When that poster asked same question Vic almost immediately answered RFA's aren't eligible for that clause. I've seen it answered on here like five times in last week or so.
- tpcg402

Thank you. I really want that suggestion laid to rest. It comes up 5 times every blog.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a deal to made with Dallas. That team would be crazy not to upgrade their tending.
- madmike71

My only issue with Dallas is we wont get much cap relief there until a year later. Id be more inclined to deal with Dallas if they were to buy-out one of their goalies and just give us a pick or prospect for Fleury. I would take a lesser package from Calgary so long as we took no salary back assuming Dallas would require us to take Niemi or Lehtonen for a year.

Keep Fleury... simple. Wait and see how Murray plays out if he even does. Who knows maybe at deadline time next season someone a big team will have lost their number one... you just never know and I think its too early to assume Murray can carry a full season load in the NHL
- vanhileman

You DON'T keep Fleury. That is a dumb move. Let me preface this by saying I don't take rumors on twitter seriously. JR pulled all the right moves last year and got us a Cup. Now, I don't think he goes delusional and says MAF is worth a top six pick. No one can justify that. If that is what he did ask for in return, he is senile and we will have a problem down the road. We will more than likely lose our stud young guy to the expansion draft with this buffoonery, if true and then our future in net is in major question.

If Pittsburgh wants to tinker with the lineup a bit, you HAVE to move Fleury. Even if it doesn't, you can't have this drama in the next next year. Ask Vancouver how it turned out with Luongo and Schneider. Neither is there anymore.

Thank you. I really want that suggestion laid to rest. It comes up 5 times every blog.
- Victoro311

Did you ever answer my question about RFA's not being able to be traded within a year of being signed ie Weber? I didnt know if that applied only to offer sheets or to any RFA contract

Ok. Not trying to be a Richard but I answer this literally 3 times every blog. Maybe RW can pin it:

Clauses cannot be attached to contracts until after their RFA years run out. A contract given to a RFA that goes beyond the RFA eligible years can have a clause at the end of the contract after the player turns 27, but it doesn't activate until then, and if that player is traded before the clause activates the team receiving the player can nullify it.
- Victoro311

Fair enough. Overall point remains we don't know all the inner workings of the expansion draft and there will likely be loopholes.

Flames people wanting us to take back Wideman for Flower... with the argument being he can still be good on the bottom pair...
- Guile

One year of Wideman is terrible for us. At best, he is a third Dpair guy and that is a bunch of change to be throwing around. If this Dcore sticks together, he wouldn't have played a single play-off game for us this year because he isn't useful.

What happens if we get rid of Fleury and Murray ends up being a bust? Remember Lalime and Hedberg? True, Murray already did a lot more than those guys but he is still very young and undeveloped. His current sample size of NHL games is 34. He was phenomenal in the first two series but faded bad in the last two. The primary reason the Pens won the last two was that the team kept the shots against down - not any spectacular goaltending. Don't forget about game 5 of the TB series, when the team didn't play good defense in front of him (something Fleury is quite familiar with).

I do think Murray is the long term solution but I think keeping Fleury is the best thing for his development. Thrusting a young goalie into a starter role without proper development is what causes them to be a bust. The ideal scenario is a 60/40 time split between Fleury and Murray (respectively) next season and adjust it depending on how they play.

I think the Pens need to keep Fleury as long as possible and only entertain very enticing trade offers. Then, before the expansion draft, either buy him out or trade him for whatever we can get (even a low draft pick). Trading him to a western team would be ideal. I don't want to see him pull a Max Talbot and sign with the Flyers.

So Cal is going down the Bishop path as leverage? He's more expensive than MAF and an UFA after next season. What happens if he asks for 7.5 after this season for 6 or 7 years?

I'm not buying it. If the Flames have a young guy that they believe is a future starter, their best bet is MAF.....although, I don't believe he's going to get a 1st.
- madmike71

Flames aren't doing $7.8 million for a one year deal on Bishop. Calgary should trade the 6th pick for MAF plus one other chip. I like Pouliot. Both MAF and Polilot were first rounders, and Poliot could thrive with the change of scenery.

