

So if they are your property and eligible by the criteria, they have to be either protected or exposed.


----------



## Fan.At

Dr.Sens(e) said:


> Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, Tony, but I'm pretty sure you have to protect re-signed and pending UFA's in the expansion draft. For each individual, their contract status shouldn't really matter - the contract part is only that every team has to have a minimum # of signed guys at each position).
> 
> So if they are your property and eligible by the criteria, they have to be either protected or exposed.




my question was more or less vice versa. it is not mandatory to protect pending or re-signed ufas, right? you can chose for either whether to protect or expose them


----------



## Dr.Sens(e)

Fan.At said:


> my question was more or less vice versa. it is not mandatory to protect pending or re-signed ufas, right? you can chose for either whether to protect or expose them




Ah, then yes - you can protect or expose pending UFA's.


----------



## Ohio Jones

Two points for clarification:

- I'm assuming players who had contracts but left for Europe remain on the prospect list but are eligible for the expansion draft. Correct?

- for prospects who have reached the "must sign" window, do we have the option now to release instead?


----------



## MatthewFlames

Ohio Jones said:


> Two points for clarification:
> 
> - I'm assuming players who had contracts but left for Europe remain on the prospect list but are eligible for the expansion draft. Correct?
> 
> - for prospects who have reached the "must sign" window, do we have the option now to release instead?




One. All the players on prospect lists are not eligible to be picked in the expansion draft including euros, with the exception of the 2 RFA holdouts.

Two. I don't believe that you are allowed to release prospects before the auto sign window regardless of expansion. I would think that prospect releases for those who have not yet met the 50 game requirement in the NHL will happen before free agency as usual.


----------



## Ohio Jones

MatthewFlames said:


> I don't believe that you are allowed to release prospects before the auto sign window regardless of expansion. I would think that prospect releases for those who have not yet met the 50 game requirement in the NHL will happen before free agency as usual.




Fair enough. Thanks.


----------



## Brad Palmer

Are there any changes to expansion rules for Seattle? Other than the change in games played threshold to follow the NHL? I believe the new one 27 GP in 2020-21 or 56 GP in the previous two season combined.


----------



## RedWingsLegacy

Brad Palmer said:


> Are there any changes to expansion rules for Seattle? Other than the change in games played threshold to follow the NHL? I believe the new one 27 GP in 2020-21 or 56 GP in the previous two season combined.




Best way to look at it, unless the NHL changes rules we wont either.


----------

