Goaltending

[MAC331]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎12 at 11:36 AM, phoenix66 said:

if we have learned one thing from BT , its expect the unexpected ..  whatever unfolds, However it unfolds,  will be met with "how did he do that ".. and as always quite a few "why did he do that"..LOL

but the biggest takeaway from his last 2 years .. is he has it covered one way or the other (whether we agree with the result or not)

Maybe we end up with Elliott and Mason on 2 year deals while we wait for our own prospects.

[travel_dude]

Posted elsewhere:

 

Re: MAF and his waiving of NMC and the NTC issue.

Not sure if this was confirmed, but it was reported that Calgary was on his no-go list.  

[cross16]

FWIW, Treliving at the lunch yesterday did not seem very optimistic about the prospect of having a goalie in place before Friday. Trying, but not optimistic it will happen. 

[MAC331]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

FWIW, Treliving at the lunch yesterday did not seem very optimistic about the prospect of having a goalie in place before Friday. Trying, but not optimistic it will happen. 

I missed the talk regarding a goalie to protect, do we need to have this covered, seems stupid if you are making one available.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I missed the talk regarding a goalie to protect, do we need to have this covered, seems stupid if you are making one available.

I dont think it really makes a difference if we protect elliott or johnson if we have to protect one, the odds of them getting taken are minimial and they become UFAs july 1st, so really not the end of the world.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I missed the talk regarding a goalie to protect, do we need to have this covered, seems stupid if you are making one available.

 

I've seen no suggestions, evidence or credible source that says you cannot protect a UFA. so IMO the Flames will protect one of Elliott or Johnson and be fine.

 

It's not an issue for me

[MAC331]

13 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I've seen no suggestions, evidence or credible source that says you cannot protect a UFA. so IMO the Flames will protect one of Elliott or Johnson and be fine.

 

It's not an issue for me

OK THX

[cross16]

 

[JTech780]

Are goalies starting to look Calgary as a place where careers go to die?

 

I am really curious as to what Detroit is going to do, who are they going to protect? It has to be Mrazek right? So say Vegas gets Howard in the expansion draft, what is everyone's appetite for trading for Howard with Vegas eating 50% salary? He's still a pretty good goalie and 2 years at less than $3m a season is a pretty good deal.

[DirtyDeeds]

14 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Are goalies starting to look Calgary as a place where careers go to die?

 

I am really curious as to what Detroit is going to do, who are they going to protect? It has to be Mrazek right? So say Vegas gets Howard in the expansion draft, what is everyone's appetite for trading for Howard with Vegas eating 50% salary? He's still a pretty good goalie and 2 years at less than $3m a season is a pretty good deal.

Holland answered this question today on the fan 960 sort of. He said Howard adjusted his play and had a good year making his decision on who to keep very difficult. As well he said he had 2 good prospect goalies in the minors....

 

He said he told Vegas he was not interested in giving away assets to have them pick a particular player or to pass on a player. he said they were 20 points back of a playoff spot and had to retain as many future assets as they could.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Well if you trust ray ferraro hopefully that settles the debate on him coming here.

[phoenix66]

2 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Well if you trust ray ferraro hopefully that settles the debate on him coming here.

I'm not even speculating anymore.. i'm just gonna wait the week to see how it plays out .. even Fleury doesnt know whats going to happen .. but doesnt sound like he's already expecting to stay there ..

 

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1318722-fleury-waiving-no-movement-clause-was-right-thing-to-help-the-team

 

 

"With the business side of things in the rear-view mirror, the wait is now on to see where exactly Fleury ends up. While he could be in line to be selected by the Golden Knights, common wisdom would suggest the Penguins will do their best to trade him so they can recoup assets instead of losing him for nothing.

"I've heard my name out there, a lot," Fleury said. "But I don't know. I guess we'll find out soon."

Wherever he ends up, he's simply hoping he can start - an opportunity that was largely lost after Murray stole his job during last year's Cup run.

"I still love the game," he said. "I still love to play. Hopefully, if I can still do that ... it will be appreciated."

[phoenix66]

now this is one of the funniest ones I've seen yet ...

 

https://www.hockeyfeed.com/nhl-news/rumor-major-plot-twists-expected-in-the-marc-andre-fleury-s-case

 

If Calgary is supposedly on MAF's no trade list , I almost Guarantee that Philly is ..

[The_People1]

I believe MAF only waived for the expansion draft but he has to be asked to waive again for the purpose of a trade after he is drafted.  In which case, he could stay in LV and LV is stuck with him.

