Jump to content


Photo

NHL 2017 Vegas Expansion Draft


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#41 pi2000

pi2000

    The Church of Moulson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2017 - 02:29 AM

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


minimum draft requirements:

1 player from each team (30)
14 forwards
9 defensemen
3 tendys
20 2017/18 contracts
$43.8m min cap hit
$73.0m max cap hit

#42 Polish Connection

Polish Connection

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 05:03 PM

minimum draft requirements:

1 player from each team (30)
14 forwards
9 defensemen
3 tendys
20 2017/18 contracts
$43.8m min cap hit
$73.0m max cap hit

So that leaves four other picks at any position.

 

If each team can only lose one player, will players exposed and not drafted be wanted back after the team has laid their cards on the table about how they are valued?  Some players will realize that it was a numbers game and not take it personally, but I can see a secondary trade market develop as everyone tries to shuffle away their potentially disgruntled players.



#43 pi2000

pi2000

    The Church of Moulson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2017 - 05:05 PM

So that leaves four other picks at any position.

 

If each team can only lose one player, will players exposed and not drafted be wanted back after the team has laid their cards on the table about how they are valued?  Some players will realize that it was a numbers game and not take it personally, but I can see a secondary trade market develop as everyone tries to shuffle away their potentially disgruntled players.

 

 

I'm not sure they need to make the protected list public?   Each team probably submits it to the league, who presents it to the Vegas staff.    If it leaks, there could obviously be turmoil.  



#44 Taro T

Taro T

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

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,511 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2017 - 05:33 PM

So that leaves four other picks at any position.
 
If each team can only lose one player, will players exposed and not drafted be wanted back after the team has laid their cards on the table about how they are valued?  Some players will realize that it was a numbers game and not take it personally, but I can see a secondary trade market develop as everyone tries to shuffle away their potentially disgruntled players.


Don't recall it being that big of an issue during the last expansions, but players that were left exposed were not happy about it.

#45 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 09 February 2017 - 05:58 PM

The players will know regardless.  Capfriendly has a really good expansion tool.

 

 By the way, after using the above referenced tool, I'm changing my opinion on the trade Kane now approach.  I now think Kane gets moved this summer for Cam Fowler.

 

Here is why.

I have been advocating the Kane to Ana deal for months, but after I looked at the expansion tool on Capfriendly, I have no idea how Ana makes a deal for Kane or any other player who isn't a UFA at year's end at the deadline.  Besides all their cap issues, they have a huge expansion issue.  Right now Ana must protect Perry, Getzlaf, Kesler, and Bieksa because of no movement clauses.  They also just extended Lindholm, Rakell and Vatanen and will protect them as well.   That's 7 slots gone.  If they don't move Cam Fowler now or soon after the season, then they stuck doing the 8-1 expansion.  That means they lose Silverberg to LV which they don't want to do.  Acquiring Kane no without moving Fowler now or at season's end, would likely expose both Kane and Sliverberg to expansion, which they also don't want to do.  

 

Solution: Trade Fowler to us at season's end for Kane and then go with a 7-3-1.  This protects Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, Kane, Rakell, Silfverberg and Cogliano plus Vatanen, Lindholm and Bieksa with exempt Theodore and Montour fighting for Fowler's job next fall.  


Edited by yse325, 10 February 2017 - 01:16 AM.


#46 Georgia Blizzard

Georgia Blizzard

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Macon, GA

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:47 AM

The players will know regardless.  Capfriendly has a really good expansion tool.

 

 By the way, after using the above referenced tool, I'm changing my opinion on the trade Kane now approach.  I now think Kane gets moved this summer for Cam Fowler.

 

Here is why.

