Goaltending

[travel_dude]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

the bolded are the key words.. there is no rule that states they MUST protect one(unless they have NMC), just that they are allowed to . Therefore there is no penalty for not protecting one.

Now, if we didn't pony up one to expose, that would be likely incur a major penalty from the league.. tho nobody has ever said what that is

 

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.

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

you'll have to trust me on this , we don't .. just from the sheer logic aspect of it.. all the league and vegas cares about is who we are making available. The league has already confirmed/ announced the "eligible"  list a while ago.. the protected list simply removes players from that list , leaving Vegas the remaining players to choose from..  hypothetically if a team didn't want to protect any player , they don't have to .

Before we signed McCollum we were in a pickle cuz unless we extended Elliot or Johnson  we had nobody in the system eligible for the draft 

[cross16]

The way i've understood it is protection is option not a requirement. I also would agree it would make no sense to punish a team for making more players available to an expansion franchise.

 

At the end of the day too, Burke and Treliving are smart guys who have been around the block and have already made 2 moves necessary for satisfying expansion draft requirements. If there were rules that you had to protect a goalie I fully expect they would have complied with them already and they wouldn't leave it to chance. 

[MAC331]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

The way i've understood it is protection is option not a requirement. I also would agree it would make no sense to punish a team for making more players available to an expansion franchise.

 

At the end of the day too, Burke and Treliving are smart guys who have been around the block and have already made 2 moves necessary for satisfying expansion draft requirements. If there were rules that you had to protect a goalie I fully expect they would have complied with them already and they wouldn't leave it to chance. 

I would think you have to provide under certain rules and if you don't have a goalie to protect you use up that spot by default and cannot use it for a skater.

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I would think you have to provide under certain rules and if you don't have a goalie to protect you use up that spot by default and cannot use it for a skater.

 

Oh ya. You definetly do not gain an extra spot by not protecting a goalie. 

[MAC331]

3 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

Once we get our goaltending in place we can go back to our normal over analyzing our 4th and 5th round draft picks in the upcoming draft. 

 

Starting to understand what FF52 must go through every year with his Flyers.

 

In all seriousness this goaltedning decision is the biggest move we will make this off season. I truly believe that with better than average goaltending we can be a team that has a good chance of winning the division next year.

I agree the goaltending decision is important for us.

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

Worst case we protect Johnson (you can protect a UFA) & then just don't offer him a contract.

Personaly I'd like to have a goalie worth protecting under contract before the draft as we are 1 of the few that can trade for rights & sign a Grubauer or Raanta knowing we can protect him.

[Thebrewcrew]

Never did hear the conversation, but was listening to the fan yesterday afternoon and they mentioned they had Burke on last week and one of the topics they discussed was expansion. Steinburg said he left the conversation with the impression that CGY will be waiting until after expansion until they decide which way they address the goaltending. If that is the case then likely a move will be made at the draft in CHI.

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Worst case we protect Johnson (you can protect a UFA) & then just don't offer him a contract.

Personaly I'd like to have a goalie worth protecting under contract before the draft as we are 1 of the few that can trade for rights & sign a Grubauer or Raanta knowing we can protect him.

 

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.

 

15 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Never did hear the conversation, but was listening to the fan yesterday afternoon and they mentioned they had Burke on last week and one of the topics they discussed was expansion. Steinburg said he left the conversation with the impression that CGY will be waiting until after expansion until they decide which way they address the goaltending. If that is the case then likely a move will be made at the draft in CHI.

 

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.

[Thebrewcrew]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

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.

Yeah I would prefer they make a decision sooner than later, that was just Steinburg's opinion.

[CheersMan]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

you'll have to trust me on this , we don't .. just from the sheer logic aspect of it.. all the league and vegas cares about is who we are making available. The league has already confirmed/ announced the "eligible"  list a while ago.. the protected list simply removes players from that list , leaving Vegas the remaining players to choose from..  hypothetically if a team didn't want to protect any player , they don't have to .

Before we signed McCollum we were in a pickle cuz unless we extended Elliot or Johnson  we had nobody in the system eligible for the draft 

I agree with this.  I interpret it as you need not protect anyone if you choose, but there is a bare minimum you need to expose.  McCollum was an cheap signing to satisfy the GT position.

[cross16]

17 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

 

This. I don't think the expansion draft is going to make many goalies available and the ones that will be arnt really well worth trading for. Flames are likely better off to wait and I bet that's what they've found out when they've made their calls. 

[Carty]

22 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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 would not expect either Burke or Treliving to say anything different publicly...

