Jump to content


Photo

NHL 2017 Vegas Expansion Draft


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#1 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:01 PM

So I brought this up in the Keep/Trade Kane thread, but in addition to the end of free agency, we have the Expansion draft to worry about later this year. I did a quick search, and I didn't see a thread on this. My apologies if I simply missed it.

 

Here are the rules:

 

 

 

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 players who have currently effective and continuing "No Movement" clauses at the time of the Expansion Draft (and who to decline to waive such clauses) must be protected (and will be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).
 
* All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).
 
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.

 

 
So if you were TMGM, what's your list?
 
I'm terrible at this kind of thing, but I'll give my list anyways. I'm more curious what everyone else would do.
 
If like me you don't know whose under contract until when I found this site (http://www.spotrac.c...res/yearly/cap/) helpful.
 
Someone said Sam and Jack are protected under the first/second year clause. 
 
I want to protect both Risto and Mccabe, so I think we need to do option B.
 
Forwards
1) Ryan O' Reilly
2) Kyle Okposo (required anyways)
3) Johan Larson (resign)
4) Marcus Foligno (resign)
 
Defense
1) Rasmus Ristolainen
2) Jake Mccabe
3) Zach Bogosian (Required)
4) Josh Gorges (Required?)
 
Goalie
We currently have 0 goalies under contract who qualify. I'm not sure what we do here. Resign one, both? Which to keep, I'm not sure. I'd assume GMTM will resign both and protect Lehner. I might be leaning towards Nilsson, but it would depend on value of potential new contracts.
 
 
Meeting Exposure Requirements
These guys i'd leave vulnerable to meet the exposure requirement list:
 
Possible Defense
We need to sign someone to fit this bill? Neither Frason or Kulikov are under contract, and the rest don't meet the eligibility requirements..
 
Possible Forwards
1) Matt Moulson
2) Tyler Ennis (pending eligibility; assuming he gets to 47+ games this season; he had only 23 in 15/16, and only has 12 this season with 42 games left, which means he needs can only miss 7 more games)
2) Nicolas Deslauriers
 
Goalie
See above...

Edited by SabresBaltimore, 11 January 2017 - 01:07 PM.


#2 Eleven

Eleven

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,596 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bobcaygeon, Ontario

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:26 PM

I'm not interested in them protecting either Foligno or Larsson over Kane.



#3 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:28 PM

I'm not interested in them protecting either Foligno or Larsson over Kane.

 

Fair enough. As I said, I'm bad at this. When I first wrote my list I was doing option A and protecting all 3..but then I realized that I'd have to protect both Gorges and Bogosian and it basically messed up everything. I'm not super happy with my list. I'm at a loss as to how to handle it really.

 

I'd be curious to see what your list would look like.



#4 pi2000

pi2000

    The Church of Moulson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:30 PM

IMO it's too early to discuss this, there's still a lot of hockey left to be played.... trades, etc...

 

for example, Kane and Girgensons have turned their games around recently, can they keep it up?  

 

We don't know what Ennis has to offer.

 

Does Nilsson steal Lehners job?  



#5 MattPie

MattPie

    Hello, sailor!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strafing some corners

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:35 PM

Fair enough. As I said, I'm bad at this. When I first wrote my list I was doing option A and protecting all 3..but then I realized that I'd have to protect both Gorges and Bogosian and it basically messed up everything. I'm not super happy with my list. I'm at a loss as to how to handle it really.

 

I'd be curious to see what your list would look like.

 

I thought there was a stipulation in there that each team would lose a player. If that's the case, LV will have to pick up some AHL or 2-way guys as to be able to get down to the roster limit. It'll be interesting to see if LV tries to flip guys by picking them and then trading to another team for something.

 

Also, in your list you have Bogo as "required", but the jury is out on that one. Once he waived his movement clause to be traded to Buffalo, Buffalo isn't required to honor it. As far as I know, no one here knows whether Buffalo reinstated it after the trade.