I have been advocating the Kane to Ana deal for months, but after I looked at the expansion tool on Capfriendly, I have no idea how Ana makes a deal for Kane or any other player who isn't a UFA at year's end at the deadline.  Besides all their cap issues, they have a huge expansion issue.  Right now Ana must protect Perry, Getzlaf, Kesler, and Bieksa because of no movement clauses.  They also just extended Lindholm, Rakell and Vatanen and will protect them as well.   That's 7 slots gone.  If they don't move Cam Fowler now or soon after the season, then they stuck doing the 8-1 expansion.  That means they lose Silverberg to LV which they don't want to do.  Acquiring Kane no without moving Fowler now or at season's end, would likely expose both Kane and Sliverberg to expansion, which they also don't want to do.  

 

Solution: Trade Fowler to us at season's end for Kane and then go with a 7-3-1.  This protects Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, Kane, Rakell, Silfverberg and Cogliano plus Vatanen, Lindholm and Bieksa with exempt Theodore and Montour fighting for Fowler's job next fall.  

 

Then Sabres under their 7-3-1 protect Risto, McCabe and Fowler ?



#47 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:32 PM

Yes

#48 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 11:35 AM

The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced Tyler Ennis is a Golden Knight.

The Sabres are likely to protect Kane, ROR, Okposo, Larsson, Girgensons and Foligno.
Given their cap situation and their depth on the wing I think they keep Carrier over Moulson and Ennis; both have large salaries, depth roles and lack the fast heavy game this team is going for.

Available from the Sabres: Deslauriers, Moulson, Ennis, Gorges, Falk, Ullmark.

Vegas will be looking first for good players; unlike most expansions there will be some available.
There will not be any available from Buffalo.

Vegas will be looking at prospects that could turn into players.
There will be one available in from Buffalo: Linus Ullmark.
I think they look hard at him, but pass because of better goalies available.

Vegas will be looking at contracts: they have to reach the floor and they have to acquire a certain cap hit in the expansion draft.
Tyler Ennis is a $4.6 million hit but only a $3.6 million payout. And he is only a two-year commitment.

Vegas will be looking at assets
Ennis is a talented guy. Injuries appear to have robbed him of his effectiveness, but he is just 27. He's probably going to be pencilled in as a top-six guy on an expansion team, and has a better chance of scoring 20 goals than many of the Knights' other options. Any kind of production, coupled with his contract makes it pretty easy to flip him to a team looking for offensive depth heading into the playoffs.

I think the risk/reward for Vegas on Tyler is much better than any of the other Sabre options, unless they are very enamoured with Ullmark. At worst he is cap filler for a team interested in that. At best he is a top-six guy for them on the ice who can be flipped for assets that will help the team down the road.

Edited by dudacek, 19 February 2017 - 11:36 AM.


#49 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 19 February 2017 - 12:21 PM

Ennis is a goner.  Book it.



#50 Scottysabres

Scottysabres

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 305 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 12:33 PM

Posted 09 February 2017 - 10:00

I concur, and I believe Ennis will be the one they select given length and cost of contract combined with skill set and the flexibility Ennis had shown to play either wing

Posted this on Feb. 9th over in the 3 weeks until TDL thread.

Furthermore, if Buffalo doesn't protect Bogosain, he'll be gone. Gorges is a real possibility if not Bogo.

I think people are under estimating the Vegas cap situation and the window with which to view a reasonable stabilization time frame.

#51 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 19 February 2017 - 02:08 PM

LOL are you claiming flag pole in the ground first?



#52 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 02:17 PM

Drafted a team using the cap-friendly expansion function.
Turned out pretty good, even though I know guys like Johnson and Murray will be traded long before they are exposed.
But based on the rules and my take of the rosters today, they would have been available.

Lee Stempniak Tyler Johnson Tyler Ennis
Matt Read Tomas Plekanec Jesper Fast
Nail Yakupov Colin Wilson Valeri Nicushkin
Trevor Lewis Riley Sheahan Tom Wilson
Joel Armia Ryan White Hunter Shinkaruk Josh Leivo

Marco Scandella Brandon Davidson
Jack Johnson Josh Manson
Mark Methot Ryan Pulock
Mark Pysyk Luca Sbisa
Mirco Mueller John Moore
Trevor VanReimsdyk

Matt Murray
Semyon Varlamov
Malcolm Subban

Vegas is allowed to draft guys, then trade them, aren't they?

