I'm guessing that Connelly, Carpenter and probably Hino will be exposed as well as any goalie not named Lankinen. As for the defensemen, I haven't heard anything but I would think the NHL will place some sort of exemption on Seabrook as you can catagorize him as having a career ending injury. I highly doubt the league will force the Hawks to protect an injury induced retiree. Also nice being loaded with so many exempt young players.
Regardless, I really don't think the Kraken draft will do any significant damage to the rebuild.
I heard some rumblings that the league *might* waive for players on LTIR who aren't expected to play again, but until a league announcement I'm assuming, "No." After all, the 'hawks *did* sign him to that deal and all Seabs has to do is leave millions on the table and retire. We'll see though. I would love it if the 'hawks did get an exemption for Seabrook since they could protect Zadorov (who I don't think has been that bad, maybe not what we wanted/needed, but not that bad) and leave DeHaan exposed.
One thing to consider is even though guys are exposed, there are requirements that have to be met for who they have to expose--and one of those requirements is being signed through 2022. Zadorov, Hinny, Gaudette, Kampf, Hagel, and Nylander all have the games played requirements, but they expire this year and don't go towards the exposure requirement whether or not the 'hawks protect them or not.
So while the 'hawks can indeed expose them or protect them, they also would have to ensure someone who meets the requirements is exposed to be compliant--guys like Debrincat, Strome, Carpenter, Connelly, Murphy, or DeHaan (2 FWDs & 1 Dman--and I didn't include the NMC's which *have* to be protected unless they waive). Also, since all of the previous guys in the previous paragraph are expiring at the end of this season (barring a contract extension), there's also the chance that Seattle (or anyone else) can just wait for their contracts to expire and sign them that way, or offer-sheet them instead of wasting a expansion draft pick on them. Again, we'll see. I think every team out there wants to learn from what happened with Vegas and again, leave scraps to be plundered. The 'hawks are no different.
Looking at the 'hawks and who they may/may not leave exposed, I think the one most fans want gone is DeHaan. His play vs. Salary is much too low and he's blocking some youth. But then, why would Seattle want him? They could take on, say Subban as a serviceable backup (assuming Lankinen is not exposed, and Stan would be a right ******* if he did that), They could take a risk on trying to re-sign guys like Hinny or Zadorov if they use their pick on them. They could also try a Vegas tactic and strong-arm a trade out of Chicago by getting us to send someone over they might not be able to pick (i.e. Boqvist, Beaudin, Suter, Mitchell, or the like) so they take DeHaan, or someone else expendable and not a plyer the 'hawks have exposed and would like to keep.
It'll be interesting. I think the 'hawks did quite well in the Vegas expansion and are set up quite well for the Seattle expansion
could Seabrook waive his NTC?
To directly answer your question: Yes, Seabrook could waive. However, Seattle is under no obligation to take him, and he's under no obligation to waive. I would have to wonder why Seattle would consider taking him when he's effectively dead cap space.
Being pedantic: it's not the NTC, it's the NMC part of the contract that obligates a team to protect a player. If a player has a NTC of any sort without an NMC, they can be protected or exposed by the team at the team's whims. If they have an NMC they have to be protected by the team unless the player themselves decides to waive. It might be a pedantic point but it's an important distinction in terms of who has to be protected.
