Goaltending

[cross16]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

The problem with that arguement is that Washington could sign someone like Ray Emery in the month left to expose. That's a backup plan if Phoenix Copley doesn't meet exposure regulations (I believe he does).

The Caps pocket a fairly high draft pick or @ lest decent player/prospect (more than worth it)  rather than lose Grubauer for nothing.

 

Copley isn't as of now no as he is a UFA. They'd have to sign him. I'm fairly certain you cannot sign players anymore for this current league year unless they are on your reserve list. I believe the signing deadline for UFAs has passed.

 

but same old thing they are going to lose someone so what are you getting from Grubauer a 2nd? Is a 2nd worth losing both Grubaeur and Orlov when you could only lose Grubauer?

 

 

[Flyerfan52]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Copley isn't as of now no as he is a UFA. They'd have to sign him. I'm fairly certain you cannot sign players anymore for this current league year unless they are on your reserve list. I believe the signing deadline for UFAs has passed.

 

but same old thing they are going to lose someone so what are you getting from Grubauer a 2nd? Is a 2nd worth losing both Grubaeur and Orlov when you could only lose Grubauer?

 

 

Like all others Copley isn't UFA until July 1. So he meets the exposure requirement.

Grubauer needn't be exposed so might as well get something rather than expose him along with Copley unless you value less than the return & the player you expect to lose. (BTW, I'd give up a mid range 1st this year for Grubauer)

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Like all others Copley isn't UFA until July 1. So he meets the exposure requirement.

Grubauer needn't be exposed so might as well get something rather than expose him along with Copley unless you value less than the return & the player you expect to lose. (BTW, I'd give up a mid range 1st this year for Grubauer)

 

That isnt how it works. In order to meet the exposure requiments you either have to be under contract for next season (as in 2017-18) or an RFA who receives their qualifying offer prior the draft. UFAs are exempt from the expansion draft. 

[Flyerfan52]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

That isnt how it works. In order to meet the exposure requiments you either have to be under contract for next season (as in 2017-18) or an RFA who receives their qualifying offer prior the draft. UFAs are exempt from the expansion draft. 

So Wideman & Engelland are exempt?

What stops the Caps from extending Copley on a 2 way minimum contract to meet exposure to garner a return rather than lose Grubauer for nothing.

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, Flyerfan52 said:

So Wideman & Engelland are exempt?

What stops the Caps from extending Copley on a 2 way minimum contract to meet exposure to garner a return rather than lose Grubauer for nothing.

you can sign your own UFA at any time.. like Bishop, Dallas has to protect him now or expose him .. and actually i think he got a NMC.. hes their protected player now .. so yes, WASH could sign Copley now, and that makes him ED eligible

[cross16]

Just now, Flyerfan52 said:

So Wideman & Engelland are exempt?

What stops the Caps from extending Copley on a 2 way minimum contract to meet exposure to garner a return rather than lose Grubauer for nothing.

Yup. UFA only counts if Vegas negotiates a deal with them prior to the draft. 

 

What i I said above. Do the gain something for Grubaeur and then lose Orlov for nothing or just lose Grubaeur because he's a luxury they don't need to replace. You are going to lose a player for free no matter what so why not lose one at a position of the least impact?

[Flyerfan52]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Yup. UFA only counts if Vegas negotiates a deal with them prior to the draft. 

 

What i I said above. Do the gain something for Grubaeur and then lose Orlov for nothing or just lose Grubaeur because he's a luxury they don't need to replace. You are going to lose a player for free no matter what so why not lose one at a position of the least impact?

I guess it depends on the offer. We have no goalie to protect so we could trade Stajan for him so the Caps can expose him.

The Caps could also re-sign Orlov & expose 36 year old Orpik with his 5.5 x 2 contract since they could use a bit of cap room to reload (that'd go a long way to keeping Shattenkirk &/or Oshie).

 

It's early & there are so many variables it's hard to say who will be exposed let alone taken. I just hope BT makes a reasonable offer to try to solve our goalie shortage.