Edited by dudacek, 19 February 2017 - 02:25 PM.


#53 Sabres Fan In NS

Sabres Fan In NS

    I'd rather be in Sarajevo, or Istanbul (not Constantinople)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 19 February 2017 - 03:11 PM

Drafted a team using the cap-friendly expansion function.
Turned out pretty good, even though I know guys like Johnson and Murray will be traded long before they are exposed.
But based on the rules and my take of the rosters today, they would have been available.

Lee Stempniak Tyler Johnson Tyler Ennis
Matt Read Tomas Plekanec Jesper Fast
Nail Yakupov Colin Wilson Valeri Nicushkin
Trevor Lewis Riley Sheahan Tom Wilson
Joel Armia Ryan White Hunter Shinkaruk Josh Leivo

Marco Scandella Brandon Davidson
Jack Johnson Josh Manson
Mark Methot Ryan Pulock
Mark Pysyk Luca Sbisa
Mirco Mueller John Moore
Trevor VanReimsdyk

Matt Murray
Semyon Varlamov
Malcolm Subban

Vegas is allowed to draft guys, then trade them, aren't they?

 

That's a very good team.  If I were in Vegas I'd be very happy with that.



#54 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 05:10 PM

I was looking at our forwards year over year performance. Ennis is down again. I agree that he could easily be one of the forwards exposed to get out from under his contract. Sad result for a once promising player.

I never thought I'd want to keep Larsson over Ennis.

Dudacek, i think LV grabs Silvfersberg from Ana over Manson but otherwise I came up with much of the same team.

Edited by yse325, 19 February 2017 - 05:12 PM.


#55 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WNY

Posted 19 February 2017 - 07:07 PM

That's a terrible forward corps, but a defense and goaltending group that might keep them from bottoming out (and getting elite talent), giving mixed short and long term results.

#56 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 07:27 PM

That's a terrible forward corps, but a defense and goaltending group that might keep them from bottoming out (and getting elite talent), giving mixed short and long term results.


I'm not sure what you expected? With most teams keeping 7 forwards and 3 D, plus exempt players, the best forwards LV will get will be third liners, but they have a real chance at some top 4 D.

#57 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WNY

Posted 19 February 2017 - 07:36 PM

I'm not sure what you expected? With most teams keeping 7 forwards and 3 D, plus exempt players, the best forwards LV will get will be third liners, but they have a real chance at some top 4 D.

Having played with the expansion tool many times, that is indeed what I expect. Not sure which part of my post conveys shock/surprise.


Edited by Randall Flagg, 20 February 2017 - 03:48 PM.


#58 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 21 February 2017 - 12:32 PM

I wonder what type of trades are going to happen following the season.  Last year we saw teams start setting up for the draft and free agency with trades as early as May 25th when Gudbranson was traded by Fla to Van.  Then once the Cup finals finished trading really picked up in the two weeks prior to the draft.

 

This year the expansion draft is 6/21.  I think you'll start seeing non-playoff teams start dealing immediately with playoff teams entering the fray as they are eliminated.   Team like Ana and Minn are likely to make some moves to avoid losing a really good player to LV for nothing.  I see this as GMTM's opportunity to get his top 4 D he is missing.  

 

For example:  Ana has 4 D they "must" protect in Fowler, Vatanen, Lindholm and Bieksa (NMC).  This is expose an excellent forward like Silfverberg to expansion.  However if they trade us one of Lindholm, Vatanen or Fowler, they can move to a 7-3-1 and avoid losing Silfverberg.  

