Goaltending

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

yup..like I mentioned before , what would have happened if Anaheim didnt jump the gun and trade Anderson last year .. or even for that matter, what about if St Louis had kept Elliot one more year ...both those series could have been affected 

That one does still baffle me to a degree.. St Louis had the perfect situation.. 2 studs in a tandem, one goes RFA one UFA same time.. protect Allen, trade Elliots rights this year.. im sure the return wouldn't have been much different than the 2nd and Cond 3rd they got from us  

 

Neither team really had a choice. Andersson wanted to start and deserved to be paid and anaheim couldn't afford to give him the deal he got from TO.

Elliott asked for a trade once the team told him they were committed to Allen long term, which IMO was the right move for them to do. 

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not that stats are everything but I find this chart very telling, especially if we want to argue that Elliott is the best fall back. Looking at the chart you'll see that Elliott actually did not have that tough of a job, by comparison, this season and supports the fact that the Flames generally actually played well in front of him (unlike Johnson). Also Grabauer had some of he easiest workload around so again i'm becoming very cautious with the idea he can be a starter. More I look into it, the less i'm convinced. 

MAF also continues to be underrated by most prole here. 

 

also I think Mike Smith should be put into the discussion. yes I know he is old but the fact that he can turn out the numbers he does with the workload he does is impressive. Lots to suggest that he could be an above avg starter here based on how he performs in Pheonix. 

I wouldn't complain about Smith ..  this also tells me run from Neuvirth, his stats were awful this year and supposedly without work..    and there's Reimer again

[travel_dude]

16 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Not that stats are everything but I find this chart very telling, especially if we want to argue that Elliott is the best fall back. Looking at the chart you'll see that Elliott actually did not have that tough of a job, by comparison, this season and supports the fact that the Flames generally actually played well in front of him (unlike Johnson). Also Grabauer had some of he easiest workload around so again i'm becoming very cautious with the idea he can be a starter. More I look into it, the less i'm convinced. 

MAF also continues to be underrated by most prole here. 

 

also I think Mike Smith should be put into the discussion. yes I know he is old but the fact that he can turn out the numbers he does with the workload he does is impressive. Lots to suggest that he could be an above avg starter here based on how he performs in Pheonix. 

 

If I'm reading this correctly, Mason is above Elliott.  

 

This chart is deceptive though.  It shows Jake Allen just slight above Grubauer.  Wouldn't it be true that these two faced similar work as Elliott?  Light and towards the middle (unchallenged/challenged)?

 

I think to get a better picture of it, you have to superimpose win/loss, SA% and GAA to be able to draw suitable conclusions.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If I'm reading this correctly, Mason is above Elliott.  

 

This chart is deceptive though.  It shows Jake Allen just slight above Grubauer.  Wouldn't it be true that these two faced similar work as Elliott?  Light and towards the middle (unchallenged/challenged)?

 

I think to get a better picture of it, you have to superimpose win/loss, SA% and GAA to be able to draw suitable conclusions.

 

Well the point of the chart is to demonstrate workload but most important quantify what type of workload a goalie faces, which is why I find it very helpful. I find a common argument/discussion around goalies is save % etc without taking into account the work load and the quality of the shots against. You right if you want to compare the full situation you would need more context but that is true of any data.

 

NOt sure how its deceptive. It only measures shots against/60 and high danger chances against/ 60 not shot location. So yes Mason is "ahead" of Elliott int he sense they faced similar chances against but Mason more shots. Allen, Grubauer and Elliott and faced a similar amount of shots but varied on the amount of high danger chances. 

[phoenix66]

30 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If I'm reading this correctly, Mason is above Elliott.  

 

This chart is deceptive though.  It shows Jake Allen just slight above Grubauer.  Wouldn't it be true that these two faced similar work as Elliott?  Light and towards the middle (unchallenged/challenged)?

 

I think to get a better picture of it, you have to superimpose win/loss, SA% and GAA to be able to draw suitable conclusions.