[cross16]

9 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

I believe MAF only waived for the expansion draft but he has to be asked to waive again for the purpose of a trade after he is drafted.  In which case, he could stay in LV and LV is stuck with him.

 

Not necessarily a bad thing. Read more than a few people who think Vegas wants Fleury to stay, not as trade bait. 

 

Vegas could be looking at a tandem of Fleury and Grubaeur for example. Veteran starters who gives them a chance to win every night plus a young guy in behind they can start giving starts too. Not to mention still take someone like Raanta for trade bait.

 

 

[phoenix66]

27 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

I believe MAF only waived for the expansion draft but he has to be asked to waive again for the purpose of a trade after he is drafted.  In which case, he could stay in LV and LV is stuck with him.

This has been explained.. but I will again ..

Facts

1. MAF has a Limited No Movement Clause-- this means it prevents him from being placed on waivers and/ or demoted to the AHL...Period..

2. He has a Modified No Trade Clause  as well, he has a list of teams he can or cant be traded to.. He does not need to be asked to waive for any team he has already specified as OK..  This is separate from and in no way related to, or affected by .. his Limited NMC

 

There is NOTHING stopping LV from Flipping MAF immediately to a team that is not on his No list .(or for that matter Pittsburgh doing it before the draft..but this does not look likely )

 

All players being asked to waive for the draft are being stated as "for Vegas Only "  for the simple reason as if they gave a general waive, teams could now demote or waive them ..or in the case of ones with Full NMC, traded anywhere .. it was a protection clause put into the rules for the players with these clauses for the purpose of the LV Draft

 

 

as a side note to this , heres another quote I came across..

 

"Some of the players are ok with waiving their NMC to go to Vegas as long as they are being assured they are moving through Vegas to another team..Some players/agents are nervous and not buying the assurances..."

 

has as much credibility as any other rumor/quote out there , but it lends feet to the possibility that he could already have assurances he's being moved .

[MAC331]

15 hours ago, JTech780 said:

Are goalies starting to look Calgary as a place where careers go to die?

 

I am really curious as to what Detroit is going to do, who are they going to protect? It has to be Mrazek right? So say Vegas gets Howard in the expansion draft, what is everyone's appetite for trading for Howard with Vegas eating 50% salary? He's still a pretty good goalie and 2 years at less than $3m a season is a pretty good deal.

To answer our question I think if the message is out there that BT is looking short term then Calgary could be a revolving door. Goalies wouldn't necessarily die here but their stay may be short term. if they trade for someone such as Mrazek and sign him to 5 more years at 5M plus they are making a statement. I'm not sure BT is at that type of commitment stage yet.

[MAC331]

1 minute ago, phoenix66 said:

This has been explained.. but I will again ..

Facts

1. MAF has a Limited No Movement Clause-- this means it prevents him from being placed on waivers and/ or demoted to the AHL...Period..

2. He has a Modified No Trade Clause  as well, he has a list of teams he can or cant be traded to.. He does not need to be asked to waive for any team he has already specified as OK..  This is separate from and in no way related to, or affected by .. his Limited NMC

 

There is NOTHING stopping LV from Flipping MAF immediately to a team that is not on his No list .(or for that matter Pittsburgh doing it before the draft..but this does not look likely )

 

All players being asked to waive for the draft are being stated as "for Vegas Only "  for the simple reason as if they gave a general waive, teams could now demote or waive them ..or in the case of ones with Full NMC, traded anywhere .. it was a protection clause put into the rules for the players with these clauses for the purpose of the LV Draft

I would say see above what cross16 just posted. LV is likely wanting the same thing we are looking for ourselves. A stable veteran and a younger challenger that can takeover in two years. If BT is looking at LV for a goalie I doubt it will be MAF but it could be Grubauer or Raanta.

[phoenix66]

Just now, MAC331 said:

I would say see above what cross16 just posted. LV is likely wanting the same thing we are looking for ourselves. A stable veteran and a younger challenger that can takeover in two years. If BT is looking at LV for a goalie I doubt it will be MAF but it could be Grubauer or Raanta.

Granted , we dont know what LV plans are .. I'm just responding to people saying he'd have to waive again if they did plan to move him.. which he doesn't.

Closest we have to what McPhee is thinking is Bishop saying they looked at LV but got the feedback they were looking Younger, meaning there wasn't high interest in LV signing Bishop..in which case, it would make sense they don't plan to keep MAF either ...

 I think the odds of LV running a Grubauer /Raanta tandem are much higher myself

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

Granted , we dont know what LV plans are .. I'm just responding to people saying he'd have to waive again if they did plan to move him.. which he doesn't.

