travel_dude
-
Posts
52,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by travel_dude
-
Perhaps the Preds should have traded RInne for CJ or Elliott, since they are able to beat the Pengies. We have to find that goalie that can beat the Ducks. Nothing else matters.
-
I don't think anything has changed since Darling and Bishop were signed.
-
I think that right now nothing it set in stone. Teams are looking at different scenarios and talking to Vegas about them. Their initial ask is going to be high for anything they have to trade to other teams. Things will change. Especially when Vegas starts announcing deals as early as next week. The picture is too muddy right now to commit to a particular strategy. I would also say that Vegas will have at least one goalie available for trade June 21st. What I can't say is that any avilable from Vegas would be any good. If they pick Grubauer and MAF and Korpisalo, then the lesser will be available. Swap in Raanta for Korpisalo, and the cost for Raanta would be much higher because of the teams needing a goalie. NY needs a backup. CGY needs a starter. WPG could be in the market. I don't see the cost being lower.
-
Pretty big gamble for a new team. Sure they may have tentative deals worked out, such as they take Raanta and Gru, then trade each to the opposite team or whatever. What happens if either of those teams protects the goalie or trades prior to the draft? Out the window. With New York, why wouldn't they just offer a 4th to LV to get them to not take Raanta. Or trade Raanta to a team for something they can use. D-men are a bigger currency for Vegas. They can trade any of them prior to FA. Because they are already signed to at least a year, they have more immediate value and a lower cap hit (in most cases). For instance, if they picked up around 5 or 6 top 4 guys, they could flip one to EDM for Eberle easily. Backup or lesser starters will not fetch that. BT is playing a game of chicken right now. And he knows it. If he can make a reasonable deal right now, then he needs to do it.
-
5-6 goalies? I don't get it. NY doesn't protect Raanta and as a result has to make a trade to get him back? Vegas gets stuck with excess goalies, while teams in need sign free agents or waits until Vegas has to waive them at the start of the season? I get why BT makes those kind of comments. Keep the bidding wars quiet. You still go about your job calling other GM's. Why would he say, hey we need a goalie and want one by the draft. If he stated that and didn't manage to trade for one, he would have failed in the public eye. He went into the draft last year saying they would have one by the end of the draft, and came close to overpaying for MAF or signing Bishop to a long term deal. He lucked out by getting a goalie that wanted to be traded. We've missed out on two trades already. How many other teams will scoop him if he waits till the summer.
-
Gru would be protected, as long as we offered offered a QO. You can't expose a UFA goalie. He has to be a pending RFA or signed. Logic would suggest you don't need to protect a goalie, but I have yet to find anything definitive on it. I will say this; if you have two goalies under contract, you can't expose both. That would be silly. Unless there is nobody good available, this approach doesn;t make a lot of sense. It may be true, but why would you wait? Vegas isn't going to trade you a good one. The one left unpicked will likely be leftovers.
-
I posted a quote from a hockey site, not the rulebook. No point in taking the literal interpretation of it. Another site I looked through stated that CGY had to sign (or trade for) a NHL goalie prior to providing the protection list. Neither Rittich nor Gillies meet the rquirements. It's pretty vague, but I don't think you simply can choose not to protect a goalie.
-
Sorry, but that is only one side of the equation. For teams already in the league, they will have to submit a protected players list that Vegas won’t be able to draft from. To do this, they will have two options. They can either choose to protect: Seven forwards, three defencemen and one goaltender Eight skaters (forwards or defencemen) and one goaltender. Players who currently have no-movement clauses as a part of their contracts at the time of the Expansion Draft (and refuse to waive it) have to be protected by their respective franchise and will count towards the team’s protected list. To add to that, all first and second-year professional skaters (including unsigned draft picks) will not be available for Vegas to select from and won’t be counted as part of the protected player’s list. Clubs must submit their protected lists by 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on Saturday, June 17, 2017. So, my question remains. What is the penalty for not having enough players to protect; ie. no goalie.