 

They don't need to  prematurely start a bidding war with another team that needs to upgrade their goaltending...   They will hold their cards close...

 

That said, if that in fact turns out to be their approach, I will be both surprised and disappointed...   Two of the best potential solutions in net are already gone...  

I agree with your comment travel_dude, for the Flames to wait until after expansion just doesn't make any sense....   Not just because of the draft, but due to competition from the other teams that also want to upgrade...

 

 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, Carty said:

 

I would not expect either Burke or Treliving to say anything different publicly...

 

They don't need to  prematurely start a bidding war with another team that needs to upgrade their goaltending...   They will hold their cards close...

 

That said, if that in fact turns out to be their approach, I will be both surprised and disappointed...   Two of the best potential solutions in net are already gone...   I agree with your comment travel_dude, for the Flames to wait until after expansion just doesn't make any sense....

 

 

same here .. i mean of all the names being bandied about last year , one of the few things we all kind of agreed upon was Elliot wouldn't be made available.. and were surprised when we got him

[Carty]

4 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

same here .. i mean of all the names being bandied about last year , one of the few things we all kind of agreed upon was Elliot wouldn't be made available.. and were surprised when we got him

 

I edited and added this to better explain my train of thought...

 

4 hours ago, Carty said:

Not just because of the draft, but due to competition from the other teams that also want to upgrade...

 

If they wait too long they run the risk of missing out on the best choice(s) for a goaltending upgrade if other teams cut a deal first...

[LouCifer]

Just watched trelivings interview with Lebrun on TSN. He talked about Vegas drafting more goalies than they can use, and that's where a deal could be made. Coincides with steinburgs assessment, and as far as I'm concerned, treliving is rightfully playing hardball with GMs asking for too much in a trade before the expansion draft. Again, it may be just a front, but remember - treliving can work out a deal with New York *or* Vegas for Antii Rantaa (for example). If he doesn't like New York's price, he asks Vegas if they're having a sale on the same player! Lol 

[phoenix66]

22 minutes ago, lou44291 said:

Just watched trelivings interview with Lebrun on TSN. He talked about Vegas drafting more goalies than they can use, and that's where a deal could be made. Coincides with steinburgs assessment, and as far as I'm concerned, treliving is rightfully playing hardball with GMs asking for too much in a trade before the expansion draft. Again, it may be just a front, but remember - treliving can work out a deal with New York *or* Vegas for Antii Rantaa (for example). If he doesn't like New York's price, he asks Vegas if they're having a sale on the same player! Lol 

this is what I was kind of thinking earlier when I said I can see LV taking 5-6 goaltenders.. for example if they take a few of these hot shot backups, (grubauer, Raanta, etc)  right off the bat you got the teams you took one from, in the market for a backup ..

personally I think he's eyeballing Anaheim dmen too and that's where he will have to get them 

[travel_dude]

20 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

this is what I was kind of thinking earlier when I said I can see LV taking 5-6 goaltenders.. for example if they take a few of these hot shot backups, (grubauer, Raanta, etc)  right off the bat you got the teams you took one from, in the market for a backup ..

personally I think he's eyeballing Anaheim dmen too and that's where he will have to get them 

 

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.

[Carty]

If Vegas takes a couple of extra goaltenders, they are still going to keep the best 2...   If they take extras and create a need for teams to get another backup, there will be added competition for the Flames to get the best upgrade possible...

 

The Flames are not in a position where gambling on goaltending for another season is a good plan...   The Flames are in a position to make a deal for the best they can possibly get and protect them from the draft...   I'll be PO'ed and more than a little disappointed if they miss the boat and end up settling for average goaltending (or worse)...   But at this point, I still have faith that Treliving is quietly working on making a deal for the best upgrade(s) possible...

[phoenix66]

27 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

yup, like people have mentioned , one option is to give them return for not picking a certain player ..well then they pick another one.. or as you used an example , they take Raanta from NYR- after the draft maybe NYR makes a trade for Grubauer. but doesn't change the fact Rangers now need a backup goalie. MAF is gone from Pittsburgh.. are they comfortable with their 3rd guy as #2 yet ?

