Why not ask for the 6th? Because it's insulting, and offputting, as the article said. Even in a normal scenario, MAF is nowhere worth anything near the 6th overall. That 6th can get you Tkachuk, PLD, Nylander, Juolevi...
Factor in the fact that there's 1 team looking for a goalie (Dallas can't afford MAF), and many teams with more than 1 goalie they like, Penguins really don't have much leverage.
Worst case scenario for Flames: We buy James Reimer for just money. Completely average goaltender, but average > 30th place SV%.
Worst case for Pens: You bank on another team's star goalie to absolutely suck/get injured for the season and take a 'good but not great' goalie's $6 million cap hit. It doesn't happen, and he walks for free.
- BobHartley

Remember how the Pens had seemingly no leverage in dealing Jordan Staal. We still got a good return, with a large piece of the trade being the 8th overall pick. Pouliot is not a bad player or a bust yet by any stretch, but these top 10 picks aren't always what you think they are. I love when people say "You could get X, Y, or Z with the 6th overall pick!"..... it could be a star, it could be a bust, it could be a mediocre player.

It's certainly a valuable asset but there is so much obsession with draft picks. How is that working out for Oilers?

"a boat is a boat but the mystery box could be anything, it could even be a boat!"

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

We can't afford to piss off Calgary.
- Victoro311

You're a terrible negotiator. There is a potential good fit between the teams. Calgary has other less attractive options, Pittsburgh has other options. Pittsburgh still holds the cards. We have the player they want and no urgent need to move him.

You're a terrible negotiator. There is a potential good fit between the teams. Calgary has other less attractive options, Pittsburgh has other options. Pittsburgh still holds the cards. We have the player they want and no urgent need to move him.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

EXACTLY!

There is no rush to move him.

There is a 0% chance we expose Murray to expansion draft its not even worth worrying about. And its the kind of thinking that will end up forcing us to take an awful return on fleury.

Rumors Ottawa has inquired on fleury. You know what is a last minute save on Murray. We flip fleury for Anderson. And expose Anderson. And if we need to we will trade Murray for a haul. I'm not even sure if Murray or Fleury is the better goalie for our prime cup window. There is 0% chance we absolutely get (frank)ed and lose Murray to expansion.
- sditulli

EXACTLY

Worst case scenario, Penguins buyout Fleury before the expansion draft...

WORST CASE

We aren't losing Murray for nothing

come on Fleury isn't a chinese jersey. He's closer to Schneider than a Chinese Jersey. If two 2nd's are fair then theres no reason not to ask for the 6th. Maybe they counter and ask for pouliot included. He's regarded as about the 10th best goalie in the NHL.
- sditulli

You're reading too much into the specific analogy. Point is you're starting point can't be so unreasonable that it upsets the person you're negotiating with.

6th overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two 2nds, by the way. Not even in the same stratosphere. You ever see anyone in the top 10 trade down for two second rounders?

You're reading too much into the specific analogy. Point is you're starting point can't be so unreasonable that it upsets the person you're negotiating with.

6th overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two 2nds, by the way. Not even in the same stratosphere. You ever see anyone in the top 10 trade down for two second rounders?
- Victoro311

Yes it can...especially if you have decided you don't need to move him yet.

This is not a fantasy hockey trade...real GM's don't get pissed about that kind of stuff.

Waiting sucks... JR could die of old age any minute now
- Guile

He's supposedly golfing with Sullivan today in 115 degree heat in Las Vegas. Dying may be no laughing matter....


I picture a decision being made on the course today. Golf lends itself to making major decisions. Sullivan will get his way because JR is scared of him.

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.

You're a terrible negotiator. There is a potential good fit between the teams. Calgary has other less attractive options, Pittsburgh has other options. Pittsburgh still holds the cards. We have the player they want and no urgent need to move him.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

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.

I'm not betting on anything. I am saying that he doesn't need to be dealt now.

I'm saying that the likelyhood that other possibilities that do not exits right now but will exist at some point before a decision needs to be made about his situation, is better than you think.

How many scenarios are there to deal MAF now...most people think 1 or 2.

You are telling me there won't be 1 or two more between now and the expansion...come on now.

There are 3 reasons to move him 1) He wants out 2) Cap Issues 3) we will lose him in expansion (for nothing)

1) He does not appear to want out...not yet. Perhaps he wants to try and win his starting job back, who knows.

2) The cap is supposedly going to be around $73M...so it sounds like we'll be okay there

So that leaves expansion...and there is still time to prepare for that.

In the meantime, you could start the season with two goalies that have won a Stanley Cup...just saying...
- icedog97

I agree, he doesnt "need" dealt now. We can wait. That still doesn't make it a good idea or what "should" happen. You are also banking on Fleury maintaining his level of play and not devaluing himself. That might be more difficult for him given his history of his production yoyoing to some extent, and that it is more difficult to be consistent if he is coming off the bench every so many games as opposed to being the starter. That doesnt even address him coming off a year with 2 concussions. Id take the first reasonable deal I get for him and move on with the cap space in hand---it pains me to say that given I just bought a Fleury jersey early last year

Yes it can...especially if you have decided you don't need to move him yet.

This is not a fantasy hockey trade...real GM's don't get pissed about that kind of stuff.
- icedog97

What makes the NHL diffrent than litterally every other industry ever where businessmen scorn deals all the time due to perceived insults? Not everyone is 100% pragmatic and rational.

I'm not betting on anything. I am saying that he doesn't need to be dealt now.