Closest we have to what McPhee is thinking is Bishop saying they looked at LV but got the feedback they were looking Younger, meaning there wasn't high interest in LV signing Bishop..in which case, it would make sense they don't plan to keep MAF either ...

 I think the odds of LV running a Grubauer /Raanta tandem are much higher myself

To each their own.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

This has been explained.. but I will again ..

Facts

1. MAF has a Limited No Movement Clause-- this means it prevents him from being placed on waivers and/ or demoted to the AHL...Period..

2. He has a Modified No Trade Clause  as well, he has a list of teams he can or cant be traded to.. He does not need to be asked to waive for any team he has already specified as OK..  This is separate from and in no way related to, or affected by .. his Limited NMC

 

There is NOTHING stopping LV from Flipping MAF immediately to a team that is not on his No list .(or for that matter Pittsburgh doing it before the draft..but this does not look likely )

 

All players being asked to waive for the draft are being stated as "for Vegas Only "  for the simple reason as if they gave a general waive, teams could now demote or waive them ..or in the case of ones with Full NMC, traded anywhere .. it was a protection clause put into the rules for the players with these clauses for the purpose of the LV Draft

 

 

as a side note to this , heres another quote I came across..

 

"Some of the players are ok with waiving their NMC to go to Vegas as long as they are being assured they are moving through Vegas to another team..Some players/agents are nervous and not buying the assurances..."

 

has as much credibility as any other rumor/quote out there , but it lends feet to the possibility that he could already have assurances he's being moved .

 

You can choose to interpret things anyway you like.  We all do that.  The simple fact is that MAF was required to be protected, unless he waived.  That he did.  Anything else is speculation on your part, based on the way it's reported.  That is unless you actually reviewed his contract and how it falls in line with the CBA.  Just because Site A says something, does not make it fact.

[phoenix66]

 

48 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

You can choose to interpret things anyway you like.  We all do that.  The simple fact is that MAF was required to be protected, unless he waived.  That he did.  Anything else is speculation on your part, based on the way it's reported.  That is unless you actually reviewed his contract and how it falls in line with the CBA.  Just because Site A says something, does not make it fact.

Where is the interpretation ?  His NMC meant he had to be protected for the Vegas Draft, absolutely .. he waived it for the purpose of the draft only ,,meaning he is now eligible to be exposed , and possibly selected by LV....  hes not , however , eligible to be placed on general waivers . he waived for LV Exposure only ..that part is pretty clear.

The LV was outlined that ALL NMC players had to be either protected , or they had to waive ..the LV draft is not a trade, its basically waivers with only 1 team participating

 

If Pittsburgh or later LV wants to TRADE him,  they can do so based on the list he provides every July ..he's not waiving anything , nor do they need his further permission , cuz he's already given it ..Unless, its a team on his NO list .. then he has to waive 

 

Iggy for example had JUST a NMC.. he had to sign on any moves.. right down to last refusal even tho he gave a courtesy list to Feaster..  Sidney and Malkin also have Just a NMC

MAF has a Limited NMC + A modified NTC.. it's not rocket science

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I would say see above what cross16 just posted. LV is likely wanting the same thing we are looking for ourselves. A stable veteran and a younger challenger that can takeover in two years. If BT is looking at LV for a goalie I doubt it will be MAF but it could be Grubauer or Raanta.

 

The other thing to consider is, what does LV expect to get from a MAF trade?  If it's a young D, then why don't they just draft Dumoulin and be done with it?

 

If LV expects more from the Flames, then do we want to pay that price?

[phoenix66]

18 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

The other thing to consider is, what does LV expect to get from a MAF trade?  If it's a young D, then why don't they just draft Dumoulin and be done with it?

 

If LV expects more from the Flames, then do we want to pay that price?

absolutely agreed..

at this point we dont know what , if any deals have been worked out ..  no idea .. there is so much speculation , opinions, rumors and garbage floating around that I'm just seriously gonna sit back now and wait and see how it shakes out.. discuss the merits of what happens after 

We all have our favourites and good reasoning as to why we want that ...right now the only thing I can say with 98% certainty is a week from Sunday at the latest we should have it all answered.. I can be patient for 9 days

If we dont end the draft with 2 goaltenders, then its obvious we're either resigning Elliot and/ or Johnson or grabbing a free agent or 2

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

MAF has a Limited NMC + A modified NTC.. it's not rocket science

 

Are you sure about this?  Have you read his contract?  What exactly is a limited NMC?