Yeah you're not getting him in a deal centered around MAF. Now if they were to move Malkin that is the type of player + I would base the deal around.
- sammy87

I was talking about a deal based around Murray, not Fleury.

Yeah you're not getting him in a deal centered around MAF. Now if they were to move Malkin that is the type of player + I would base the deal around.
- sammy87

Love the armchair GMs around here. Why o why do you ever move Malkin right now? I have yet to hear a decent reason.

It's like: Chicago, you just won the 2013 (or 2015) Stanley Cup! Ok, time to trade Jonathan Towes or Patrick Kane! Why not? Just because!

Why would anyone do that? The organization committed to Malkin through 2022, at a near record salary, he appears to like Pittsburgh and has a huge home in the South Hills suburbs where his wife, son, and parents live. He just won the Stanley Cup on a team that's an 8-1 favorite to repeat.

Can we stop this idiocy (which I know is trolling us Pens fans, trying to reduce our joy at our team smoking the league and its "heavy" concept), unless it can be backed up with a serious reason why the player or the club would want to pull the trigger? Is there some secret reason nobody knows about or that we are missing?

I'm starting to think that whatever MAF trade ends up happening will come out of complete left field and will be something no one thought of. The most predictable trade the The Old Man has made was for Phil Kessel and even that one a lot of people didn't see coming in that form.
- Victoro311

And if history is a precedent, we will question the return and then it will pan out well.

Carolina seemed like the dark horse prior to signing Cam Ward.

I'm sure this has been beat to death in the last 25 pages but if you don't trade MAF now, then IMO you're accepting the loss of Murray next summer to expansion.

The likelihood of a playoff team needing a starting goalie at the deadline next year is minimal at best.... so if he's not traded by the draft or at some point this summer, you might pigeon hole yourself into taking a 4th for him and nothing more to avoid losing Murray.

Also you can't really find out what you have in Murray unless you play him..... so unless Fleury is content with getting 30 starts this season as a backup, he's going to want out ASAP.
- Yonk1216

Trade deadline reevaluate goalie situation.

I was talking about a deal based around Murray, not Fleury.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Even that, I dont think Murray lands someone like Bennett. Too bad the AVs have Varly locked up for a long time.

Craig Custance ‏@CraigCustance 3m3 minutes ago
Goligoski deal is done. Stars get 2016 5th-round pick in return from Arizona for negotiating rights to defenseman Alex Goligoski.


I hope he signs somewhere else

You think Carolina would do that? That'd be very enticing.
- Victoro311

No way Carolina does that! Sure Murray had a good playoff, but I don't think teams are willing to give up top prospects for a small sample size. Hanifin is a no go, he is there to stay. And forget about the #6 for Murray. Pittsburgh would definitely have to sweeten the pot substantially.

Craig Custance ‏@CraigCustance 3m3 minutes ago
Goligoski deal is done. Stars get 2016 5th-round pick in return from Arizona for negotiating rights to defenseman Alex Goligoski.


I hope he signs somewhere else
- YouMeAndDupuis9

i didnt know teams even still did that.

Craig Custance ‏@CraigCustance 3m3 minutes ago
Goligoski deal is done. Stars get 2016 5th-round pick in return from Arizona for negotiating rights to defenseman Alex Goligoski.


I hope he signs somewhere else
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Wasnt he one of their best Dmen?

Dude MAF is auto protected until proven otherwise.
- Victoro311

Couldn't Fleury be traded after next season? Buf, Phi, Stl, Tor, Van and Winn will have goalie contracts expiring and could trade for Fleury and stoll protect him in the expansion draft

I'm sure this has been beat to death in the last 25 pages but if you don't trade MAF now, then IMO you're accepting the loss of Murray next summer to expansion.

The likelihood of a playoff team needing a starting goalie at the deadline next year is minimal at best.... so if he's not traded by the draft or at some point this summer, you might pigeon hole yourself into taking a 4th for him and nothing more to avoid losing Murray.

Also you can't really find out what you have in Murray unless you play him..... so unless Fleury is content with getting 30 starts this season as a backup, he's going to want out ASAP.
- Yonk1216

Yeah that's the thing. Either you risk the crappy return of Fleury or trade Murray at the deadline for a good return.

