SB Nation mock expansion draft - who should the Lightning protect?

With the ground rules above, it insinuates players like Tokarski and Desjardins are not in the mix. So, dealing with the NHL roster only, I wouldn’t protect any if I could get away with it. If I had to protect a goalie, I would protect Ellis.

The top 6 forwards are gimmies. I think Smaby, Hedman, Ohlund, and Clark ought to be four of the five protected d-men.

There will be large debate on the 3 forward and one defenseman protected slots.

That’s a big if on Gagne resigning. And there is no one immediately to take Lecavalier’s place ont he roster. Who takes precedence to be protected out fo the Lightning’s forwards?

There are a bunch of centers in teh Lightning organization but none of them are near top-two in quality. Only Stamkos whose game is not yet so well rounded that he can be seen as a top-line center.

There is also more to be re-signed in the off-season than Stamkos alone. The Bolts will have (another) high number of UFA’s/RFA’s.

On the PLUS side of letting the Nordiques get Vinny: It’s a big FU to the Habs who have been demanding we hand over Lecavalier since his drafting. :-p

You would leave Lecavalier unprotected? How about the Avs just offer you a 2nd round pick and one of (Daniel Winnick, Kevin Porter, Cody McLoud, or John Michael Liles) in exchange for Vinny? Deal? Likely the same result for you with at least a 2nd to boot.

First time posting here, though I’m a bit of a lurker. I’m an Avs fan first, but lived in FL for 7 years, so a TB fan second.

If there are players we don’t have to lose (like it’s not mandetory to expose them), then I m for keeping them (Lecavalier in this instance). But there is that debate to be had (keep or get-rid-of )

Lets assume I am going with the 1-protected goalie option. That means we have 9 forward slots. Top six gets covered — who else meets requirements (49 games OR 70 games)?:

• Nate Thompson
• Teddy Purcell
• Sean Bergenheim
• Dominic Moore
• Marc Pouliot
• Adam Hall
• Paul Szczechura

This is just going over some of the names — I haven’t put them all through the ringer (pouring over forward data and finding who met the requirements). I would let Hall go for sure. I think I would protect Thompson and Moore… and Purcell? Of these guys listed, who has the biggest upside?

Defense is a odder story. Paul Rangr doesn’t meet the protection requirements. I ought to ask if we can willingly un-protect players too.

Ranger does not meet the requirements of having played 70 games the last two seasons. He does not have to be protected. That’s someone I almost thought to put on the list of available defensemen regardless. But no need to expose him…

I’d love to keep Bergenheim around, but I don’t even think he woul be picked if exposed.

Defense is where the Lightning may be targeted the most. I’m trying to think of who to protect… Lets list everyone who has played the required 70 games over the last two years (Or 49 games in 2009-10):

• Mattias Ohlund
• Pavel Kubina
• Victor Hedman*
• Mike Lundin
• Matt Smaby
• Brett Clark
• Randy Jones

I’m not sure if the need to protect extends to guys on their rookie deals (this might effect the forward position as well — Stamkos ) so Hedman MAY not have to be protected. Still, ive of those guys.

seriously that is spot on to what i was thinking…well done

I need to make a list of who is exposed, but the guys who are most obvious with this off the top of my head) are Mike Smith, Adam Hall, Paul Ranger, Randy Jones, Ohlund, Malone, Pouliot (though I am going to do more research on taking Don’s suggestion here).

There are others that may be selectable: Chris Durno, Mike Vernace, Matthieu Roy, Mike Angelidis… But I’m not exactly sure.

Harju, Persson and James Wright are exempt — unless someone tells me otherwise.

I like your setup—except I’d protect Ohlund and expose Vinny.

Except I’d expose Smaby in favor of Ohlund. Don’t wanna risk losing that guy.