I actually Really like this chart.. you are correct that you then have to see what their results were , but it backs up what my eye tests really tell me ..

for example.. MAF and Elliot it has been pointed out had similar SV% and GAA

however .. Elliot faces fewer shots in general and also more of the less dangerous variety then Fleury . MAf faces not only a lot of shots, but the ones he gets are heavier in the scoring chance " variety

Devan Dubnyk, pads his stats cuz he not only faces a light workload, but his team keeps the danger shots away 

 

thats why i mentioned run From Neuvirth.. hes not being bombarded and when he is facing low % chances.. and his stats blew chunks..  grubauer is similar to Neuvirth in workload,  but had great stats .. so hes stopping the ones he should stop

 

also this also tells that teams play different in front of different goalies.. you would think Holtby and Grubauer.. or for that matter Elliot and Johnson would have similar workloads..  but Johnson and Holtby both have higher work and danger then their partners..

[CheersMan]

49 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Well the point of the chart is to demonstrate workload but most important quantify what type of workload a goalie faces, which is why I find it very helpful. I find a common argument/discussion around goalies is save % etc without taking into account the work load and the quality of the shots against. You right if you want to compare the full situation you would need more context but that is true of any data.

 

NOt sure how its deceptive. It only measures shots against/60 and high danger chances against/ 60 not shot location. So yes Mason is "ahead" of Elliott int he sense they faced similar chances against but Mason more shots. Allen, Grubauer and Elliott and faced a similar amount of shots but varied on the amount of high danger chances. 

So in other words, it measures the quality of the team in front of the goalie and not the goalie himself.  Fleury is getting peppered and Budaj is protected by better team defensive?

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

So in other words, it measures the quality of the team in front of the goalie and not the goalie himself.  Fleury is getting peppered and Budaj is protected by better team defensive?

 

I would say that's the easiest way to look at it yes. 

 

 

 

[CheersMan]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I would say that's the easiest way to look at it yes. 

 

 

 

 

Ok -Work Load like the title says. 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

yup..like I mentioned before , what would have happened if Anaheim didnt jump the gun and trade Anderson last year .. or even for that matter, what about if St Louis had kept Elliot one more year ...both those series could have been affected 

That one does still baffle me to a degree.. St Louis had the perfect situation.. 2 studs in a tandem, one goes RFA one UFA same time.. protect Allen, trade Elliots rights this year.. im sure the return wouldn't have been much different than the 2nd and Cond 3rd they got from us  

The Blues still had Shattenkirk (who would have helped if kept for the playoffs), were really tight to the cap & needed to re-sign Schwartz & some lesser lights  before the season started.

I'm sure ideally they would have kept Elliott & Brouwer but that pesky cap means descisions.

 

Elliott's UFA rights would carry no value. We gave up what we did for a year of a goalie. If BT offered his rights he'd get strange looks from the other GMs.

[phoenix66]

12 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

The Blues still had Shattenkirk (who would have helped if kept for the playoffs), were really tight to the cap & needed to re-sign Schwartz & some lesser lights  before the season started.

I'm sure ideally they would have kept Elliott & Brouwer but that pesky cap means descisions.

 

Elliott's UFA rights would carry no value. We gave up what we did for a year of a goalie. If BT offered his rights he'd get strange looks from the other GMs.

oh for sure, at the end of the day there were solid reasons those deals went down when they did.. but it shows the benefit of a quality backup expectation.

 even we *might* have had a diff fate if switching to Johnson earlier had been an option that was used.. but due to his injury and inactivity it was too much of a gamble

[Thebrewcrew]

In doing some reading about the NYR and WSH expansion plans, I can see either Grubauer or Raanta being more difficult to acquire than I originally thought. As of right now NYR will either lose Raanta or Grabner to Vegas and WSH will likely lose Schmidt or Grubauer. Safe to say both clubs would rather lose a backup goalie than a 27 goal Grabner or a potential top 4 in Schmidt. If Vegas claims Grabner and Schmidt, then NYR and WSH really have no need to trade a goalie, and they go from being backed into a corner prior to the expansion draft, to a position of strength. Comparable deals could be the Talbot deal (2nd,3rd and 7th rounder) and Jones (1st rounder and prospect). Given the risk of acquiring an unproven G like Grubauer or Raanta, I would be hesitant to trade this years 1st rounder because I don't want to be without a pick until the 4th round. However if BT trades down with ARI for example and acquires the 23rd OA pick and 35th OA pick in exchange for 16th I would have no problem with it. My proposal would be, 35th OA, FLA's 2018 4th, 2017 6th and David Rittich for either Grubauer or Raanta. What are your guys thoughts?