If you don't think the 6th pick is worth that combo which fills out needs for your club, then go ahead and horde it. Fine by me if you continue to suck as a team. A number 6 pick is just hope at the end of the day, where you have two blue chip guys staring you in the face.

This either gets done by the beginning of the draft (before Calgary selects) or MAF comes to camp a Penguin.

When that poster asked same question Vic almost immediately answered RFA's aren't eligible for that clause. I've seen it answered on here like five times in last week or so.
- tpcg402

Daaang....my bad. I never saw that question before.


In other news, what happens if Murray also has a NTC and both Fleury and Murray have a NTC?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a deal to made with Dallas. That team would be crazy not to upgrade their tending.
- madmike71

They absolutely have to. That was the worst goaltending in the playoffs I've ever seen.

You're underestimating the need to move him. I don't understand everyone who thinks its gonna be somehow easier to move him at the deadline. Say what happened to Montreal had happened this coming season. They couldn't be able to trade for Fleury anyways because of cap implications down the road. If we keep him beyond this post season we get into serious danger of losing Murr to expansion.

And no, terrible negotiating is not knowing limits. Fleury isn't worth what Schneider was. Not even close. Sure I'd start high by asking for Calgary's two 2nds +. Maybe throw in a conditional 1st next year if the Flames make the playoffs. Something like if the Flames make the playoffs next year we exchange our 2nd for their 1st. That's starting high. Asking for the 6th is arrogance.
- Victoro311

I don't think anyone is saying its going to be easier or a better decision to wait. But I'm also not acting desperate to Calgary's GM who should be just as desperate to acquire Fleury. They have B options that are not nearly as good. We have B options that aren't as good. Asking for the 6th is arrogance. Could start a conversation on a bigger deal.

Yup, JR can go fck himself if he wants the #6. The way things are shaking out out I would offer your pick of Klimchuk (our 2013 1st we got from you in the Iggy trade) or Hickey (offensive D at BCollege that played on Canada at the WJC) & our 3rd #66(ironically Marios old # ) & call it a day.Someone better go smack JR in the side of the head or he'll be deciding whether he wants Niemi or Lehtenan back in the deal.
- Kevin R

Same thing to those in Calgary who think we should take Wideman back. They can go fck themselves too.

Daaang....my bad. I never saw that question before.


In other news, what happens if Murray also has a NTC and both Fleury and Murray have a NTC?
- YouMeAndDupuis9

No problem. Wasn't trying to be an ass.

Ok, so here's the worst case scenario, we keep both and next year we need to trade Fleury before the expansion draft. We have no leverage because we need to get rid of him, right? Wrong. All it takes is more than 1 team being interested. Why wouldn't there be? Fleury is better than 20 other starting goalies and he will be supposedly be cheap to acquire. Just because a player has to be moved doesn't mean you cant still have a bidding war.

So when it is all said and done, you get goaltending depth for one year, then you get a mediocre return for Fleury (but no way do you get robbed blind).

It's not the same no-leverage situation as the Hawks trying to get rid of Bickell for example.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Good luck having to trade an even older Fleury next year, desperately, when you have Miller, Bishop,Pavelec,Bernier,Mason,Elliot,Greiss,Neuvirth,Markstrom,Darling, among others, all free agents for 2017 that all it would cost any team is money to get!

Asking for Daley in return for Scuderi was arrogance. Asking for a 2nd round pick while swapping a better player (Bonino) for a worst player (Sutter) was arrogance. Telling Toronto your about to spend money in free agency if they don't make the Kessel deal is arrogance.

When Rutherford called for lovejoy asking for Depres was arrogance.

My only issue with Dallas is we wont get much cap relief there until a year later. Id be more inclined to deal with Dallas if they were to buy-out one of their goalies and just give us a pick or prospect for Fleury. I would take a lesser package from Calgary so long as we took no salary back assuming Dallas would require us to take Niemi or Lehtonen for a year.
- Rawdog9755

I think you could ask Dallas to eat 1.5 of Niemi's deal. Maybe get other players involved. DP? Nich? There's a deal to made there and we'd get a competent backup. I have to say, I'm not 100% sold that Murray won't have growing pains.

