Murray scares the crap out of me. Sample size way to small.
- Clyde334

It's a bigger sample than the 6OA. I'd do it for sure.

Murray scares the crap out of me. Sample size way to small.
- Clyde334

Meh... tendies take time.
It doesn't happen plain and simple. The Pens have a simple way to get some cap relief with moving MAF and Murray is their guy. Sid getting the MVP was a joke. Murray or Kessel were the better bets. So why would the Pen's trade their future (present) star goalie?

Not sure if this has been mentioned but if we acquire a goalie like fleury or bishop do we have to leave gillies unprotected ?

Not sure if this has been mentioned but if we acquire a goalie like fleury or bishop do we have to leave gillies unprotected ?
- Redmile247

And has the NHL come out with actual rules around the expansion draft of is it all speculation at this point ?

Not sure if this has been mentioned but if we acquire a goalie like fleury or bishop do we have to leave gillies unprotected ?
- Redmile247

Yeah I am not sure we know yet....the other factor is Gillies injury....

I mean if the Flames traded a 2nd and a prospect for MAF, and Gillies has SUCH a good year that we need to protect him for the draft, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they lost MAF in the expansion draft.

A) It would mean Gillies is a stud
B) The Flames would get 6 mil in cap space for free

And has the NHL come out with actual rules around the expansion draft of is it all speculation at this point ?
- tincup

General fanager has an expansion draft setting with a list of rules and a mock draft ...as far as players are concerned we are fine but as of right now gillies is not exempt and it only allows one goalie to be protected

Yeah I am not sure we know yet....the other factor is Gillies injury....

I mean if the Flames traded a 2nd and a prospect for MAF, and Gillies has SUCH a good year that we need to protect him for the draft, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they lost MAF in the expansion draft.

A) It would mean Gillies is a stud
B) The Flames would get 6 mil in cap space for free
- The-O-G

I agree with you here ... But now the prospect becomes a definite B or even C

General fanager has an expansion draft setting with a list of rules and a mock draft ...as far as players are concerned we are fine but as of right now gillies is not exempt and it only allows one goalie to be protected
- Redmile247

His saving grace could be that he didn't play more than 9 games in the AHL last year. Which could make him the exception to the rule, but I forsure would want BT to have this confirmed before he makes a decision on our goaltending.

Yeah I am not sure we know yet....the other factor is Gillies injury....

I mean if the Flames traded a 2nd and a prospect for MAF, and Gillies has SUCH a good year that we need to protect him for the draft, it wouldn't be the end of the world if they lost MAF in the expansion draft.

A) It would mean Gillies is a stud
B) The Flames would get 6 mil in cap space for free
- The-O-G

Except MAF still has a NMC, and would automatically be protected. So far it's all speculation though. We should be much smarter by the end of the day.

His saving grace could be that he didn't play more than 9 games in the AHL last year. Which could make him the exception to the rule, but I forsure would want BT to have this confirmed before he makes a decision on our goaltending.
- Saskabush

The thing I don't get is he has only played 7 pro games so he has to be exempt under the two years or less rule

Has to be a website error or I am missing something

Edit: we have to expose at least one goalie who is either under contract for the 2017-18 season or an rfa the summer leading up to it ....so if I figured this out right we could protect MAF ...and have gillies be exempt ...if we have another goalie under contract or at worst be an rfa ...so just give Ortio a bottom basement deal to expose him

It's a bigger sample than the 6OA. I'd do it for sure.
- tincup

So essentially that would be like picking Murray 6th overall. Who was the last goalie picked top 10?

So essentially that would be like picking Murray 6th overall. Who was the last goalie picked top 10?
- Clyde334

Fleury

I kid ...there must be someone else

His saving grace could be that he didn't play more than 9 games in the AHL last year. Which could make him the exception to the rule, but I forsure would want BT to have this confirmed before he makes a decision on our goaltending.
- Saskabush

Pretty sure I heard Pat Steinberg mention it on the fan a little while ago, but don't quote me on that Lenny :-}

Pretty sure I heard Pat Steinberg mention it on the fan a little while ago, but don't quote me on that Lenny :-}
- Kevin R

I added to my post above to clarify

IF WE GET RID OF 6 FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN MOVING TO THE 3RD I WILL BE FURIOUS

According to capfriendly stajan and frolik each have a modified ntc. Gio has a full ntc, and brodie has a modified ntc and a NMC. I haven't heard if modified ntc's need to be protected. So far it's just been rumoured that nmc's need to be.
- dr_soiledpants

Only NMC have to be protected. Brodie's clauses don't kick in until what would have been the start of his UFA years. Same with Dougie, actually.