#6 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:41 PM

IMO it's too early to discuss this, there's still a lot of hockey left to be played.... trades, etc...

 

 

Probably, but it was on my brain, so I was curious if other people had thoughts on it. The list would certainly be fluid until the deadline.

 

 

Also, in your list you have Bogo as "required", but the jury is out on that one. Once he waived his movement clause to be traded to Buffalo, Buffalo isn't required to honor it. As far as I know, no one here knows whether Buffalo reinstated it after the trade.

 

Interesting. I didn't know that (again I'm bad at this). Honestly if we don't have to protect him, I wouldn't bother. I suspect his injuries, and general performance in the last few years along with the price of his contract makes him unappealing, but I could be wrong.



#7 North Buffalo

North Buffalo

    When hell freezes over, I’ll play hockey there too.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trump has Russian Spies Watching You!

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:45 PM

Also isnt Mcabe protected... only his 2nd year I think.

#8 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:48 PM

Also isnt Mcabe protected... only his 2nd year I think.

 

Yeah. I'm curious about that too. Technically this is the 4th season he's played some games for us, but it was 7 in 13/14, and only 2 in 14/15. Did those fall under his 10 game tryout?



#9 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,555 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:52 PM

O'Reilly, Okposo, Larsson, Kane, Girgensons, Foligno, Carrier

Risto, McCabe, not-Bogo

Lehner

Really don't think there's a compelling reason to protect anyone else.

#10 WildCard

WildCard

    Gunner's Mate First Class: Philip A$$hole

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lost in a Supermarket

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:54 PM

Why Lehner? Dude is terrible

#11 Lanny

Lanny

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:57 PM

O'Reilly, Okposo, Larsson, Kane, Girgensons, Foligno, Carrier

Risto, McCabe, not-Bogo

Lehner

Really don't think there's a compelling reason to protect anyone else.

That's my list as well, it doesn't appear there are really any tough choices.

 

Ennis is probably the best player you leave unprotected. 

 

Is it confirmed that Bogosian does indeed have to be protected? I thought there was a report that he did not. 


Edited by Lanny, 11 January 2017 - 01:58 PM.


#12 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:57 PM

O'Reilly, Okposo, Larsson, Kane, Girgensons, Foligno, Carrier

Risto, McCabe, not-Bogo

Lehner

Really don't think there's a compelling reason to protect anyone else.

 

Yeah, my original list looked mostly like that (minus Carrier since I think he's safe anyways with Gionta instead if we resign him, which I'd like to do for the right price). I'm also not sure I'd protect Lehner.

 

The problem is, I think we're forced to protect Gorges and possibly Bogo based on their contracts..



#13 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,555 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:00 PM

Why Lehner? Dude is terrible


As with Tyrod, you're confusing average for terrible :P

Because I have zero concern with them picking Nilsson. He'll be a UFA, and even if they take him anyway, guys like him are a dime a dozen. Long term I'd rather have Lehner's upside and team-controlled rights.

Yeah, my original list looked mostly like that (minus Carrier since I think he's safe anyways with Gionta instead if we resign him, which I'd like to do for the right price). I'm also not sure I'd protect Lehner.

The problem is, I think we're forced to protect Gorges and possibly Bogo based on their contracts..


Nope. Gorges definitely not, and unless Murray is a buffoon and voluntarily chose to honor Bogo's NMC, we don't have to protect him either.

#14 Lanny

Lanny

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:00 PM

http://www.sportsnet...ains-surprises/

 

According to this Okposo is the only player required to be protected. 



#15 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:01 PM

As with Tyrod, you're confusing average for terrible :P

Because I have zero concern with them picking Nilsson. He'll be a UFA, and even if they take him anyway, guys like him are a dime a dozen. Long term I'd rather have Lehner's upside and team-controlled rights.

 

Both of them are UFA next year. We'd have to sign 1 or both of them, and if we only sign 1 of them, we can't protect them.



