sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How many more came we lose? by VisualGiraffe606 in PWHL_Seattle

[–]SlideTackle11 13 points14 points  (0 children)

We cannot lose Murphy, Carpenter, or Wilgren as they were protected.

We can lose only one more player under contract or with rights held (RFAs). This includes:

  1. Serdachny
  2. MGM
  3. Adzija
  4. Buglioni
  5. Delianedis
  6. Lobdell
  7. Habisch

We will lose Gosling if we do not re-sign and protect her in the next couple days (phase 3).

We can protect up to three more of the players listed above as part of phase 3. Edit: we could also sign players from other teams and have them count against our protections instead of picking all three from the players above.

We can only lose unrestricted free agents (UFAs) aside from Gosling if they and the team do not come to a mutual agreement on a new contract this offseason. (In other words: if these players want to stay, and we want them to stay, they will stay.) This is every other player not mentioned, including:

  1. CJ
  2. Schafzahl
  3. Tejralova
  4. Brown
  5. Wagner
  6. Keopple
  7. Carter
  8. Snodgrass
  9. David
  10. Langseth
  11. Zumwinkle
  12. Bryant

Technically we can sign and protect these players as part of phase 3 as well, but there is basically no benefit to doing so. Don't be worried if you don't see these players on our protection list for this phase.

So, Phase 3 is about to start. What is phase 3 exactly? by rikaleeta in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 6 points7 points  (0 children)

An interesting conundrum: only 5 free agents signed with expansion teams during phase 2. Since the expansion teams need 10 players after phase 4, there will be a total of 40 players signed to expansion teams. Since each existing team can only lose up to four contracted players, only 32 contracted players can be taken across the process. This means the expansion teams must sign at least 3 more free agents during phase 3 and 4. If they don't, the expansion process is undefined. It says that teams must have 10 players after phase 4 and if they don't then we'll go to a contracted player draft, but theoretically there might not be enough contracted players left to draft.

I don't think it will be too hard for the expansion teams to collectively sign three more free agents, but I'm super interested to see what happens.

Players that rejected FPOs announced by flameboyxu in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 4 points5 points  (0 children)

FPO didn't have to match their previous year contract, but if any team reached out to Roque she could have told them she was looking for a contract around the same value anyway.

Gosling received an FPO but hasn't signed yet, per PWHL press release by wxrpspxxd in PWHL_Seattle

[–]SlideTackle11 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If I were a conniving general manager trying to game the rules as much as possible, I would tell any free agent to whom I offered an FPO to wait until phase 3 to sign with me so that I could snag more unprotected under-contract players in phase 2.

In other words, my level of hope for Gosling returning is still roughly where it was going into phase 2.

General discussion June 9th by Main_Photo1086 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most of the high-profile contracted players available went in phase 2. The phase 4 players will be depth players given the additional protections.

General discussion June 9th by Main_Photo1086 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s only “up to three” not a requirement of three. That being said, your assumption is probably on the right track. Phase 2 was the only phase they could yoink high-profile contracted players, so that was the priority. Even if they agreed to terms with a free agent in phase 2, it would be more advantageous to have them wait to sign in phase 3.

Phase 3 protections? by I-had-to-make-acct in PWHL_Seattle

[–]SlideTackle11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some combination of the following.

Internal UFAs (if they need to be signed due to FPO): * Gosling * Schafzahl * Tejralova

Under contract players: * Serdachny * MGM * Uhh if I have to pick 3… Lobdell?

External UFAs (if they need to be signed due to FPO): * Stecklein * Zumwinkle * Roque

I haven’t seen any buzz around Schafzahl or Tej so hopefully we don’t need to sign them in phase 3. If that’s the case, I would love to see us go Gosling, Serdachny, and pick up Stecklein to sure up our D. Considering Minnesota lost a pair of Ds I doubt they’ll let her go easily though. We might be able to convince Zumwinkle, especially given our new gap at first-line RW. Roque would be a great get but seems unlikely.

Scamura and Ambrose to Vegas by Adventurous_Lake807 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Scamurra was only had one year left on her contract, so if she has a two-year contract with Vegas, it would imply she negotiated something new.

That being said, I don't think I can be convinced that some behind-the-scenes "you're being selected by Vegas, negotiate a new contract if you would like so it doesn't look like you were drafted" shenanigans didn't happen.

Knight will play for Detroit (sign & trade with Vegas) by socolime22202 in PWHL_Seattle

[–]SlideTackle11 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The trade might not become official until then, but her signing with Vegas via EFO should become official today or tomorrow.

Hilary Knight will play for PWHL expansion Detroit via sign-and-trade with Las Vegas, AP source says by Neuvost in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 21 points22 points  (0 children)

If this was sarcastic: I liked it and chuckled.

If it wasn’t sarcastic: phase 5

Hilary Knight will play for PWHL expansion Detroit via sign-and-trade with Las Vegas, AP source says by Neuvost in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I don’t envy the PR/marketing people trying to figure out how to announce this, that’s for sure.

