LouCifer
-
Posts
5,828 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
50
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by LouCifer
-
Some expected posturing by Rutherford, suggesting he has the option to go with both goalies next season... I mean sure, he could be able to convince Fleury to go 50-50 with Murray next season... but what happens after that? What's omitted is what his plans are for the tandem when next season concludes He'll still have to deal with Fleury's NMC and have to convince him to waive it for Vegas... Or, find a trading partner that Fleury is willing to waive for, within a 10 day period, for a starting goalie making almost $6mil and 2 years left on his contract. Quite frankly, that sounds foolish when the alternative is resolving the situation this off-season. But, say what you must Rutherford. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/rutherford-not-ruling-fleury-staying-penguins/ And hey, if expansion doesn't happen, this is all moot anyways. Hi Reimer!
-
Pitt's going to lose one of their goalies, and I will stick my neck out and say that happens with 100% certainty - whether it's to us, or in the upcoming expansion draft (if it occurs at the end of this upcoming season). I really don't see a way out (there is talk Pitt could offer picks to the expansion team to NOT take one of their goalies, but I think the NHL is putting in rules to restrict such occurrences that have happened in the past). Tampa is in less of a predicament than Pitt. Meaning, Bishop is a UFA at the end of the upcoming season. As such, his NMC doesn't count towards expansion protection (just like Wideman for us), and an expansion team would be foolish to pickup Bishop 10 days before he goes UFA and can sign anywhere else. The big concern for Tampa is as Travel_Dude and Phoenix said - all the players they have to sign this off-season and next. They need cap space for that, no way around it. If Stamkos and Bishop aren't in the fold, they've got $7.5mil + $6mil respectively to work with. Heck, they could take a run at Reimer to work along side Vasi at a much cheaper cap than what Bishop is currently making and projecting to make on his next contract. Personally, I like Bishop, but I'm concerned he'll want a raise from the $6mil he's currently making at the end of next season - I don't think that fits for the Flames or Tampa quite frankly. If anything, I like the media attention our goaltending situation is getting. It helps pit GMs with goalies to move against each other to get it done first.
-
2 Things. 1. The Leaf situation. The Leafs acquired Bernier from the Kings at a time when they were the #1 or #2 defensive team in the league. Bernier's stats were inflated as a result, and the Leafs paid top dollar for them. Bernier crumbled under the Leafs porous defense. Reimer, however, played amazing behind a porous defense. So much so, that the Leafs refused to play him because he would help them win games they had no business being in, hurting their chances of finishing LAST and getting the FIRST OVERALL pick. Let's also add that Leafs management would look like they ADMITTEDLY made a mistake aquiring Bernier if they played Reimer over him... politics at play here people. Reimer is a much better goalie than a lot of you believe. In fact, take a look at point #2! 2. Here's an article written by a Penguins blogger about their goaltending situation. So if anyhting, a Penguins bias. Interesting how he compares Reimer's war-on-ice stats to MAF and realizes they're pretty equal... it's good to read the other perspective too. Here you go: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Ryan-Wilson/Updating-Marc-Andre-Fleury-Situation/177/77664
- 13,115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Just some more goalie news to share: The Jets just re-upped Hutchinson today. They have Hellebuyck in waiting, and Pavalec soon to be UFA after this season.
-
Well, we'll find out tomorrow for sure, but given the Anderen trade and the reports from the AP, looks like expansion is happening to Vegas. And if (when) it's announced, Rutherford will have all of what, 10 days to try to trade Fleury to another team before the expansion draft? Plus, Fleury with his NMC gets to pick and choose which teams he'd allow a trade to? Sorry Snowbear, but having that little time plus the restrictions imposed by Fleury's NMC (plus all the media attention it would draw all season long for the team), doesn't sound like the option that's in the best interest of the team.
-
I've been thinking the same thing Phoenix. In fact, If I'm BT, I'm not rushing to make a deal for a goalie... I'd stretch it out longer. I'd wait until the end of the summer if I have to. Make Rutherford sweat. Make him have to have conversations with Fleury, convincing him to play backup or waive his NMC exposing him to a team like Vegas for next season. Or, have conversations with Murray about preparing to be exposed if Fleury refuses to waive his NMC. Make him think about going into the 2016-2017 season with both goalies having that hanging over their heads, and the players in the room knowing the situation. The media attention that would get all year... let Rutherford think about that. Rutherford wants our 6th overall to save himself from losing one of his 2 goalies for nothing? Ha! Beggars can't be choosers. Put Rutherford in the hot seat and let him sweat it out this whole summer about his goaltending situation and the crappy conversations he's going to have to have with both goalies. His price will come down significantly. Calgary is sitting pretty being one of, if not the only, team looking for a starter.