#16 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Marietta, GA; from Williamsville

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:01 PM

Actually we have beaten this horse before, but it is a favorite topic of mine.

We established that Bogo doesn't need to be protected since he was traded before his NMC kickedcin and therefore the clause was voided. Right now only Okposo has a NMC and he'd be protected anyway.

We also debated as to whether it is wise to protect an UFA like Kulikov.

Jack and Sam are exempt. (As are Fasching, Guhle, Baptiste, Bailey). Only prospect of note who could be drafted is Carrier.

At this point all we are certainly protecting are
F: ROR, Okposo
D: McCabe, Risto

After that there are questions about everyone else. Two players who won't be protected are Moulson and Gorges because of age, declining production and contract $ and term.

So who to protect (7-3-1)
Forwards
3. Kane - has played his way back to must protect (or trade)
4. Carrier - GMTM won't let a good prospect be lost for nothing.
5. Foligno - beginning to show consistency. Need his physical presence.
This is where things get tricky. Trade deadline may resolve them.
6. Larsson - with Sam now the 3rd line center, do we really need to re-sign and protect a 4th line center. I'd say yes at this point.
7. Girgensons - finding his game since Larsson went down. To young to give up on him.
8. Ennis - size, contract, injury history and declining production all working against him
9. Moulson - playing better, but contract a killer going forward. Buy out if not lost to expansion?
10. Dlo - thanks for the memories
11. Gionta - UFA

Defense
3. Bogosian
4. Gorges - doesn't deserve to be protected and won't be
5. No one else to protect unless we acquire someone at the deadline (Nelson - exempt; Franson, Fedun, Falk, and Kulikov are UFA's)

Goalie
1. Lehner - crazy? Maybe, but GMTM is a stubborn guy and he paid a high price to get him.
2. Nilsson - UFA, no real reason to protect him when you can re-sign him if GMTM wants in the 2 weeks between the expansion draft and the start of free agency.
3. Ullmark - is probably exempt, but we to expose one RFA or signed goalie.
4. Kasdorf - also probably exempt, better choice to expose.

#17 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:02 PM

http://www.sportsnet...ains-surprises/

 

According to this Okposo is the only player required to be protected. 

 

Well that simplifies things greatly. I'd protect him anyways. Let Vegas have Bogosian or Gorges if they want.



#18 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,555 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:02 PM

Both of them are UFA next year. We'd have to sign 1 or both of them, and if we only sign 1 of them, we can't protect them.


Lehner is an RFA. And at the time of the draft, Nilsson will not be a UFA...he'll be a pending UFA, thus we can expose him to meet the goalie requirement.

#19 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:04 PM

Lehner is an RFA. And at the time of the draft, Nilsson will not be a UFA...he'll be a pending UFA, thus we can expose him to meet the goalie requirement.

 

Well RFA aside, the exposure rule says 17-18: iii) One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18

 

So we'd still have to resign one or both of them I think..but I'm bad at the contract stuff..



#20 Lanny

Lanny

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:05 PM

Ullmark fulfills this requirement?


Edited by Lanny, 11 January 2017 - 02:07 PM.


#21 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,515 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:06 PM

O'Reilly, Okposo, Larsson, Kane, Girgensons, Foligno, Carrier
Risto, McCabe, not-Bogo
Lehner
Really don't think there's a compelling reason to protect anyone else.

  

Why Lehner? Dude is terrible


Would definitely leave Moulson & Ennis exposed. Depending on what trades get made @ the deadline, could see protecting a new F rather than Kane.

Agree on the D.

Lehner gets protected because Nilsson probably isn't signed until after the Vegas draft (though deal, if there'll be one, is worked out prior) & he's more of a known commodity than Ullmark. Doubt Ullmark gets chosen, though it's possible. If he does, could open the door for Peterson leaving ND early.

#22 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:10 PM

Ullmark fulfills this requirement. 