So essentially that would be like picking Murray 6th overall. Who was the last goalie picked top 10?
- Clyde334

Campbell- 11- 2010 (bust)
Bernier-11-2006 (likely bust)
Price- 5- 2005 (top goalie in league)
Montoys-6- 2004 (marginal backup)
MAF- 1- 2003 (top 15 goalie)
Lehtonen-2- 2002 (middling starter)
Leclaire-8- 2001 (bust)
The trend away from picking high on goalies is obvious.

So essentially that would be like picking Murray 6th overall. Who was the last goalie picked top 10?
- Clyde334

Well the first one that pops to my head was MAF was #1 overall. Kinda ironic

I know sample size is small but that kid was a stud in the AHL, we had been after him since January & there is no question he is NHL ready, has confidence with that Stanley Cup ring welded to his finger & that position is all about confidence. He is also cost controlled & perfect age for our current core group. I would be blown away that Pitt would trade the kid but I don't think I would be really upset about it. Jersey gave the #9 & Oilers were falling over themselves to give #7(Nurse) & another prospect for Schneider & he really never had the proven playoff record nor Stanley Cup ring. Don't know man, I would prefer giving up the #6 for Murray than upsetting the cap applecart & the probable scary return on Bishop.

Then I would go to the Leafs & offer up Klimchuk & Wideman for Bernier & the #31 pick. With 4 seconds & the 35 & 31, we can easily get back into that 1st round again.

Possibly.

I don't want to unload Backs either, but we are going to be facing a J.Staal situation sooner rather than later and I just think if we are trading him for young assets (as in moving up in the draft) it's better to do it now and get them developing with us than delay it for another year.

Hopefully Janko is ready, don't want to force him into the 3C too soon. However, I do think we could replace Backlunds minutes by committee for a short time (stajan, colborne, jooris etc.) until Janko is (hopefully) ready.
- Saskabush

We could just resign Grant to play 3rd line if we traded Backs.

Well the first one that pops to my head was MAF was #1 overall. Kinda ironic

I know sample size is small but that kid was a stud in the AHL, we had been after him since January & there is no question he is NHL ready, has confidence with that Stanley Cup ring welded to his finger & that position is all about confidence. He is also cost controlled & perfect age for our current core group. I would be blown away that Pitt would trade the kid but I don't think I would be really upset about it. Jersey gave the #9 & Oilers were falling over themselves to give #7(Nurse) & another prospect for Schneider & he really never had the proven playoff record nor Stanley Cup ring. Don't know man, I would prefer giving up the #6 for Murray than upsetting the cap applecart & the probable scary return on Bishop.

Then I would go to the Leafs & offer up Klimchuk & Wideman for Bernier & the #31 pick. With 4 seconds & the 35 & 31, we can easily get back into that 1st round again.
- Kevin R

A cpl thoughts:
Gillies was 75, Murray 83 in the 2012 draft. In that draft there are a few goalies emerging now. None from 13-15 yet. Which is to say all are still in various stages of development. And risk. He did well in the AHL but could also go the way of Ward, who knows. The 6 does not seem to be the best value.

In a perfect world, I'd much rather find a way to include that in some type of a 3 way trade to get Hall. Jg Money Hall...one can dream. Something like this seems to be more valuable than a growing/risky goalie. Getting a top RW (Hall is on the block, negative chance Calgary gets him) would be worth the 6 for me more than Murray or Bishop. In this scenario keep the 2nds to either move up to the bottom half of the first or keep them, get Halak/Bernier/Reimer, protect Gillies and let him grow.

His saving grace could be that he didn't play more than 9 games in the AHL last year. Which could make him the exception to the rule, but I forsure would want BT to have this confirmed before he makes a decision on our goaltending.
- Saskabush

Not sure how credible this is but by these rules most of our prospects would be protected as long as the draft happens next year.

http://www.pensionplanpup...nsion-draft-work-a-primer

Since it was Gilles 1st pro year last year I believe by these rules he should be exempt.