[phoenix66]

Im wondering how many are going to use the Sign and trade scenario?

for example.. to solve the MAF issue with no exposable goalies..

We get LV to sign Johnson , ..  we've now lost our player 

we then trade for MAF, include McCollum in the deal.. PITT now has an exposable Goalie

- LV then trades us Johnson back for the 3rd rounder we no longer have to give St Louis

[Flyerfan52]

8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Im wondering how many are going to use the Sign and trade scenario?

for example.. to solve the MAF issue with no exposable goalies..

We get LV to sign Johnson , ..  we've now lost our player 

we then trade for MAF, include McCollum in the deal.. PITT now has an exposable Goalie

- LV then trades us Johnson back for the 3rd rounder we no longer have to give St Louis

What do we give Vegas to take pending UFA Johnson instead of a player? & LV can't trade a player selected back to the team he was selected from.

[JTech780]

51 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Yup. UFA only counts if Vegas negotiates a deal with them prior to the draft. 

 

What i I said above. Do the gain something for Grubaeur and then lose Orlov for nothing or just lose Grubaeur because he's a luxury they don't need to replace. You are going to lose a player for free no matter what so why not lose one at a position of the least impact?

 

The way I see it working for Washington is that they will protect Orlov and expose Orpik. Even if Vegas takes Orpik, which I think is a long shot, it gives Washington some needed cap space to play with this summer. If they did trade Grubauer, the best player they would have exposed would be either Orpik, Connolly or Nate Schmidt. I think Connolly is a good player, but his replaceable and might be looking for a raise. Schmidt showed up in the playoffs, but ultimately is probably a 3rd pairing guy.

 

I could see Washington going either way with it, but if they like the return I could easily see them moving Grubauer before the draft. 

[phoenix66]

10 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

What do we give Vegas to take pending UFA Johnson instead of a player? & LV can't trade a player selected back to the team he was selected from.

this was in the news last week.. another ability that LV will have 

Vegas can sign a UFA in the UFA window, this will count against the original rights holders selections

That player CAN be traded back to the original team for compensation after the expansion draft is completed 

 

[AlbertaBoy12]

Im really starting to wonder if grubauer is that guy who the flames should be trying to trade for. Obviously he doesnt have the greatest size for a goalie, but hes been very good in a backup role for washington and hes lighting up the world championships right now. Im assuming the sticking point right now is that its hard to give washington a similar deal to what new york got for talbot as we have next to no picks this summer, but at the same time we dont really want to trade our 1st.

 

I would assume at this point matt murray is #1 for the flames and grubauer is #2 in terms of goals to acquire. Im assuming this because of BT comments on ben bishop, I dont think hes interested in going for fleury and I would be surprised to see him go for an older goal in free agency. 

[The_People1]

Technically speaking, we need 2 goalies.  What about,

 

To Stars,

Troy Brouwer ($4.5 for 3 more years)

 

To Flames,

Kari Lehtonen ($5.9 for 1 more year)

Antti Niemi ($4.5 for 1 more year)

 

Cap dump short term for cap dump long term.  Stars could use a RW with Hemsky likely retiring.  Flames need goaltending without long term commitment.

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Technically speaking, we need 2 goalies.  What about,

 

To Stars,

Troy Brouwer ($4.5 for 3 more years)

 

To Flames,

Kari Lehtonen ($5.9 for 1 more year)

Antti Niemi ($4.5 for 1 more year)

 

Cap dump short term for cap dump long term.  Stars could use a RW with Hemsky likely retiring.  Flames need goaltending without long term commitment.

why would we want their Tire fire ??

I agree he's overpaid, but there's way better options out there for 11M/ year 

[travel_dude]

21 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Technically speaking, we need 2 goalies.  What about,

 

To Stars,

Troy Brouwer ($4.5 for 3 more years)

 

To Flames,

Kari Lehtonen ($5.9 for 1 more year)

Antti Niemi ($4.5 for 1 more year)

 

Cap dump short term for cap dump long term.  Stars could use a RW with Hemsky likely retiring.  Flames need goaltending without long term commitment.