-
Just have to ask this question about the expansion draft. June 17th at 3pm EDT, the teams have to supply their protection list to the NHL(not the exposure one due on the 18th at 8am). We don't have any goalies that qualify for that. What happens if we don't have one by then?
-
Spent a good portion of the season complaining about our previous choices. Spent since the end of the playoffs looking at who was available or who we should be looking at. The bolded is too true. Biggest decision this year. And that's all we seem to be able to be hopeful; better than average goaltending. Surprisingly, we made the playoffs after a dreadfull start and a bad January. We were actually one of the few teams in NHL history that made the playoffs that wasn't in a playoff spot by American Thanksgiving. This with Hiller quality goaltending at times. Had we had 6 months of March Elliott, we would have been in 1st in the Pacific, if not the West. Goaltending will not solve everthing. Averaging out the PK. Limiting pucks available for 2nd and 3rd chances. Clearing the darn puck on the 1st attempt. More consistent PP throughout the year. Utilizing players based on their abilities, not trying to just get them going. Just a few things that are just as effective with average goaltending as a star goalie is by themselves.
-
Listening to rumors and GM's comments prior to the draft is a fool's errand. GM's positioning, people with nothing else to sell copy, etc. I am sure there will be some surprise players available. And MAF's wife going to Vegas is nothing to draw conclusions from. She could be there on a girl's trip. Even if she was there to scout out schooling and houses, there's also a good chance she tells MAF no way. Not like being stuck in EDM in the dead of winter, but you have to wonder how much the city is family oriented. BT has likely called about every single goalie's GM on his "A" list to see what they want for him. Who we end up with is another story. I would like to think that we will now on or about June 17th. And like the Elliott trade, we will probably be surprised. The backup spot should occur early July, but is also dependent on who they get for the #1 spot. If I had to guess, I would say it's down to Raanta, Grubauer, Saros, Schneider, and Mrazek, assuming the latter three are even available. If we got one of the first three, the backup/1b spot goes to Mason or Elliott, whoever signs for the cheapest/shortest deal.
-
You are probably accurate in saying that Raanta will want to be a starter by the time his contact ends. Losing him to expansion may mean not losing someone else. But, there may be someone else they would prefer to lose for nothing.
-
I wasn't trying to insult, BTW. I have a little more time for Elliott than a lot of people here, but he isn't plan A for me. He may be in fact who we sign as a 2nd goalie, but he would be behind a capable goalie. He could still outbattle whoever we got, just not banking on it.
-
A 2018 3rd rounder for Elliott. That is the known. There are arguments to be made that we wouldn't have to pay that if signed in FA, but I haven't seen anything factual about it. To put it another way: Elliott = 3rd rounder Mason = cash only Unnamed UFA goalie = cash only I'm waiting for the bus. It's scheduled to be here sometime aftre the end of the SCF.
-
Some teams are rebuilding. Many do not like Schneider (or at least don't see him as a quality one), but there is some rumblings that he could be available. Mrazek could be available, depending on how the Wings look at their future (and Coreau). Probably significant return on these guys, yes. But the point is that they could be available. I personally don't see Mrazek available. The potential is more likely. And that is what I am focusing on. Bring in a solid 1b guy with him, so you aren't left with just the potential guy. I was never on the MAF train, since I think PITTS wants too much, and he has a lot of miles on him. He may have two really good seasons left in him, but again that leaves us pinning our hopes on Gillies, Parsons and Rittich. There are so many being discussed here, I don't think anyone is really saying anything other than "what if". Yes, I do. Will the deal get done? Anyone's guess.
-
Nowhere did I say he was the worst possible option. His struggles are documented, but I am not coming down hard on him for playoff woes or the start of the season. If you find someone better, then you should do so. Elliott will cost a 3rd + whatever term/dollars you need to pay. I don't think they would re-sign him to a 3 year deal, so we have not solved the problem long term. If, and it's a big if, you can find the next Jones or Talbot, then you have the luxury of fixing the problem short and long term. If that goalie is not available for the right price, then you move on.