Couldn't Fleury be traded after next season? Buf, Phi, Stl, Tor, Van and Winn will have goalie contracts expiring and could trade for Fleury and stoll protect him in the expansion draft
- willi

Possibly (but obviously before the expansion), problem with that is you are waiting for the last minute where everyone likely fixed their goalie issues (most of those teams listed would have gotten Andersen, Bishop, etc). And if Fleury refuses to waive to the only teams that made an offer then YOU HAVE TO protect Fleury and just lost Murray.

Couldn't Fleury be traded after next season? Buf, Phi, Stl, Tor, Van and Winn will have goalie contracts expiring and could trade for Fleury and stoll protect him in the expansion draft
- willi

He could be, but that means MAF is cool with being a backup which he most likely is not.

Also means Pens will most likely need to dump someone else.

In a normal scenario Fleury for Frolik would be fair.
But the thing is Calgary now has massive leverage with the expansion draft. Essentially, the better goalie you have, the more you have to trade him.

On the top of my head, Bishop, Fleury, Elliot, and Andersen are all up with Vasilevsky, Murray, Allen, and Gibson which aren't going anywhere.

So those 4 goalies will need to be traded to either Calgary or Dallas, or risk going for free. Dallas can't afford Bishop or Fleury, so in a cutthroat business and in all honesty, Calgary could offer a 3rd/4th round pick for Bishop/Fleury, because a 3rd/4th > nothing

I'm sure this has been beat to death in the last 25 pages but if you don't trade MAF now, then IMO you're accepting the loss of Murray next summer to expansion.

The likelihood of a playoff team needing a starting goalie at the deadline next year is minimal at best.... so if he's not traded by the draft or at some point this summer, you might pigeon hole yourself into taking a 4th for him and nothing more to avoid losing Murray.

Also you can't really find out what you have in Murray unless you play him..... so unless Fleury is content with getting 30 starts this season as a backup, he's going to want out ASAP.
- Yonk1216

So wait, in your 1st paragraph you suggest that if they don't trade Fleury now they're already accepting that Murray is lost but in the 2nd paragraph you say they may force themselves into a scenario of having to take a 4th for Fleury, are you suggesting that if they don't trade Fleury now then they will lose both? If not how would they lose Murray if they had to trade Fleury for a 4th next year? Also you can find a lot out about Murray by him being the backup or 1b getting 40%-50% of the starts next year so this entire post really confuses me.

Just like to reiterate... Does anybody find it completely ridiculous that the NHL doesn't have the "expansion" rules ironed out by now? I mean with the draft and FA are right around the corner, teams need to figure this sh1t out quickly.

They knew they were expanding even if they are "slow walking" the announcement. What the hell is taking so long?

Possibly (but obviously before the expansion), problem with that is you are waiting for the last minute where everyone likely fixed their goalie issues (most of those teams listed would have gotten Andersen, Bishop, etc). And if Fleury refuses to waive to the only teams that made an offer then YOU HAVE TO protect Fleury and just lost Murray.
- Steven_Dean

Why is automatically assumed that everyone will solve their goalie issues by next year which will leave the Pens with no options? Whose to say some injures don't occur or someone getting a little older like Miller, Lundqvist or Luongo doesn't fall off a cliff and more teams aren't in the market for goaltending? Whose to say by waiting they don't create more options as opposed to fewer options?

Just like to reiterate... Does anybody find it completely ridiculous that the NHL doesn't have the "expansion" rules ironed out by now? I mean with the draft and FA are right around the corner, teams need to figure this sh1t out quickly.

They knew they were expanding even if they are "slow walking" the announcement. What the hell is taking so long?
- madmike71

I would say it's because the NHL knows that teams really don't need to figure sh1t out quickly, it's only the fans who are panicking and acting like things need to get done asap.

In a normal scenario Fleury for Frolik would be fair.
But the thing is Calgary now has massive leverage with the expansion draft. Essentially, the better goalie you have, the more you have to trade him.