 

For one thing Bishop said he was looking forward to playing with Lehtonen, assuming he won't be claimed.

If the choice is Niemi alone, that would be a non-starter for me.  I know that the Stars's bigger issues are defense, so you can't blame it on their goalies, but holy crap, trading for either or both of those guys is a nightmare.  I know the issue for you is eliminating Brouwer, but at what cost.  I would rather give up a prospect to LV to take him, if we don't want him here anymore. 

[MAC331]

19 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Technically speaking, we need 2 goalies.  What about,

 

To Stars,

Troy Brouwer ($4.5 for 3 more years)

 

To Flames,

Kari Lehtonen ($5.9 for 1 more year)

Antti Niemi ($4.5 for 1 more year)

 

Cap dump short term for cap dump long term.  Stars could use a RW with Hemsky likely retiring.  Flames need goaltending without long term commitment.

This has to be the worst suggested trade I have ever seen on here. LOL

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

For one thing Bishop said he was looking forward to playing with Lehtonen, assuming he won't be claimed.

If the choice is Niemi alone, that would be a non-starter for me.  I know that the Stars's bigger issues are defense, so you can't blame it on their goalies, but holy crap, trading for either or both of those guys is a nightmare.  I know the issue for you is eliminating Brouwer, but at what cost.  I would rather give up a prospect to LV to take him, if we don't want him here anymore. 

and i hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the way BT talked about the "unseen things" Brouwer did this year , I get the distinct impression he has no interest in moving him.. outside of maybe not having a protection spot for him and exposing him to LV

[MAC331]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

For one thing Bishop said he was looking forward to playing with Lehtonen, assuming he won't be claimed.

If the choice is Niemi alone, that would be a non-starter for me.  I know that the Stars's bigger issues are defense, so you can't blame it on their goalies, but holy crap, trading for either or both of those guys is a nightmare.  I know the issue for you is eliminating Brouwer, but at what cost.  I would rather give up a prospect to LV to take him, if we don't want him here anymore. 

Talking like Brouwer is a useless player is absolutely wrong. Just because he didn't play as expected this season doesn't mean he won't have a good season next year. Players know when they had an off season or didn't play their best and they challenge themselves. Thisis what I expect from Brouwer next season.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

this was in the news last week.. another ability that LV will have 

Vegas can sign a UFA in the UFA window, this will count against the original rights holders selections

That player CAN be traded back to the original team for compensation after the expansion draft is completed 

 

 

So just to clarify that scenario is for Vegas to take a UFA an another team and then deal them to Calgary using their negotiating window, FF is right you cannot deal a player back to the same team he was already on until January of 2018 (IIRC)

For example, Pheonix roster for the expansion draft really isn't pretty and there isn't much for Vegas to choose from but Flames want Vrbata (argument sake). Vegas negotiates a deal with Vrbata before the draft and then flips him to Calgary. Vrbata counts as Pheonix's selection, Vegas gets an asset in return and Flames get a player before UFA hits. 

 

41 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Im really starting to wonder if grubauer is that guy who the flames should be trying to trade for. 

 

So here is the cautionary tale on Grubauer, His save % against playoff teams over the last 2 years is 0.88 and he has won 5 games (1 this year) against playoffs teams. Now to be fair to him he typically doesn't play against playoff teams so we are talking about 16 games over 2 years so a small sample size. I'm not saying he isn't good but there is a cautionary tale against being aggressive trying to acquire backups based on their numbers. 

 

33 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Technically speaking, we need 2 goalies.  What about,

 

To Stars,

Troy Brouwer ($4.5 for 3 more years)

 

To Flames,

Kari Lehtonen ($5.9 for 1 more year)

Antti Niemi ($4.5 for 1 more year)

 

Cap dump short term for cap dump long term.  Stars could use a RW with Hemsky likely retiring.  Flames need goaltending without long term commitment.