 

Ah yeah, I guess we'd just to give him a qualifying offer. Goalies don't have a minimum game requirement apparently..

 

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.



#23 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,555 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:10 PM

Ullmark fulfills this requirement?


That sounds right.

#24 PartyZombies

PartyZombies

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elmwood Village

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:16 PM

Forwards:

Okposo: We have no choice

ROR: No brainer

Foligno: Finally becoming the power forward we hoped for, hopefully the consistency improves further next year

Carrier: Be a tough loss if he were to go, great young prospect with lots of upside

Zemgus: Solid depth guy, finding his way again, plus Latvian Locomotive is an awesome nickname

Kane: If we haven't traded him yet, I suppose Deslauriers if we trade Kane

Larsson: I guess, we're deep at center but sure because I need 7

 

Defense:

Risto: No brainer

McCabe: Also fairly obvious at this point

Bogo: But only if we have to

Franson: If we don't have to protect Bogo, he's been a really solid possession guy this year

 

Goalie:

Lehner: Because GMTM

 

It's still super early, who knows what we look like after the deadline. But if it were tomorrow this is what I would want to see.



#25 PartyZombies

PartyZombies

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elmwood Village

Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:41 PM

Yeah. I'm curious about that too. Technically this is the 4th season he's played some games for us, but it was 7 in 13/14, and only 2 in 14/15. Did those fall under his 10 game tryout?

He played 14-15 in ROC, 15-16 in Buffalo so he's a 3rd year player, therefore not exempt



#26 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 11 January 2017 - 04:30 PM

Forwards:
Okposo: We have no choice
ROR: No brainer
Foligno: Finally becoming the power forward we hoped for, hopefully the consistency improves further next year
Carrier: Be a tough loss if he were to go, great young prospect with lots of upside
Zemgus: Solid depth guy, finding his way again, plus Latvian Locomotive is an awesome nickname
Kane: If we haven't traded him yet, I suppose Deslauriers if we trade Kane
Larsson: I guess, we're deep at center but sure because I need 7

Defense:
Risto: No brainer
McCabe: Also fairly obvious at this point
Bogo: But only if we have to
Franson: If we don't have to protect Bogo, he's been a really solid possession guy this year

Goalie:
Lehner: Because GMTM

It's still super early, who knows what we look like after the deadline. But if it were tomorrow this is what I would want to see.

You want to protect our 4th line fist eater?

Edited by inkman, 11 January 2017 - 04:30 PM.


#27 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Marietta, GA; from Williamsville

Posted 05 February 2017 - 12:52 PM

TBN posted a quick look at the expansion draft for the purpose of illustrating that the Sbres don't have to make a move to get an expansion eligible goalie.   http://buffalonews.c...ct-trade-plans/

 

That said I think this is a good time to evaluate who is in and who is out.

 

Players who will be protected

Goalie - Lehner

Defense - Risto and McCabe

Forwards - Okposo and ROR

 

Who will probably be protected.  I'm going to assume GMTM won't protect any UFAs

Forwards

3. Kane (unless traded  :P )

4. Foligno

5. Carrier - only prospect we have that isn't exempt

6. Ennis - Production still isn't there, would GMTM risk exposing him?

7. Girgensons - Larsson's injury and more physical game puts him over the line

8. Larsson - did his injury cost him his job here?

9. Moulson - no one wants his contract including us

10. Delo - easily replaced and won't be missed if taken

 

Defense

3. Bogosian - He's better the Gorges and younger, but that isn't saying much since he can't stay healthy.  

4. Gorges - We don't have any other eligible players under contract.



#28 pi2000

pi2000

    The Church of Moulson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 February 2017 - 01:05 PM

https://www.capfrien...expansion-draft

Carrier will be protected. Remember GMTM traded for him, he's not going to let him get away for nothing.

He's going to expose at least one of Foligno, Girgensons, and Larsson because they're not his guys and don't fit his blueprint. IMO I think Girgensons gets moved at the deadline for picks.