- 13,115 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Yes they can. Though, it's a limited 10 day window, and I'm not sure how many of the other 29 teams would be willing to "help" Pittsburgh out during that timeframe if Fleury is the odd man out. In fact, it would be smart business to low-ball them incredibly at that time. What's that saying about throwing an anchor to someone who's drowning?
-
I'd say it's a much bigger risk to hold on to Fleury until the deadline, than to deal him now while there's more opportunity. You're counting on a team's starter getting hurt for a trade to happen at that point of the season. Once the few teams looking for a goalie this summer have resolved the position, who's looking for a $5.75 million dollar starter at the deadline with term? And if Fleury isn't traded by the TDL this upcoming season, his NMC automatically makes him get a protected spot - leaving Murray unprotected for expansion. Furthermore, I don't think Fleury wants to go into this season knowing that he's a trade candidate all year. I do agree with you on the trade value. I think it'll be a 2nd + something, but I think it has to happen this offseason.
-
You're correct regarding cap space JTech, but they'll be looking to move MAF because of expansion (MAF has a NMC which would leave Murray unprotected).
-
I've seen/heard a common trade scenario involving one of our 2nd round picks + either a prospect/Wideman for Fleury. Given Pitt's cap space (lack thereof) Wideman might not be a fit going the other way. He'd only save them $500,000 for this season. I'd propose replacing Wideman with Smid in that trade scenario. If Smid doesn't play, he goes on LTIR and his cap hit doesn't count at all for the Pens. Also, Carolina re-signed Cam Ward for 2 years @ $3.3 per year ... so, we're sitting pretty I think. We should probably look elsewhere to unload Wideman.
- 13,115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Hey cccsberg. I got my info from GeneralFanager (whom got it from CapGeek) and credited them in my original post. You've stated Fleury has a full no move clause, but you didn't provide or credit your source. Please do so as I've been unable to confirm your claim. If you are indeed correct, that changes things significantly as Pittsburgh's hand would be forced to deal with Fleury in the event of expansion. Thanks
-
Didn't see this posted already, so, just yesterday, some Expansion information came to the surface regarding how No Trade and No Movement clauses would be handled. From Sportsnet here: They’ve also worked through how no-movement protection will be handled – with players that have full no-movement clauses required to be included among a team’s list of protected players. There are varying degrees of trade and waiver protection included in standard player contracts, but those with only no-trades can be exposed. “A trade is a trade, and if you have a no-trade clause it doesn’t mean you can’t be exposed in an expansion draft,” said Daly. In addition: Another important aspect of the conversation is what happens if a team has too many no-movement clauses and can’t fulfill the specifics outlined in the expansion draft rules. Daly indicated the penalty would be “significant.” “It’s a loss of draft picks and/or players,” he said. Also, the league has dropped the % of team cap that has to be exposed for the draft as well. It was originally contemplated that the total salaries exposed by teams would have to amount to at least 25 per cent of their previous season’s payroll. That has since been dropped. To make this relevant in this topic: M.A.Fleury - Limited NMC (starting July 1, 2010, only prevents being placed on waivers); Limited NTC (can designate a list of teams he will accept a trade to) - from GeneralFanager via Capgeek. The way I read it, since MAF doesn't have a FULL no move clause, Pittsburgh isn't forced to protect him in the event of expansion. Thus, Murray can be protected, and they can "explore" trade options with Fleury if they so desire.
-
I'd argue the opposite. They'd be fools to pickup a goalie on an expiring contract that has no loyalty to them whatsoever. If they nab him and he doesn't stick around... ouch! I don't see an expansion team throwing away a goalie pick on a soon to be UFA... heck, they could wait until the window before free agency to talk to Bishop about signing with them without using a pick on him.