 

Hard no on Niemi at any cost, he's just way too terrible of a goalie and as much as i'd love to lose Brouwer i don't love over 10 million in goaltending.

 

that being said i'm not opposed to where you are going with this but only for Lehtonen, not Niemi. Unofrtunatley it sounds like Dallas is content to keep Lehtonen and buyout Niemi but if they want to say the buyout money I'd gladly discuss Lehtonen. If you could get Anaheim's first rounder and Lehtonen that would be a deal i'd do in a heartbeat. 

[phoenix66]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

So just to clarify that scenario is for Vegas to take a UFA an another team and then deal them to Calgary using their negotiating window, FF is right you cannot deal a player back to the same team he was already on until January of 2018 (IIRC)

For example, Pheonix roster for the expansion draft really isn't pretty and there isn't much for Vegas to choose from but Flames want Vrbata (argument sake). Vegas negotiates a deal with Vrbata before the draft and then flips him to Calgary. Vrbata counts as Pheonix's selection, Vegas gets an asset in return and Flames get a player before UFA hits. 

 

 

No, you trade him back to his former team..   those rules you speak of refer to trades, not UFA signings ..or at the very least Vegas has been given permission 

They could sign Johnson (or Elliot, wideman , .. any of our UFA's) and trade him to us for a return. The signing would count as Calgary's ED loss.

its confirmed, this is a real option 

 

In reality , its more likely in the case of a team that LV doesnt like the choices,   but its a real option 

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

why would we want their Tire fire ??

I agree he's overpaid, but there's way better options out there for 11M/ year 

 

Several reasons.

 

Troy Brouwer is a 25-points $1-mil 3rd liner.  

 

Lehtonen it's a half decent goaltender when you give him Dmen support.  The Stars hardly had D.  If he can return to form, we've got ourselves a starter who buys time for Gillies. 

 

Niemi is a half decent backup.

 

All in all, save cap in year 2 and 3.

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

No, you trade him back to his former team..   those rules you speak of refer to trades, not UFA signings ..

They could sign Johnson (or Elliot, wideman , .. any of our UFA's) and trade him to us for a return. The signing would count as Calgary's ED loss.

its confirmed, this is a real option 

 

In reality , its more likely in the case of a team that LV doesnt like the choices,   but its a real option 

 

So you are saying Vegas could sign Elliott/Johnson etc off of Calgary and then trade him back to Calgary AND Calgary gives up the assets?

 

No that can't happen. Not only that it makes zero sense. 

[The_People1]

42 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

This has to be the worst suggested trade I have ever seen on here. LOL

 

I win the internet! Lol

[AlbertaBoy12]

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

So here is the cautionary tale on Grubauer, His save % against playoff teams over the last 2 years is 0.88 and he has won 5 games (1 this year) against playoffs teams. Now to be fair to him he typically doesn't play against playoff teams so we are talking about 16 games over 2 years so a small sample size. I'm not saying he isn't good but there is a cautionary tale against being aggressive trying to acquire backups based on their numbers. 

Yea I didnt know that.  But im wondering what talbots numbers were against playoff teams before his trade, because im assuming those games against playoff teams were also on back to backs sometimes. Im just assuming based on BTs comments that hes not looking at someone like MAF,, I think hes either going for a younger guy or sticking with our current tandem as a placeholder for our younger prospects.

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

So you are saying Vegas could sign Elliott/Johnson etc off of Calgary and then trade him back to Calgary AND Calgary gives up the assets?

 

No that can't happen. Not only that it makes zero sense.

it definitely can happen ..   in some scenarios it makes sense

its a slight twist on the picks to take a certain player  teams will do .. without picking a player 

 

IF LV isnt high on much on our exposed roster,   they agree to sign the player .. we give them draft picks to trade him back 

both teams benefit

 

in Reality a team like Phoenix makes more sense.. not much they would likely want there