 

 

[travel_dude]

52 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

In doing some reading about the NYR and WSH expansion plans, I can see either Grubauer or Raanta being more difficult to acquire than I originally thought. As of right now NYR will either lose Raanta or Grabner to Vegas and WSH will likely lose Schmidt or Grubauer. Safe to say both clubs would rather lose a backup goalie than a 27 goal Grabner or a potential top 4 in Schmidt. If Vegas claims Grabner and Schmidt, then NYR and WSH really have no need to trade a goalie, and they go from being backed into a corner prior to the expansion draft, to a position of strength. Comparable deals could be the Talbot deal (2nd,3rd and 7th rounder) and Jones (1st rounder and prospect). Given the risk of acquiring an unproven G like Grubauer or Raanta, I would be hesitant to trade this years 1st rounder because I don't want to be without a pick until the 4th round. However if BT trades down with ARI for example and acquires the 23rd OA pick and 35th OA pick in exchange for 16th I would have no problem with it. My proposal would be, 35th OA, FLA's 2018 4th, 2017 6th and David Rittich for either Grubauer or Raanta. What are your guys thoughts?

 

 

 

NYR has big issues with the protected forwards.  They are unlikely to lose the goalie to the draft, but that isn't going to stop them from dealing the goalie.  They traded Talbot without any fear of loss to a draft.  They don't have a lot to fear losing Raanta, since they have forwards that are much more appealing; Hayes, Fast, Grabner or Pirri.  What they can do is get something for an asset like Raata and replace in FA.  They can also deal Hayes or Fast or Pirri so they only lose the least valuable of them to LV.  Sounds crazy, but they trade Hayes for an exempt prospect.  They trade Raanta for picks and maybe an exempt goalie.  Raanta is coming up to the starter or move on category.  If they keep him, they will lose the chance to get any return at all.  A pending UFA in 2018.  King Henrik will not be stepping down any time soon.

 

Washington can direct attention anywhere they like.  Expose Niskanen or Orpik to get rid of big salary.  If they do that, they would lose a forward like Beagle, Connolly or Eller or their goalie Grubauer.  If it was me, I would get something for the goalie over losing him.  Give LV the choice of the remaining players you don't mind losing.  I know there's many ways at looking at it, but TBH we have no idea of what their GM would do.  I'm just looking at one possible avenue.  

 

[phoenix66]

51 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

In doing some reading about the NYR and WSH expansion plans, I can see either Grubauer or Raanta being more difficult to acquire than I originally thought. As of right now NYR will either lose Raanta or Grabner to Vegas and WSH will likely lose Schmidt or Grubauer. Safe to say both clubs would rather lose a backup goalie than a 27 goal Grabner or a potential top 4 in Schmidt. If Vegas claims Grabner and Schmidt, then NYR and WSH really have no need to trade a goalie, and they go from being backed into a corner prior to the expansion draft, to a position of strength. Comparable deals could be the Talbot deal (2nd,3rd and 7th rounder) and Jones (1st rounder and prospect). Given the risk of acquiring an unproven G like Grubauer or Raanta, I would be hesitant to trade this years 1st rounder because I don't want to be without a pick until the 4th round. However if BT trades down with ARI for example and acquires the 23rd OA pick and 35th OA pick in exchange for 16th I would have no problem with it. My proposal would be, 35th OA, FLA's 2018 4th, 2017 6th and David Rittich for either Grubauer or Raanta. What are your guys thoughts?

 

 

bit of an overpayment -- Rittich could turn out just as good as either of those guys

[Flyerfan52]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

NYR has big issues with the protected forwards.  They are unlikely to lose the goalie to the draft, but that isn't going to stop them from dealing the goalie.  They traded Talbot without any fear of loss to a draft.  They don't have a lot to fear losing Raanta, since they have forwards that are much more appealing; Hayes, Fast, Grabner or Pirri.  What they can do is get something for an asset like Raata and replace in FA.  They can also deal Hayes or Fast or Pirri so they only lose the least valuable of them to LV.  Sounds crazy, but they trade Hayes for an exempt prospect.  They trade Raanta for picks and maybe an exempt goalie.  Raanta is coming up to the starter or move on category.  If they keep him, they will lose the chance to get any return at all.  A pending UFA in 2018.  King Henrik will not be stepping down any time soon.