-
Elliott/Mason as a tandem wouldn't be the end of the world. But, there are very few times in the NHL that a potential or bonafide starter could be available at a reduced cost (affordable, anyway). If none are available, then so be it. Bandaids are fine, but they really hurt when you leave em on and rip them off. Build from the net out. Solidify the position, then down the road you can figure out if your depth can handle the job. Ortio seemed promising. Gillies did coming right out of college. Parsons looks good. Rittich is a surprise. I would rather that we sign the 1a/1b now and let one of the prospects take place of the lesser of the two in a couple/three years.
-
I know what he said. I agree with it. You can't blame the goalies for the loss in the playoffs. I am of the opinion that you say that regardless of how you think. It was a team loss. The bandaid approach won't work anymore. We need a starter. Find the best one available and go for it. If it involves the 3rd in 2018, then forgo re-signing Elliott within the terms of the original trade.
-
I don't think the team blames him. He was responsible for being the last line of defense, but where was the first line of defense? I do think it comes down to asset management. If Elliott costs you a 3rd in 2018, does BT value that more than the difference between Mason and Elliott? To me, the most important thing right now is getting a top goalie to battle for starter. This may be the only chance in the next 3 years to get one, and we can't take the chance of only having a good pipeline, with one eventually being a starter. A surplus of good to great goalies is less of an issue.
-
They can expose Howard. If not chosen, then they can possibly use the 2nd buyout window (Tatar is arbitration eligible) on him or look for a post expansion trade partner. Somebody is going to lose a goale they don't want to. They can retain salary and make it more attractive. The buyout cap hit is between $1.5m and $2,5m over 4 years. Given his age, it would not make much sense to keep Howard and trade Mrazek. Howard's next contract will be a 35+ one.
-
For what it's worth, Capfriendly has the following listed for the condition: *Condition: St. Louis acquires Calgary's 2018 3rd round pick if Brian Elliott signs an extension with Calgary. If that wording is accurate, the condition expires upon him going UFA. The key word is extension.
-
If the choice of a goalie is Mason or Elliott, I would lean towards Mason. Mind you, that is not to be the guy here, just a fall back plan. We need to get a guy ready for full time as the real #1. Gru, Raanta, Saros, whatever. I have faith in Gillies and Parsons, but I don't see either guy ready for a starter role anytime soon. I think Gillies needs at least two more seasons in the AHL to become consistent. Parsons will be loner term. Mason is the stopgap until one of them is ready to become a backup/1b NHL goalie.
-
The big issue for LV is waiver eligibility. They will select 30 players. They will have at least one other player signed by then. Come the roster deadline, they will need to send down a minimum of 8 players assuming they don't trade anybody away for picks or sign any UFA's. Sign 3 goalies, waive one. Sign 11 D, waive 4. Sign 16 F, waive 2. It's going to be a challenge for LV to find 7 players they can send to the AHL without losing them to the waiver wire. Especially if they tap into the FA market. There are only so many players left unprotected that are waiver exempt.
-
What I look at is what they can replace easily for only salary. If they can do that, they gain on the trade. Pick up a 3rd and replace him with a UFA goalie. They are going to lose a player anyway. If they keep Raanta and LV selects someone else, they are still down a player. Probably one not in the long term picture. If they trade Raanta, the odds are still losing the same player, but they have a chip now. They sign a FA backup and they are ahead by that pick. I'm just guessing, but I don't think Raanta ever gets a shot in NY. Lundquist has 4 more years left.
-
It was actually more beneficial for the Flames this season. His injury for the entire year allowed the Flames to overspend the amount of his cap hit for the entire season. Had the doctors ruled him healthy, we would have had to play him or bench him. The NHL enforces LTIR. If healthy, he would have to be on the roster.