#29 Murray's Rats

Murray's Rats

    Since Gilbert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,580 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 February 2017 - 02:46 PM

https://www.capfrien...expansion-draft

Carrier will be protected. Remember GMTM traded for him, he's not going to let him get away for nothing.

He's going to expose at least one of Foligno, Girgensons, and Larsson because they're not his guys and don't fit his blueprint. IMO I think Girgensons gets moved at the deadline for picks.

I was thinking about this recently. It seems like Girgensons has taken this as a serious opportunity one way or the other. I can't help but wonder if after Larsson's injury he was just like, ###### it, i'm gonna go for it now whether I stay or not someones always watching.

He's been pretty frickin good, alot closer to what they expect from him i'd imagine.

I predict future success for him, in Buffalo or otherwise. I wonder what he could fetch in return?

#30 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,555 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 February 2017 - 03:32 PM

I don't see any reason not to protect Girgensons, Foligno, Larsson, and Carrier. Seriously, what's the logic to exposing one of them for the sake of Ennis and his increasingly albatross-like contract?

#31 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 05 February 2017 - 03:40 PM

I don't see any reason not to protect Girgensons, Foligno, Larsson, and Carrier. Seriously, what's the logic to exposing one of them for the sake of Ennis and his increasingly albatross-like contract?

 

Agreed.  Ennis gets exposed.  Wish him well, but with those wheels gone he just doesn't fit anymore.

 

I don't see Deslaurier getting protected either.  Is he eligible?  I assume he is.


Edited by We've, 05 February 2017 - 03:41 PM.


#32 FuhrFury

FuhrFury

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 February 2017 - 04:50 PM

I'm going to go with the 1G/3D/7F format:

 

1. Lehner

 

2. Ristolainen

3. McCabe

4. Gorges

 

5. R. O'Reilly

6. Okposo 

7. Kane

8. Larsson

9. Carrier

10. Girgensons

11. Ennis



#33 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Marietta, GA; from Williamsville

Posted 05 February 2017 - 06:06 PM

I don't see any reason not to protect Girgensons, Foligno, Larsson, and Carrier. Seriously, what's the logic to exposing one of them for the sake of Ennis and his increasingly albatross-like contract?


the logic is that Larsson or Girgensons is your 4th line center and in theory is replaceable, while Ennis is a multi season 20 goal scorer and is one of your top 2 line wingers. Obviously injuries have limited his effectiveness in recent seasons, but if he gets healthy his $4 per season could be a bargain.

Personally I think GMTM has a very difficult decision as to which forward to expose, but in truth if we lose Ennis or Larsson or Girgensons is it really the end of the world? If I were LV's GM and the Sabres expose Ullmark, I think that is who I'm taking.

#34 ubkev

ubkev

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsyltucky via Upstate NY

Posted 05 February 2017 - 06:50 PM

the logic is that Larsson or Girgensons is your 4th line center and in theory is replaceable, while Ennis is a multi season 20 goal scorer and is one of your top 2 line wingers. Obviously injuries have limited his effectiveness in recent seasons, but if he gets healthy his $4 per season could be a bargain.


And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

#35 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 05 February 2017 - 07:03 PM

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

Nobody told you?



#36 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,976 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Basking in the sun and playing with kittens

Posted 09 February 2017 - 01:39 AM

So there is exactly one goalie currently available that Vegas would be tripping over himself to draft: Matt Murray.
I will bet big money the Pens will find a way to trade either him or Fleury before this happens.

There will be some notable veterans available: Halak, Lack and Reimer among them.
And some interesting younger guys: Gudlevskis, Grubauer, Dansk, Forsberg, Ullmark, Subban, Hammond and Hutchinson
And teams with questions: Anderson/Condon, Neimi/Lehtonen, Mrazek/Howard, Varlamov/Picard.