 

Washington can direct attention anywhere they like.  Expose Niskanen or Orpik to get rid of big salary.  If they do that, they would lose a forward like Beagle, Connolly or Eller or their goalie Grubauer.  If it was me, I would get something for the goalie over losing him.  Give LV the choice of the remaining players you don't mind losing.  I know there's many ways at looking at it, but TBH we have no idea of what their GM would do.  I'm just looking at one possible avenue.  

 

As good a guess as any.

I expect to see big salaries exposed if they don't have/would waive a NMC. Even if they prefer to stay put they are likely safe with a big $ contract for declining performance.

If I was a GM I expose what can be replaced easiest after trading the 1s of value that aren't in the long term future. (Wild & Duckies don't have that option unless they trade all the young, good players they can't protect).

[JTech780]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

NYR has big issues with the protected forwards.  They are unlikely to lose the goalie to the draft, but that isn't going to stop them from dealing the goalie.  They traded Talbot without any fear of loss to a draft.  They don't have a lot to fear losing Raanta, since they have forwards that are much more appealing; Hayes, Fast, Grabner or Pirri.  What they can do is get something for an asset like Raata and replace in FA.  They can also deal Hayes or Fast or Pirri so they only lose the least valuable of them to LV.  Sounds crazy, but they trade Hayes for an exempt prospect.  They trade Raanta for picks and maybe an exempt goalie.  Raanta is coming up to the starter or move on category.  If they keep him, they will lose the chance to get any return at all.  A pending UFA in 2018.  King Henrik will not be stepping down any time soon.

 

Washington can direct attention anywhere they like.  Expose Niskanen or Orpik to get rid of big salary.  If they do that, they would lose a forward like Beagle, Connolly or Eller or their goalie Grubauer.  If it was me, I would get something for the goalie over losing him.  Give LV the choice of the remaining players you don't mind losing.  I know there's many ways at looking at it, but TBH we have no idea of what their GM would do.  I'm just looking at one possible avenue.  

 

 

The most the Rangers will get for Raanta is a 3rd, I just don't see too much demand for guy who is largely seen as a career backup. I think Washington might be able to get a 2nd but will most likely only get a 3rd as well for Grubauer. Both teams will probably go into next year with Cup expectations, so I just don't see the value in losing two NHL players and only recouping a 3rd maybe a 2nd. 

 

I think we are getting too caught up in this idea of losing a player for nothing in the expansion draft, every team is going to lose 1 player. Why trade 1 player just to recoup a mid round pick and then lose another to the expansion draft, now you are down two NHL players. Wouldn't you rather just lose 1 NHL player, especially if that 1 player only plays 20 games a season for you.

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

The most the Rangers will get for Raanta is a 3rd, I just don't see too much demand for guy who is largely seen as a career backup. I think Washington might be able to get a 2nd but will most likely only get a 3rd as well for Grubauer. Both teams will probably go into next year with Cup expectations, so I just don't see the value in losing two NHL players and only recouping a 3rd maybe a 2nd. 

 

I think we are getting too caught up in this idea of losing a player for nothing in the expansion draft, every team is going to lose 1 player. Why trade 1 player just to recoup a mid round pick and then lose another to the expansion draft, now you are down two NHL players. Wouldn't you rather just lose 1 NHL player, especially if that 1 player only plays 20 games a season for you.

 

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.  

[phoenix66]

12 hours ago, JTech780 said:

I think we are getting too caught up in this idea of losing a player for nothing in the expansion draft, every team is going to lose 1 player. Why trade 1 player just to recoup a mid round pick and then lose another to the expansion draft, now you are down two NHL players. Wouldn't you rather just lose 1 NHL player, especially if that 1 player only plays 20 games a season for you.