- 13,115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
My guess: St. Louis - Allen is the more likely to become available out of the 2 if they choose to let one go - I think they keep Elliott because they still have a Stanley Cup window of opportunity, and Elliott > Allen in the eyes of St. Louis at this point (they preferred Elliott over Allen in these playoffs, and I think that's indicative) Penguins - Fleury is the more likely to become available out of the 2, as much as that upsets me - Even though the GM said Fleury isn't going anywhere in a recent interview, he couldn't have answered that question any other way given that his team is battling for a Cup right now and they may need to lean on Fleury too to realize it. You couldn't possibly drop a bomb like that on one of your goalies when you're challenging for a cup. Tampa Bay - this one is tougher to predict for me. 1. I see this as the most likely scenario *if* Stamkos signs with another team this summer. They keep both - they have a stanley cup window open right now, 2 solid goalies to back them up, and Stamkos' salary coming off the books. Even with expansion, Bishop and Vasilevskiy's contracts both end after next season in which they'll be UFA and RFA respectively. So Bishop doesn't need to take up a protected spot but can be re-signed, and Vasi can be protected. No rush or need to move either goalie. 2. If Stamkos re-signs, Bishop will be more likely on the trading block out of the 2, or they could still keep him and not re-sign him as a UFA due to his cap hit being high, as Vasilevskiy will be the cheaper option. I don't see Bishop taking much of a discount from what he's currently making, especially with his regular season and playoff performances. 3. (Most unlikely imho) If Tampa feels Bishop is their guy, and that Vasi might be sent an offer-sheet, or if he's unhappy in his backup role, or if they feel that their goalie prospect pool is good, Vasi could be moved out.
-
Reading material (yes, I know which website it comes from, but it'll spawn more conversation on this very topic) http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Could-Be-Goalies-Galore-This-Summer/1/77076
-
Anytime there is change work has to be put in. New coaches, new systems, new style of play, new goalie?... we all saw Hamilton's struggles to transition to our systems last year, and we should expect a learning/development curve for next season and potentially beyond. I was simply stating that change is exciting to see, not that I'm expecting success across the board or the Stanley Cup next year.
-
I am personally not too fond of Fleury myself. I'm just attempting to put myself in BT's shoes and measure the options as I think he would. For all the aforementioned reasons - Anaheim not trading Andersen in conference, Murray likely taking the reigns in Pittsburgh, and Tampa likely not trading Bishop with this Stanley Cup window of opportunity open, I'm looking at what's left over. Granted, I did label Fleury a playoff performer - perhaps I should've been more elaborate in that he has a lot of playoff experience and has a cup to his name. You can disagree with me if you want, but I believe that holds added value in a GM's evaluation. That said, I'm guessing BT is going to look hard at Fleury. Our team visibly lacked confidence in our goaltending last year - you could see the deflation when a crummy goal was scored (not to say the Fleury doesn't let in crummy goals - but he's an improvement in the position). Personally, I think the confidence of our team heading into next season hinges on the goaltending position a lot. New coach and new goalie, I think it's going to be an exciting start to the next season regardless.
-
I'm seeing it similarly myself. I mean, my preference would be Andersen or Murray hands down, pending if they're even available to us and at what cost... so more realistically I see it as a 2 horse race between Reimer or Fleury. Both have concussion history which irks me for sure, but here's how I see it: Fleury - You know what you're getting if he stays healthy - Regular season and Playoff performer - Relatively young - 3 year contract @ $5million+ (good term for us, high-ish dollar value but not overpriced for what you're getting) - I can see Fleury mentoring our up and coming goalies Reimer - Having watched him play a lot, he was really a good goalie on a crappy team - He hasn't played more than 40 games over the past 5-6 seasons (somewhat injury prone) - Real high compete level night in night out, small playoff performance sample size - I expect he will be a cheaper option than Fleury - He's more of a gamble, but has high reward potential I think I lean more towards Fleury, but depending on the ask from Pittsburgh, Reimer is a solid alternative option that would only cost us money.
-
Me too. However, I still hold out hope that Murray does get lit up and MAF gets the chance to step in and never let Murray get the crease again. It would be good for PIT management to see that MAF is still "their guy" and hopefully it adds fanbase pressure to keep MAF in the event of expansion.
-
A top priority for the league, and major hurdle, has been taken care of: NHL Players’ Association won't stand in the way of expansion Details have not been released as to how NMCs and NTCs will be handled in the event of expansion yet, and it's my guess the league might not make these details available until expansion is announced. The fact that this has been discussed and resolved gives me the feeling that expansion is going to happen, though it could just be my hope and excitement for it!