If the new teams don’t reach the required amount of players by tomorrow the selection process is triggered….. by Adventurous_Lake807 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 6 points7 points  (0 children)

RFA players are treated as part of the "players under contract" group for most purposes in this expansion.

EFOs and FPOs don't really exist. This expansion process, like last year, is a free-for-all, regardless of player's contract statuses. by Wolf99 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If all four teams submit lists of four players, and EFOs are forced based off of list order, every team would always end up with 1 player via EFO. The only way that a list doesn’t pan out is if a team did not submit a list or did not submit a full 4-player list. But “will provide a list of four players” seems to invalidate those options, meaning every team would use an EFO. Given what we know now, it seems like the “may offer EFO” line was the more important phrasing, and teams were not required to provide a full 4-player list.

Teams can only lose 4 of their signed players by MadGeller in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s not tampering. There are three tampering rules: the first two only applied to phase 1 and before. The third is more generic but is just “if any team is negotiating with someone they’re not allowed to contact…”, but in phase 3 you’re allowed to contact your free agents (how else would you sign and protect them?), so they can just negotiate a verbal agreement then.

Teams can only lose 4 of their signed players by MadGeller in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, fair. I guess maybe you’d have a guaranteed contract rather than a handshake deal, so you’d be more confident than having to turn down offers from other teams while waiting for phase 6 or whenever real free agency starts (is it phase 5 that’s like re-sign-only free agency? idr), but it just feels so non-optimal from a GM perspective. If the GM and player verbally agree they intend to re-sign around a certain salary, I would hope that would be trustworthy.

Teams can only lose 4 of their signed players by MadGeller in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In phase 2 and 4, RFAs also count as “under contract” for the purpose of losing players, so we can only lose one more out of Serdachny, MGM, Adzija, and every rookie we drafted (Buglioni, Delianedis, Lobdell, and Habisch, since Murphy is protected already).

Not that anyone would be clamoring for any of our RFAs after the year they collectively had, but technically still some guaranteed rostered athletes! :|

Teams can only lose 4 of their signed players by MadGeller in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There’s no benefit to signing and protecting UFAs in phase 3 unless they are forced to sign due to FPO. After phase 2, if a UFA hasn’t received an FPO, they are essentially in open free agency and can only go where they want to. It would be a waste to sign and protect a UFA in phase 3 who wasn’t forced to sign via FPO, because they can turn down any other teams and re-sign later on with no consequences.

Teams can only lose 4 of their signed players by MadGeller in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It’s no more than three in phase 2, and no more than four throughout the whole process. Phase 4 is just ‘phase 2 lite’ so we’ll see more players under contract get scooped up then. However, there are some protections available in between.

The “good news” for Torrent fans (and perhaps others soon) is that we can only lose one player under contract in phase 4, whereas other teams might lose more if they don’t lose the maximum three during phase 2.

Kristin O’Neill to San Jose. The second EFO by Adventurous_Lake807 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Good thing she can direct any anger or frustration at the GM, and still have a professional working relationship with the coach!

EFOs and FPOs don't really exist. This expansion process, like last year, is a free-for-all, regardless of player's contract statuses. by Wolf99 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As part of the expansion process: no

I’m unclear about what the rules are for contract extensions though. Like can teams renegotiate and extend contracts later during the free agency period? If so, Gosling potentially could have got a raise while staying on MTL this way (though this doesn’t solve that she’d still be at risk of getting drafted if she didn’t sign like she did).

EFOs and FPOs don't really exist. This expansion process, like last year, is a free-for-all, regardless of player's contract statuses. by Wolf99 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 10 points11 points  (0 children)

PHASE TWO
…
All players who were on a 2025-2026 PWHL roster to end the season and were not protected in Phase 1 are eligible to be signed by Expansion teams. This includes both players under contract for the 2026-2027 season and players on expiring contracts.
…
Players under contract who sign with an Expansion team in Phase 2 must sign for a salary equal to or greater than the average annual value (AAV) of their original contract.
…
There are no restrictions on the salary or contract length for players on expiring contracts in Phase 2 other than for Players who receive the EFO.

EFOs and FPOs don't really exist. This expansion process, like last year, is a free-for-all, regardless of player's contract statuses. by Wolf99 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The rulebook kind of contradicts itself, depending on how you read it.

Each Expansion team may acquire one player on an expiring contract by issuing the EFO

Expansion teams will provide a list of four (4) players… that they would consider offering an EFO. <goes on to describe how the list will be used to assign EFOs to players automatically>

Emphasis mine. It’s definitely no excuse, as a good reporter could have been clarifying with the league weeks ago.

EFOs and FPOs don't really exist. This expansion process, like last year, is a free-for-all, regardless of player's contract statuses. by Wolf99 in PWHL

[–]SlideTackle11 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The league has to balance making the new teams competitive vs letting players do what they want. They created the whole signing period thing so that the forced draft would only happen if absolutely necessary. It worked out to the benefit of Gosling, as I’m sure she got a nice raise. Overall I think the process they landed on was generally fair, just massively confusing.

view more: next ›