Every team is different, a team like the Ducks for example are a good candidate for just biting the bullet and losing one, because they are likely going to have to expose multiple players they dont want to lose. They may likely have to buy out Bieksa, and receive no cap relief whatsoever(due to his age) just to protect one of the other in danger defensemen

Other teams are in a position to expose players they have no regrets to lose and in many cases WANT to lose . So teams like that , who may have  a player that is more valuable than the rest will move that player for a return , to leave Vegas picking from the desired pile.

 

Take Calgary..let's a assume for a second that Brouwer had a Great year (i know its hard..but try).. but due to the numbers he was still on the outside of the protection list . In that scenario vegas zones in on him and we are still stuck with Stajan, Bouma, Bartkowski. players for arguments sake we want to lose..  it makes a ton of sense to trade Brouwer and get vegas to pick from the scrap pile

 

Then you have the Pittsburgh conundrum..  unless you subscribe to the theory that MAF wants to go to Vegas (I dont , but I'm fastly becoming the minority).. he's going to cause you to lose Murray, who they emphatically want to keep.. so you have to move him to protect Murray.. even tho yes, you will lose one more player on top of MAF

 

you are totally correct that some teams have no desire to just trade any guy due to expansion .. but of the 30 teams involved, there are a number that need it as an option. It comes down to whether they see that player as a high danger to be chosen and who else they have to expose .

I have to give BT a lot of credit .. of who we speculate will be available , there isnt one I'm gonna cry about over losing , he has managed his roster well to not be in a bad situation

 

In terms of NYR and Raanta.. i think he falls in that category -- hes younger, hes good and he's cheap.. and they have an abundance of bad contracts they'd love to lose instead I'm sure..  so he could be trade bait quite easily

[The_People1]

Every team will lose one player from the expansion draft so why would some teams want to lose two by making a trade?

 

Because they get nothing when they lose a player from the expansion draft but they will get assets back when they lose a player in a trade.

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Every team will lose one player from the expansion draft so why would some teams want to lose two by making a trade?

 

Because they get nothing when they lose a player from the expansion draft but they will get assets back when they lose a player in a trade.

 

Don't disagree but then I would argue the price needs to reflect that you are likely losing 2 players not 1. If you want to call up the Rangers and offer them a 1st round pick for Rannta I guarantee they make that trade even knowing they would lose Grabner. Call them up and offer them a 3rd I bet they say no because why lose 2 players and only get a 3rd rounder? It's all value. I don't think the idea that you will be picking up players for "cheap" because of the expansion draft is correct.

 

The main issues with the expansion draft and trades are exposure requirements and protection lists. There are just not enough teams IMO that can make trades safely without jeopardizing the exposure rules or their own roster. 

 

 

[cross16]

26 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

 

I have to give BT a lot of credit .. of who we speculate will be available , there isnt one I'm gonna cry about over losing , he has managed his roster well to not be in a bad situation

 

Not that I want to suggest i'm being negative towards BT but I don't think he deserves credit here. The Flames are in good shape for the expansion draft because they have a talent deficient organization, not because they were well managed in preparing for it. You get in "trouble" with the Expansion draft because you have a lot of good players so I don't think you should criticize an organization for being good at their jobs.

 

Flames aren't there but hopefully they will be in a few years. 

[MAC331]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

Not that I want to suggest i'm being negative towards BT but I don't think he deserves credit here. The Flames are in good shape for the expansion draft because they have a talent deficient organization, not because they were well managed in preparing for it. 

What can one say anymore, we have a fortunate position and what will be, will be. We can protect the players important for going forward and this is the important aspect.

[JTech780]

28 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Every team is different, a team like the Ducks for example are a good candidate for just biting the bullet and losing one, because they are likely going to have to expose multiple players they dont want to lose. They may likely have to buy out Bieksa, and receive no cap relief whatsoever(due to his age) just to protect one of the other in danger defensemen

Other teams are in a position to expose players they have no regrets to lose and in many cases WANT to lose . So teams like that , who may have  a player that is more valuable than the rest will move that player for a return , to leave Vegas picking from the desired pile.