 

as mentioned before,they have 4-5 extra picks over and above their required ratio.. and typically 50% or less of the players chosen by an expansion team are in the organization when puck drops in October. In terms of goaltenders , in 2000 of the 6 goalies chosen by Minnesota and Columbus, only 1 was on that roster the start of the season 

McPhee obviously wants a competitive team come October, but he also wants to start stockpililng a lot of picks

they will pick for them selves(obviously) .. they will be picking players for other teams ,with a deal already made, they will hoard something many teams want and act as a broker(eg the flames could work a deal that says they select Vatanen for the Ducks and the deal is already been made ahead of time to trade him to Calgary for whatever )

If there is a glut of young D available, I can see them hoarding those 1st.. but next is Goalies .. i can see at least 2-3 teams getting a Goaltender from LV before this is through

BT even said in that TSN interview "deals have already been consummated"  with Vegas(by multiple teams.."not necessarily" with the Flames) ..George has said he hopes to start making some public by next week .

 

This is gonna be a circus show 

[travel_dude]

10 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

yup, like people have mentioned , one option is to give them return for not picking a certain player ..well then they pick another one.. or as you used an example , they take Raanta from NYR- after the draft maybe NYR makes a trade for Grubauer. but doesn't change the fact Rangers now need a backup goalie. MAF is gone from Pittsburgh.. are they comfortable with their 3rd guy as #2 yet ?

 

as mentioned before,they have 4-5 extra picks over and above their required ratio.. and typically 50% or less of the players chosen by an expansion team are in the organization when puck drops in October. In terms of goaltenders , in 2000 of the 6 goalies chosen by Minnesota and Columbus, only 1 was on that roster the start of the season 

McPhee obviously wants a competitive team come October, but he also wants to start stockpililng a lot of picks

they will pick for them selves(obviously) .. they will be picking players for other teams ,with a deal already made, they will hoard something many teams want and act as a broker(eg the flames could work a deal that says they select Vatanen for the Ducks and the deal is already been made ahead of time to trade him to Calgary for whatever )

If there is a glut of young D available, I can see them hoarding those 1st.. but next is Goalies .. i can see at least 2-3 teams getting a Goaltender from LV before this is through

BT even said in that TSN interview "deals have already been consummated"  with Vegas(by multiple teams.."not necessarily" with the Flames) ..George has said he hopes to start making some public by next week .

 

This is gonna be a circus show 

 

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. 

[cross16]

32 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

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. 

 

What does everyone think is more plausible.

That Treliving is make a conscious decision to not make a deal before the expansion draft for his own reasons?

or that he's made his calls and found that a combination of availability and prices means that it will make more sense to pursue deals after the expansion draft?

 

I'm in the latter camp 100%. 

[CheersMan]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

What does everyone think is more plausible.

That Treliving is make a conscious decision to not make a deal before the expansion draft for his own reasons?

or that he's made his calls and found that a combination of availability and prices means that it will make more sense to pursue deals after the expansion draft?

 

I'm in the latter camp 100%. 

I think if BT has decided to move away from Elliot and/or Johnson as starter then he will have his new goalie before the expansion draft.  He still has 17 days to get the best deal.  Waiting till after the draft would only make fewer goalies available and those teams that lost their backup will be looking for a replacements.  Prices will go up after the draft. 

[phoenix66]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

What does everyone think is more plausible.

That Treliving is make a conscious decision to not make a deal before the expansion draft for his own reasons?

or that he's made his calls and found that a combination of availability and prices means that it will make more sense to pursue deals after the expansion draft?

 

I'm in the latter camp 100%. 

He knows what he wants, in the preference order he wants it and what he's willing to pay for it. 

There is no " we will wait until X" timeline involved whatsoever 

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

I think if BT has decided to move away from Elliot and/or Johnson as starter then he will have his new goalie before the expansion draft.  He still has 17 days to get the best deal.  Waiting till after the draft would only make fewer goalies available and those teams that lost their backup will be looking for a replacements.  Prices will go up after the draft. 

 

See and I don't agree and would in fact argue the opposite. 

I think in almost all cases the teams that are at risk of losing backup/younger goalies would prefer that they do. There is no team at risk of losing their starter and IMO losing a backup goalie is of the least amoutn of consequence. Easily replaced and then you keep the rest of your team intact so I actually think there are less teams now that would want to deal a goalie becuase they'd prefer to keep them and hope Vegas takes them in the draft. I think prices are higher now becuse if you want to talk that team into dealing them that team is going to price in not just what does the goalie asset cost but what is the cost to me if I deal said goalie PLUS then lost another member of my team. 

 

I think once the expansion draft is over and teams don't have to worry about protection list, exposure rules etc and the fact that Vegas will take a few goalies I actually think you will see more availability and prices come down. There are so few teams that are really looking for goaltending that I don't see the demand really changing that much. The fact that Flames are the only ones that have a protection spot open really isn't the advantage I think people are making it out to be. There are still going to be one of the very few teams looking for a starter once the expansion draft is over.