Did you ever answer my question about RFA's not being able to be traded within a year of being signed ie Weber? I didnt know if that applied only to offer sheets or to any RFA contract
- Rawdog9755

When a team matches an offer sheet, that player cannot be traded for one year. Probably to avoid sign and trades when a team is going to lose a player to an offer sheet.

Weber's contract actually contains no clauses.

I don't think anyone is saying its going to be easier or a better decision to wait. But I'm also not acting desperate to Calgary's GM who should be just as desperate to acquire Fleury. They have B options that are not nearly as good. We have B options that aren't as good. Asking for the 6th is arrogance. Could start a conversation on a bigger deal.
- sditulli

...on a bigger deal. There you go. That is what is currently being discussed, I'm sure. Does it get done? Depends on what they can agree is the second piece.

What happens if we get rid of Fleury and Murray ends up being a bust? Remember Lalime and Hedberg? True, Murray already did a lot more than those guys but he is still very young and undeveloped. His current sample size of NHL games is 34. He was phenomenal in the first two series but faded bad in the last two. The primary reason the Pens won the last two was that the team kept the shots against down - not any spectacular goaltending. Don't forget about game 5 of the TB series, when the team didn't play good defense in front of him (something Fleury is quite familiar with).

I do think Murray is the long term solution but I think keeping Fleury is the best thing for his development. Thrusting a young goalie into a starter role without proper development is what causes them to be a bust. The ideal scenario is a 60/40 time split between Fleury and Murray (respectively) next season and adjust it depending on how they play.

I think the Pens need to keep Fleury as long as possible and only entertain very enticing trade offers. Then, before the expansion draft, either buy him out or trade him for whatever we can get (even a low draft pick). Trading him to a western team would be ideal. I don't want to see him pull a Max Talbot and sign with the Flyers.
- PghPens668771

Buy out on Fleury isn't happening. We will either expose him in expansion draft (if the rules allow that) or dump him to a team like Ottawa after the season for Anderson.

But I don't think you win a cup with the James Reimer's / Tomas Greiss's of the world, and I dont think you win a cup with Ben Bishop making $7-8M either. Former are just nothing above average and the latter is not elite enough for that money. Unless you have a young star on ELC, Fleury is in the sweet spot, imo.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Agreed it's a fine line, just saying that MAF is a viable option for Calgary, if they ice a good enough team , he can play well enough for them to make some noise.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a deal to made with Dallas. That team would be crazy not to upgrade their tending.
- madmike71

Yep.

MAF costs less than Lehtonen.

I would imagine MAF would rather go to Dallas than Calgary too.

I don't think anyone is saying its going to be easier or a better decision to wait. But I'm also not acting desperate to Calgary's GM who should be just as desperate to acquire Fleury. They have B options that are not nearly as good. We have B options that aren't as good. Asking for the 6th is arrogance. Could start a conversation on a bigger deal.
- sditulli

We have no B options that I know of at this juncture. If other teams had been officially tied to Fleury by now this stick up my ass wouldn't be jammed so high.

When Rutherford called for lovejoy asking for Depres was arrogance.
- sditulli

Who cares about arrogance? When you get emotional like that you lose the negotiation.

What happens if we get rid of Fleury and Murray ends up being a bust? Remember Lalime and Hedberg? True, Murray already did a lot more than those guys but he is still very young and undeveloped. His current sample size of NHL games is 34. He was phenomenal in the first two series but faded bad in the last two. The primary reason the Pens won the last two was that the team kept the shots against down - not any spectacular goaltending. Don't forget about game 5 of the TB series, when the team didn't play good defense in front of him (something Fleury is quite familiar with).

I do think Murray is the long term solution but I think keeping Fleury is the best thing for his development. Thrusting a young goalie into a starter role without proper development is what causes them to be a bust. The ideal scenario is a 60/40 time split between Fleury and Murray (respectively) next season and adjust it depending on how they play.

I think the Pens need to keep Fleury as long as possible and only entertain very enticing trade offers. Then, before the expansion draft, either buy him out or trade him for whatever we can get (even a low draft pick). Trading him to a western team would be ideal. I don't want to see him pull a Max Talbot and sign with the Flyers.
- PghPens668771

Lalime and Hedberg are not good comps for Murray. Murray was record setting in the AHL at an early age (not an older guy playing with boys). Track record suggests a lot more than anything on those two.