I'm saying that the likelyhood that other possibilities that do not exits right now but will exist at some point before a decision needs to be made about his situation, is better than you think.

How many scenarios are there to deal MAF now...most people think 1 or 2.

You are telling me there won't be 1 or two more between now and the expansion...come on now.

There are 3 reasons to move him 1) He wants out 2) Cap Issues 3) we will lose him in expansion (for nothing)

1) He does not appear to want out...not yet. Perhaps he wants to try and win his starting job back, who knows.

2) The cap is supposedly going to be around $73M...so it sounds like we'll be okay there

So that leaves expansion...and there is still time to prepare for that.

In the meantime, you could start the season with two goalies that have won a Stanley Cup...just saying...
- icedog97

Everyone is so glass half empty here. I guarantee there will be a loophole come expansion time. This is a league that allowed draft compensation for fired coaches. The auto protection on NTC players may have some age contingency. Or like another poster said, what if we sign Murray to an extension and give him a NTC. What happens if both goalies have a NTC.

There's just too many questions around expansion right now to make a rash decision. We can probably send Las Vegas a pick and a prospect as bribery not to take our goalie or some crazy poop like that. It's the NHL.

Yes it can...especially if you have decided you don't need to move him yet.

This is not a fantasy hockey trade...real GM's don't get pissed about that kind of stuff.
- icedog97

Excellent point. The worst thing anybody can do in negotiations is take things personal. When you remove emotion, you usually get a successful deal. Calgary probably laughed at the proposed 1st round pick, but a smart man would say no and proceed with other suggestions.

Yes it can...especially if you have decided you don't need to move him yet.

This is not a fantasy hockey trade...real GM's don't get pissed about that kind of stuff.
- icedog97

Except that when Calgary moves on to their next of many options of pursuing a goaltender, Rutherford will have lost his best trading value for Flower. You honestly think his value will go up or even stay the same by waiting for someone..anyone to suddenly realize they need a goaltender? If you still have Fluery by the trade deadline this season, you'll be lucky to get a 3rd for him!

Excellent point. The worst thing anybody can do in negotiations is take things personal. When you remove emotion, you usually get a successful deal. Calgary probably laughed at the proposed 1st round pick, but a smart man would say no and proceed with other suggestions.
- madmike71

No different than Toronto supposedly asking for Murray in the Kessel deal. JR may have laughed, but we still got Kessel.

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

Why couldn't Montreal have traded for Fleury at the deadline? Future cap isn't an issue because they could just turn around and flip him again after the season.

Everyone is so glass half empty here. I guarantee there will be a loophole come expansion time. This is a league that allowed draft compensation for fired coaches. The auto protection on NTC players may have some age contingency. Or like another poster said, what if we sign Murray to an extension and give him a NTC. What happens if both goalies have a NTC.

There's just too many questions around expansion right now to make a rash decision. We can probably send Las Vegas a pick and a prospect as bribery not to take our goalie or some crazy poop like that. It's the NHL.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

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.

No different than Toronto supposedly asking for Murray in the Kessel deal. JR may have laughed, but we still got Kessel.
- Rawdog9755

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.

Everyone is so glass half empty here. I guarantee there will be a loophole come expansion time. This is a league that allowed draft compensation for fired coaches. The auto protection on NTC players may have some age contingency. Or like another poster said, what if we sign Murray to an extension and give him a NTC. What happens if both goalies have a NTC.

There's just too many questions around expansion right now to make a rash decision. We can probably send Las Vegas a pick and a prospect as bribery not to take our goalie or some crazy poop like that. It's the NHL.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Yep.

And look at it this way...worst case the Pens start next season with just about the same team they just won the cup with, that includes two goalies that combined make about $6.4M...and both have won the Stanley Cup.

With the Rangers for example, you have $9.5M on two goalies and neither has won the cup

Flower, pens 2nd, Cole (resign Schultz) for 6th OA (would adding a prospect be too much)
- nh4442

Just stop, please. This isn't worth a top six pick. LOL at Calgary adding.

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.

Why couldn't Montreal have traded for Fleury at the deadline? Future cap isn't an issue because they could just turn around and flip him again after the season.
- jaydogg1974

That's a big risk. I point to Vancouver as a team that was hamstrung with two good goalies and and to move one. Teams refused to take Luongo in hopes that Schneider would become available. It happened.

Everyone is so glass half empty here. I guarantee there will be a loophole come expansion time. This is a league that allowed draft compensation for fired coaches. The auto protection on NTC players may have some age contingency. Or like another poster said, what if we sign Murray to an extension and give him a NTC. What happens if both goalies have a NTC.

There's just too many questions around expansion right now to make a rash decision. We can probably send Las Vegas a pick and a prospect as bribery not to take our goalie or some crazy poop like that. It's the NHL.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

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.

Why not ask for the 6th? Because it's insulting, and offputting, as the article said. Even in a normal scenario, MAF is nowhere worth anything near the 6th overall. That 6th can get you Tkachuk, PLD, Nylander, Juolevi...
Factor in the fact that there's 1 team looking for a goalie (Dallas can't afford MAF), and many teams with more than 1 goalie they like, Penguins really don't have much leverage.
Worst case scenario for Flames: We buy James Reimer for just money. Completely average goaltender, but average > 30th place SV%.
Worst case for Pens: You bank on another team's star goalie to absolutely suck/get injured for the season and take a 'good but not great' goalie's $6 million cap hit. It doesn't happen, and he walks for free.
- BobHartley

Boy, I'd love to deal with you as a GM. This is a business, and the minute anyone puts emotion into it, they have lost.