But why waste a pick on a goalie when there are so many free agents: Bernier, Enroth, Johnson, Elliott, Bishop, Mason, Neuvirth, Darling, Kuemper, Miller, Budaj, Nilsson and Pavelec.

One other interesting goalie tidbits
The Flyers appear to have a problem: they have to expose a goalie and the only one who meets the expansion criteria is their top prospect, Anthony Stolarz. Look for them to trade for a minor leaguer under contract next year.

Them, the Flames, the Stars, the Canes, Coyotes and maybe the Blues, the Canucks and the Avs are teams that might be in the market for a Fleury or a Bishop.

If I'm the Knights, I take Grubauer, Subban or Picard and sign one of the free agents. Although I would listen to Penguins about ways to solve their dilemma.

#37 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Marietta, GA; from Williamsville

Posted 09 February 2017 - 01:52 AM

So there is exactly one goalie currently available that Vegas would be tripping over himself to draft: Matt Murray.
I will bet big money the Pens will find a way to trade either him or Fleury before this happens.

There will be some notable veterans available: Halak, Lack and Reimer among them.
And some interesting younger guys: Gudlevskis, Grubauer, Dansk, Forsberg, Ullmark, Subban, Hammond and Hutchinson
And teams with questions: Anderson/Condon, Neimi/Lehtonen, Mrazek/Howard, Varlamov/Picard.

But why waste a pick on a goalie when there are so many free agents: Bernier, Enroth, Johnson, Elliott, Bishop, Mason, Neuvirth, Darling, Kuemper, Miller, Budaj, Nilsson and Pavelec.

One other interesting goalie tidbits
The Flyers appear to have a problem: they have to expose a goalie and the only one who meets the expansion criteria is their top prospect, Anthony Stolarz. Look for them to trade for a minor leaguer under contract next year.

Them, the Flames, the Stars, the Canes, Coyotes and maybe the Blues, the Canucks and the Avs are teams that might be in the market for a Fleury or a Bishop.

If I'm the Knights, I take Grubauer, Subban or Picard and sign one of the free agents. Although I would listen to Penguins about ways to solve their dilemma.

Excellent analysis.  I would submit they will likely take 3-4 goalies.  2 vets to start the year in LV and then 2 for the AHL team. They also need to add some cap cost.  Of your FA list Bishop is the best option, but do you really think he'd sign with LV.  I don't.  I can see a Nilsson or Johnson signing there in an attempt to steal a starting gig, but that would depend on who they draft.  If I were LV, I'd grab Howard or Fleury (prefer Fleury) for the starting job and cap hit for the next 2 years.  I'd then draft Grubauer, Ullmark and maybe Subban.



#38 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,976 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Basking in the sun and playing with kittens

Posted 09 February 2017 - 02:04 AM

Excellent analysis.  I would submit they will likely take 3-4 goalies.  2 vets to start the year in LV and then 2 for the AHL team. They also need to add some cap cost.  Of your FA list Bishop is the best option, but do you really think he'd sign with LV.  I don't.  I can see a Nilsson or Johnson signing there in an attempt to steal a starting gig, but that would depend on who they draft.  If I were LV, I'd grab Howard or Fleury (prefer Fleury) for the starting job and cap hit for the next 2 years.  I'd then draft Grubauer, Ullmark and maybe Subban.


I think I'd draft Grubauer with the idea that he is the best bet to be a legit #1 going forward. And I'd sign Miller to split the load.
I'd look at drafting one of the young guys to become the backup in year two, but only after I've taken care of the foundation elsewhere.

#39 pi2000

pi2000

    The Church of Moulson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2017 - 02:20 AM

They must draft minimum of 3 goalies.

#40 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,976 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Basking in the sun and playing with kittens

Posted 09 February 2017 - 02:22 AM

They must draft minimum of 3 goalies.

I didn't see that in what I was reading. Interesting. That changes my thinking.
Are there similar requirements for defence and forwards?

Edited by dudacek, 09 February 2017 - 02:22 AM.