-
This is exactly what I've been trying to say, thank you for explaining it perhaps better than I, Cross (and Kehatch!). I don't believe there will be a fleury of goalie activity , but goalies who would otherwise not be available may now have a price tag. And as far as I'm concerned (relating to the bolded text in Cross's post above) the price drops closer to the trade deadline. (I haven't been able to successfully source how many goalies have been traded on deadline day, but I would venture a guess they are of the 'backup plan' ilk, not a Fleury or Murray type)
-
Agreed MAC. I think we tend to look at it that way because of Bishop's salary, and the tendency to not trade young players with high potential. I guess it's easier for me to see a team move out a high priced vet over the younger/cheaper option with similar potential. If Vasilevskiy is available, yes BT should be barking up that tree feverishly as well.
- 13,115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Hey Phoenix, I do agree with you regarding Andersen, as I've also mentioned in a previous post that I don't think we can compete with Toronto due to their Eastern geography and wealth of picks to use as currency this year. Matt Murray - I'm hoping that GM Jim Rutherford sticks to his MO as cited in this article: Rutherford predicted he will have the Penguins job for no more than two or three years. That’s probably a reflection of the franchise’s win-now-or-else mentality more than of his age. “This certainly isn’t a rebuild,” Morehouse said. If Rutherford doesn’t get the team deeper in the playoffs than Shero did the past five seasons — and do it quickly — he, too, will be fired. Rutherford was brought in by Pittsburgh to win another championship. I'm clinging to hope and a prayer that they stick to the goalie that's won them a championship before, and that the heart-strings of Pittsburgh run so long for MAF that they protect him over Matt Murray in the event of expansion - opening up trade opportunities. Pittsburgh doesn't have a 1st or 3rd rounder in this year's draft btw. Go Dallas! Lastly, I've read a few articles indicating TB's desire to turn to Vasilevskiy as their #1, and I don't foresee Bishop re-signing with TB as a UFA (likely at a pay cut because Vasilevskiy's contract will be coming up the following year) and hanging around to split duties with Vasilevskiy. Removing almost $6mil, Bishop's salary will also help TB remain competitive and keep the players they desire. From what I understand, Tampa Bay is not a cap team and this summer they need to do some housekeeping on their end regarding their own RFAs and UFAs like: Stamkos (of course) - and if he walks, yes, they'll have some decisions to make about how to divide that $7mil among the following players: Forwards: Killorn RFA JT Brown RFA V Namestnikov RFA N Kucherov RFA C Paquette RFA J Marchessault UFA (VI) M Blunden UFA Defense: N Nesterov RFA M Taormina UFA Non Roster players: 6 RFAs 4 UFAs From my perspective, there are bound to be casualties in that list... Now, if TB can get rid of Matt Carle's contract ($5.5mil x 2 more seasons) it'll help significantly in this regard.... however, if moving Matt Carle proves difficult, TB can always deal from a position of strength - goaltending. So, IMHO, I believe there is a realistic opportunity to pry Bishop out of TB and I don't think it'll be an extreme cost because - he will be a UFA at the year's end - his salary is pretty high for a team to take on - the financial flexibility TB gains in order to deal with their housekeeping
- 13,115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Getting both would be amazing. And I like what you did there with the hashtag - brilliant!
-
Hi Cross! Ya, this is my interpretation as well. Because the CBA doesn't reference "expansion" at all regarding NMCs and NTCs, I'm left to assume the league would not take the position that NMCs and NTCs are to be honoured during any expansion process. This, relating to my post on Matt Murray, would at least give Pittsburgh the option of protecting Murray over Fleury (instead of being forced to leave Murray unprotected). But again, it puts Pittsburgh in a difficult position and I can't see them throwing Fleury under the bus considering all the aforementioned reasons. Well, I think we can bet that the NHLPA is going to do right by their players and try their hardest to push the league to honour NMCs and NTCs during expansion... so, if the League owes the NHLPA any favours... I mean, if they were going to follow the CBA to the letter, why has it taken so long to release these important details? One might think they'd be waiting for the announcement of expansion to do so, but with so many sports networks out there trying to report on the matter, I think it's still a topic of discussion for the league and the PA. You're right Cross, we'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out.