 

Take Calgary..let's a assume for a second that Brouwer had a Great year (i know its hard..but try).. but due to the numbers he was still on the outside of the protection list . In that scenario vegas zones in on him and we are still stuck with Stajan, Bouma, Bartkowski. players for arguments sake we want to lose..  it makes a ton of sense to trade Brouwer and get vegas to pick from the scrap pile

 

Then you have the Pittsburgh conundrum..  unless you subscribe to the theory that MAF wants to go to Vegas (I dont , but I'm fastly becoming the minority).. he's going to cause you to lose Murray, who they emphatically want to keep.. so you have to move him to protect Murray.. even tho yes, you will lose one more player on top of MAF

 

you are totally correct that some teams have no desire to just trade any guy due to expansion .. but of the 30 teams involved, there are a number that need it as an option. It comes down to whether they see that player as a high danger to be chosen and who else they have to expose .

I have to give BT a lot of credit .. of who we speculate will be available , there isnt one I'm gonna cry about over losing , he has managed his roster well to not be in a bad situation

 

In terms of NYR and Raanta.. i think he falls in that category -- hes younger, hes good and he's cheap.. and they have an abundance of bad contracts they'd love to lose instead I'm sure..  so he could be trade bait quite easily

 

I think you will see Bieksa waiving his NMC. His buyout status could be in jeopardy if he is injured, can't buyout injured players.

 

With Raanta, I don't think the Rangers will get enough of a return to make it worth trading him. I think the max return they get for him is a 3rd. I also don't think he is going to get picked in the expansion draft, there are 5 or so goalies that are better that should be available in the expansion draft.

[phoenix66]

10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Not that I want to suggest i'm being negative towards BT but I don't think he deserves credit here. The Flames are in good shape for the expansion draft because they have a talent deficient organization, not because they were well managed in preparing for it. 

Granted he has the benefit of many up and coming players being ineligible, but even tho it wasn't awarded officially until last year , its been known expansion was likely for this year well before that .

You can't discount moves like picking up a goaltender that would be UFA, signing another to a one year contract. It may not have factored heavily into the trade, but I'm sure it factored into not extending either one early . ..Stone being UFA..    granted that was not the sole intention of the moves, but can't deny that factored into the decision...  a poor GM would have ignored that completely and left himself vulnerable to losing more players than we have to expose.

 

I'll add to this as well.. call it a conspiracy theory is you want but I guarantee teams have been doing it . Remember last season we were all concerned about Jokkipakka being the guy at risk?..  Take a guy like Brett Kulak .. nobody could understand why he wasn't being given a chance .. always in the press box when he was a good option to put in ..  I think he was being kept off the radar .. slide him thru the season without any fanfare to hopefully keep LV focus off of him . We knew we have to expose him , if he played when he should have and played well, he'd be gone for sure. he may still, but hes more likely to slide past Vagas now

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I think you will see Bieksa waiving his NMC. His buyout status could be in jeopardy if he is injured, can't buyout injured players.

 

With Raanta, I don't think the Rangers will get enough of a return to make it worth trading him. I think the max return they get for him is a 3rd. I also don't think he is going to get picked in the expansion draft, there are 5 or so goalies that are better that should be available in the expansion draft.

I can see LV choosing 6 or 7 goalies..unless they can pick up a whack of young D.. they'll become brokers - less than 50% of the players they choose will be on the opening night roster 

[cross16]

1 minute ago, phoenix66 said:

Granted he has the benefit of many up and coming players being ineligible, but even tho it wasn't awarded officially until last year , its been known expansion was likely for this year well before that .

You can't discount moves like picking up a goaltender that would be UFA, signing another to a one year contract. It may not have factored heavily into the trade, but I'm sure it factored into not extending either one early . ..Stone being UFA..    granted that was not the sole intention of the moves, but can't deny that factored into the decision...  a poor GM would have ignored that completely and left himself vulnerable to losing more players than we have to expose.

 

Circular argument, but did he do that because of the expansion draft or did he do it that way because his doesn't have the required trade pieces to get higher end talent? The deals you mentioned are low risk deals and picking up lower level talent that really isn't claim worthy for Vegas anyway.

 

either way it's not really an argument i want to have because I don't want to come across like i'm upset with or don't like BT when I do. I'm not criticizing him I'm just stating I think the reality here is the Flames just, at this point, don't have a very rich talent level in the organization and that's why they are in good shape. Reality of a team coming out of a rebuild that has drafted only ok last 5-6 years.