 

Minn is in much the same place.  Using a 7-3-1 to protect their blossoming group of forwards (plus their NMC forwards), they are likely to leave 2 good D unprotected such as Marco Scandella and Jonas Brodin.  Can GMTM get Brodin from them?

 

There are other examples, but these are the two the leaped out at me.



#59 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

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

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:12 PM

The weird thing about the Wild is they will have two exposed top four D.
Trading one won't cut it. Do they trade both?

If I'm them, I'm offering the Knights a lot (a first?) to take a player of the Wilds choice.

#60 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:37 PM

The weird thing about the Wild is they will have two exposed top four D.
Trading one won't cut it. Do they trade both?

If I'm them, I'm offering the Knights a lot (a first?) to take a player of the Wilds choice.

I was thinking about that also.  If you trade one you might end up losing both.  If you keep both, you only end up losing one.  

Minn is a mess, because of the NMC with Suter, Pommers, Koivu and Parise.  You have to go 7-3-1 protect Spurgeon and Dumba on D.  The other 4 forwards are Coyle, Granlund, Niederreiter and either Zucker or Staal.  If it were me, I'd protect Zucker and expose Staal.  That still leaves Brodin, Scandella and Staal exposed.  I still think you trade Brodin to get assets, because if you don't you lose him for sure.  Why would LV make a deal with Minn when it can get Brodin for nothing.  Move Brodin and then since Scandella and Staal are relatively expensive, then Minn might have some leverage to make a deal.

 

One of the other teams I wouldn't might trying to make a deal with was the NYI.  I like DeHaan and Hickey.  Although it's a very similar situation to Minn. However I think Prince is the one going to get taken from them if DeHaan is traded.


Edited by yse325, 21 February 2017 - 03:49 PM.


#61 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 21 February 2017 - 06:07 PM

The weird thing about the Wild is they will have two exposed top four D.
Trading one won't cut it. Do they trade both?

If I'm them, I'm offering the Knights a lot (a first?) to take a player of the Wilds choice.

 

I have a vague recollection of there being specific rules preventing deals like this.  I know that those sort of deals were part of the last couple of league expansions.



#62 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:28 AM

The News thinks Ennis gets protected and Girgensons exposed, but Ullmark gets taken. http://buffalonews.c...expansion-dice/

LV's GMGM said he is will to auction off other teams unprotected players. What an opportunity for the Sabres. To bad the NHL said they won't publish the protected lists. Capfriendly's tool gets us pretty close, but it's next to impossible to guess what gms are thinking on the last protected spot or two.

Edited by yse325, 19 March 2017 - 08:29 AM.


#63 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:17 AM

How many on here would protect Ennis over Girgensons?

Ennis is older, he costs a lot more, and he has a concussion history.
Girgensons is bigger, stronger, faster and better defensively.

You'd think Ennis is better offensively but he's produced 27 goals and 66 points in the past three years to Girgensons 28 and 62.
I can think of maybe two things the current version of Ennis does better than Zemgus: PP and possibly passing. And we don't need him on the PP.

I know it's easy to remember the player Ennis was and hope, but it's been two years. He's broken.

Edited by dudacek, 19 March 2017 - 09:18 AM.


#64 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,554 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:48 AM

How many on here would protect Ennis over Girgensons?

Ennis is older, he costs a lot more, and he has a concussion history.
Girgensons is bigger, stronger, faster and better defensively.

You'd think Ennis is better offensively but he's produced 27 goals and 66 points in the past three years to Girgensons 28 and 62.
I can think of maybe two things the current version of Ennis does better than Zemgus: PP and possibly passing. And we don't need him on the PP.

I know it's easy to remember the player Ennis was and hope, but it's been two years. He's broken.


Seriously. I can't fathom protection Ennis right now. He's one of the contracts we celebrate if Vegas takes.

#65 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:20 AM

How many on here would protect Ennis over Girgensons?

Ennis is older, he costs a lot more, and he has a concussion history.
Girgensons is bigger, stronger, faster and better defensively.