On the top of my head, Bishop, Fleury, Elliot, and Andersen are all up with Vasilevsky, Murray, Allen, and Gibson which aren't going anywhere.

So those 4 goalies will need to be traded to either Calgary or Dallas, or risk going for free. Dallas can't afford Bishop or Fleury, so in a cutthroat business and in all honesty, Calgary could offer a 3rd/4th round pick for Bishop/Fleury, because a 3rd/4th > nothing
- BobHartley

I'd take nothing and start the season with both MAF and Murray if that's the case. Then wait for someone to need a tender. Bishop is one year away from UFA I believe. That changes things with him. What happens if he wants a huge payday?

I would say it's because the NHL knows that teams really don't need to figure sh1t out quickly, it's only the fans who are panicking and acting like things need to get done asap.
- jaydogg1974

It's not just figuring out the how the rules affect your team, it's making deals so you don't lose players (like we're discussing). Deals usually take time and the best time to do them is before (or at) this years draft. Other teams are going to have players like MAF that need to waive their NMC's. That takes time to discuss with agents and players.

For me, I think it's nuts the GM's still don't have the rules yet.

Edit: I also don't think people are panicking. I just think the MAF/Murray dilemma is one of the more interesting situations this off-season.

It's not just figuring out the how the rules affect your team, it's making deals so you don't lose players (like we're discussing). Deals usually take time and the best time to do them is before (or at) this years draft. Other teams are going to have players like MAF that need to waive their NMC's. That takes time to discuss with agents and players.

For me, I think it's nuts the GM's still don't have the rules yet.

Edit: I also don't think people are panicking. I just think the MAF/Murray dilemma is one of the more interesting situations this off-season.
- madmike71

I don't personally see many GMs that seem all that concerned about it at all, if it was a big issue then more would be being done to resolve the draft rules, the reality is that the league and the GMs realize that the draft is over a year away which means there is more than enough time for all teams in the league to form their internal plans to prepare for the expansion draft. This notion that you lose leverage by waiting just isn't true, every year the fans come on these blogs sites and talk about leverage and then we see teams makes great deals for players when they apparently were screwed because they had no leverage. As I said in my previous post, this notion that teams need to rush to do things now because of the pending expansion draft is purely fan/media related, the teams aren't concerned because they know there's no rush to get anything done.

Holy moly!

Without reading all 500+ comments are you guys telling me (when I went to bed last night we were discussing Flower/Muzza trades), that you are still banging on about the same thing?

What's the latest - Geno to the Hawks?

Not to change the subject but since this is relevant now, apparently GMJR announced the team plans to qualify Bennett but not to qualify Shultz. I don't think either is really that surprising but I know many on here have had strong opinions about both options and as I said it's something that is relevant now.

In a normal scenario Fleury for Frolik would be fair.
But the thing is Calgary now has massive leverage with the expansion draft. Essentially, the better goalie you have, the more you have to trade him.

On the top of my head, Bishop, Fleury, Elliot, and Andersen are all up with Vasilevsky, Murray, Allen, and Gibson which aren't going anywhere.

So those 4 goalies will need to be traded to either Calgary or Dallas, or risk going for free. Dallas can't afford Bishop or Fleury, so in a cutthroat business and in all honesty, Calgary could offer a 3rd/4th round pick for Bishop/Fleury, because a 3rd/4th > nothing
- BobHartley

That is only true for fleury. But depends on the expansion draft role. Losing fleury in the expansion draft isn't the same thin as losing him for free. Every nhl team is going to lose something. It looks like we will lose Schultz or pouliot. If Schultz rebounds and we successful sign him this year then he is worth more than a 4th round pick. Pouliot right now is worth more than a 2nd round pick. Fleury would be the guy drafted if we are allowed to expose him. I'd rather do that and get to protect our dmen than get a 4th round pick. Honestly fleury value sky rockets if the expansion rules only protect full nmc. Then we can just expose him and protect our other assets

Trade that makes sense both ways IMO is Fleury and Pouliot for TJ Brodie & Klimchuk, plus Pens right to swap 1sts for 2017. Calgary also has several center prospects who could replace Klimchuk in that deal and have it make sense.