You'd think Ennis is better offensively but he's produced 27 goals and 66 points in the past three years to Girgensons 28 and 62.
I can think of maybe two things the current version of Ennis does better than Zemgus: PP and possibly passing. And we don't need him on the PP.

I know it's easy to remember the player Ennis was and hope, but it's been two years. He's broken.

Tough to imagine anyone wanting him here next year, let alone protected for expansion.  Further, I want him gone for his own sake too.  It's going to be really tough for him to turn things around at all, but I think it'll be impossible without a fresh start somewhere.



#66 French Collection

French Collection

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ontario

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:32 AM

I like Ennis but he hasn't been effective.
In his defense, he hasn't had many top six minutes, but the PP opportunities have not yielded anything to remember.
I would keep him over Moulson because of his speed, hustle and nifty stick handling but like Matty he cannot win a puck battle.
The business side of our team would be helped by losing Moulson or Ennis. This can free up some dollars to make trade for a top 4 D.

GMTM may package a couple of these guys to LV for an upgrade on D if he can't pry a similar swap with the original team.

#67 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:49 PM

I agree with the News that Ullmark is the player we are most likely to lose, especially if our exposed players all have big contracts or are marginal players like Falk and DeLo.

Craig Button did a mock draft a few months back and said that he'd try to make sure he was at the bottom of the cap range (40 mil approx) and grab as many young players as possible. Ullmark fits that mold as does Girgensons if exposed. Both are also RFA's and therefore don't count against LV mandatory 20 players under contract.

So my question if Murray wants to hold onto Ullmark, and doesn' want to make a deal to protect him, how would you set up the protected list to give LV a more attractive option? If I'm GMGM I'm not taking Ennis if exposed, based on his performance, contract and injury history. If my goal is to stay around the $40 mill floor, then spending over 10% on Ennis doesn't make sense.

In the off-season wish thread, I want GMTM to get a PKing, faceoff winning, 4th line center (such as Jay Beagle). I also want to protect Ullmark. My thought at this point is to expose Ennis, but if LV calls about Ullmark, I'd trade them Larsson and a draft pick or a secondary prospect like Karabacek or Cornel. Assuming a new coach gets more out of Girgensons, I'd rather him then Larsson.

Edited by yse325, 19 March 2017 - 01:02 PM.


#68 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:58 PM

I agree with the News that Ullmark is the player we are most likely to lose, especially if our exposed players all have big contracts or are marginal players like Falk and DeLo.

Craig Button did a mock draft a few months back and said that he'd try to make sure he was at the bottom of the cap range (40 mil approx) and grab as many young players as possible. Ullmark fits that mold as does Girgensons if exposed. Both are also RFA's and therefore don't count against LV mandatory 20 players under contract.

So my question if Murray wants to hold onto Ullmark, and doesn' want to make a deal to protect him, how would you set up the protected list to give LV a more attractive option? If I'm not GMGM I'm not taking Ennis if exposed, based on his performance, contract and injury history. If my goal is to stay around the $40 mill floor, then spending over 10% on Ennis doesn't make sense.

In the off-season wish thread, I want GMTM to get a PKing, faceoff winning, 4th line center (such as Jay Beagle). I also want to protect Ullmark. My thought at this point is to expose Ennis, but if LV calls about Ullmark, I'd trade them Larsson and a draft pick or a secondary prospect like Karabacek or Cornel. Assuming a new coach gets more out of Girgensons, I'd rather him then Larsson.

It's a really simple solve -- trade them a draft pick (or a player) if they agree to take Bogosian off our books in the expansion draft.  It'd require admitting that we made a mistake bringing him in but that's not a contract we can have on the books if we want to re-sign Kane and our RFAs.



#69 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:22 PM

Ideally, I'd love to give Vegas a useful cheap young player like Larsson of Girgensons, plus in exchange for them taking one of our bad contracts and flipping us the cream of the expansion-available defencemen.

 

Not sure exactly what Vegas will be looking for, but something like they take Bogosian and Scandella in the expansion draft, then flip Scandella to us for Larsson and our 2018 first would certainly interest me.

 

We upgrade our top four and dump a contract. They can eat the contract with a guy who they can afford and might rebound in exchange for a young, cheap third-line centre and a nice asset for their prospect pool.


Edited by dudacek, 19 March 2017 - 01:24 PM.


#70 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:32 PM

With Asplund coming and ROR, Eichel and Reinhart on the roster, and 4th line centers readily available, Girgensons and Larsson are expendable for a price. We have talked about how awful LV's offense is projected to be. Would you trade them both for a D?

#71 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:43 PM

With Asplund coming and ROR, Eichel and Reinhart on the roster, and 4th line centers readily available, Girgensons and Larsson are expendable for a price. We have talked about how awful LV's offense is projected to be. Would you trade them both for a D?

 

It would depend on the D we're getting and if Reinhart plays at centre.

But under those circumstances — say Larsson, Girgensons, Bogosian for Scandella — absolutely.

 

Would you?


Edited by dudacek, 19 March 2017 - 01:43 PM.


#72 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:04 PM

That's fine with me, but it means that Gorges likely returns.

#73 dudacek

dudacek

    Graveyard-whistle-past-er

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:11 PM

That's fine with me, but it means that Gorges likely returns.

 

But you've also got $5-6 million (+ Scandella -Bogo and Kuli) to spend on another D.

Add that guy to Risto, Scandella and McCabe in the top four and I can live with Guhle, Antipin*, Falk and Gorges as the next four

 

*Or a similarly priced puck-moving FA


Edited by dudacek, 19 March 2017 - 02:45 PM.


#74 Sabres Fan In NS

Sabres Fan In NS

    I'd rather be in Sarajevo, or Istanbul (not Constantinople)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:16 PM

That's fine with me, but it means that Gorges likely returns.

 

He is under contract for next season and has played well, so why would he not be back?



#75 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:20 PM

Scandella would be a great partner for Risto. Only issue, with Guhle, McCabe, Scandella, Antipin, plus Gorges and Falk, you have 6 lefties. So much for GMTM's balance.

He is under contract for next season and has played well, so why would he not be back?


Slow, slow and slower

#76 ct fab

ct fab

    Top Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:26 PM

Hallmark may not be taken, depends on the needs of last Vegas, salary cap or otherwise. Thank God vogl isn't our GM, protecting Ennis over girgs is idiotic as is protecting BOGO over a bag of pucks. He claims he's protecting BOGO due to depth. Well, clear 5.3m off my cap and I'll find a way to get depth. Plain stupid. You could sign 2 UFA dman for the price of BOGO and they wouldn't suck as bad as him. Vogl didn't even mention you can have side deals with Las Vegas. Why not offer them a 3rd rounder to take either BOGO or Moulsen?? They need to take on a ton of cap money anyway

#77 yse325

yse325

    Fourth Liner

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:35 PM

There is another young RD that might come available in expansion who could be an interesting pickup is Fla's Alex Petrovic. He is big, has decent possession numbers, is mobile and kills penalties. Sounds like a perfect 3rd pairing guy for us.

#78 pi2000

pi2000

    The Church of Moulson

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:46 PM

no doubt TM tries to shed those contracts but I dont see VGK biting on the Bogo or Moulson deals.... Ennis maybe.

#79 Saratoga Sabres Fan

Saratoga Sabres Fan

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ballston Lake, NY

Posted 19 March 2017 - 07:44 PM

I'm indifferent to expansion but the team name screams 70s WHA and this amuses me.

#80 SabresBaltimore

SabresBaltimore

    Prospect

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

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:00 PM

I'm indifferent to expansion but the team name screams 70s WHA and this amuses me.


It's the name of my college team. So I find it rather strange.