Hartnell's contract and NMC which forces us to protect him is a no go in my opinion
- cpltanto

Is the nmc rule still in effect after being traded? That significantly changes things if Gillies will be exposed.

Johnny
Mony
Bennett
Backlund
Frolik
?
?

Gio
Brodie
Dougie

Gillies
- dr_soiledpants

Gillies shouldnt need it as he was injured? Are these the final rules for players to protect? Say Poirier or Shinkaruk or Janko get a full ride next yr. I believe they then need protection (though feel free to correct me if I am wrong). If Ferland rebounds, do you protect him? If Colborne continues to improve, do you protect him?

If Janko proves worthy (big if but still) I see him being protected. I much prefer it being 2 2nds but I dont see Pitt taking it without a player of value in return.

Hey lads. Just throwing this out there. Was it not reported on numerous occasions throughout the year that the flames had been scouting Bernier ? Maybe he just needs a change of scenery and would be a cheaper option than Fleury .
- jcfogerty

I personally prefer Halak in the Plan C scenario but Bernier is young. What does Leafland want in return?

Gillies shouldnt need it as he was injured? Are these the final rules for players to protect? Say Poirier or Shinkaruk or Janko get a full ride next yr. I believe they then need protection (though feel free to correct me if I am wrong). If Ferland rebounds, do you protect him? If Colborne continues to improve, do you protect him?

If Janko proves worthy (big if but still) I see him being protected. I much prefer it being 2 2nds but I dont see Pitt taking it without a player of value in return.
- FLflames34

I used this....

http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

Not sure how accurate it is. By this time tomorrow we should all be much smarter on the subject.

You think 56th overall and Klimchuk would get MAF after Rutherford said today the ask is #6?

You think the first trade is in any way fair value? Our 2nd is 35 overall, Backlund is a complete two-way 50pt center with breakout potential that doesn't complain about being stuck lower than he should in the depth chart.

You seemed to throw an extra B level prospect in just because you're bored of typing up the same offer every day on here.

Both trades are asinine.
- fry

I can ask for a threesome with Mila Kunis and Emma Watson every day for a year, doesn't mean that there is even the remotest chance in hell that it's going to happen.

And Backlund isn't complaining about his spot in the depth chart because he is playing exactly the minutes he should be, 2nd line centre that is relied upon to handle our toughest defensive assignments. However, I'd place a wager that this will change after this season, then we shall see if he is actually happy playing 3rd line minutes (and signing an extension for 3rd line dollars).

So you didn't even acknowledge the main question.
Yes or no: do they protect a 3C?
- FLflames34

Yes, we protect Backlund. Who do we protect instead? Stajan? Raymond? Jooris?

http://www.generalfanager.com/teams/expansion

Using this tool I can't think of one combination of players that would be worth protecting more than Backlund.

I like your trades but Columbus I think would be looking to unload salary as their main focus to a trade. I think more salary would have to come back to Calgary to get this deal done..... a guy Tyutin might have to be coming back with Hartnell.
- buddy_doug

Yeah you could very well be right, my trade is more of a max amount I'd be willing to give to move up. But with news that the cap will be 73 million, swapping Backlund for Hartnell could still appeal to the Jackets.

They get a very good centre on an even better contract who can help fill the void Johansen left. They get an extra 1 million that should allow them to extend Jones quite easily. And they get to use the 6th on one of the centres they apparently covet (they'd be smarter to draft Nylander IMO).

But they could probably find other ways to shed salary and get centres that doesn't involve trading the 3rd, so it really just depends on whats going through their GMs head.

Edit:
No way should we entertain brining in Tyutin, his NMC could cause us to lose one of our big 3 in the draft.

Also, NMC remain in effect even after they've been waived once (Hartnell waived his NMC to go to CLB and he has to be asked to waive again to leave)

Double Edit (since I'm taking up a page in responses...):
I'd also want to make sure that we have it in writing that Gillies will be exempt. If he is then good, if not then Reimer is the only option IMO.

Hartnell's contract and NMC which forces us to protect him is a no go in my opinion
- cpltanto

Again who do we need to protect instead? He'd take Backlunds slot, I'd protect Hartnell over Shore, Grant, Hamilton and co any day of the week.

Yeah you could very well be right, my trade is more of a max amount I'd be willing to give to move up. But with news that the cap will be 73 million, swapping Backlund for Hartnell could still appeal to the Jackets.

They get a very good centre on an even better contract who can help fill the void Johansen left. They get an extra 1 million that should allow them to extend Jones quite easily. And they get to use the 6th on one of the centres they apparently covet (they'd be smarter to draft Nylander IMO).

But they could probably find other ways to shed salary and get centres that doesn't involve trading the 3rd, so it really just depends on whats going through their GMs head.

Edit:
No way should we entertain brining in Tyutin, his NMC could cause us to lose one of our big 3 in the draft.

Also, NMC remain in effect even after they've been waived once (Hartnell waived his NMC to go to CLB and he has to be asked to waive again to leave)
- Saskabush

If that expansion tool is accurate then that would mean trading for maf will force BT to expose Gillies.

If that expansion tool is accurate then that would mean trading for maf will force BT to expose Gillies.
- dr_soiledpants

Yeah that's what I thought too, but I was told yesterday that since he was injured last season he wont have the necessary years of pro experience to be lost to expansion.

Again, I'd want to have this confirmed by the league (no Reillyesque (frank)ups allowed on this one).

Yeah that's what I thought too, but I was told yesterday that since he was injured last season he wont have the necessary years of pro experience to be lost to expansion.

Again, I'd want to have this confirmed by the league (no Reillyesque (frank)ups allowed on this one).
- Saskabush

I wonder if this is the delay in getting a G. I also understood it as Gillies wouldnt count due to injury. If he does, then I retract all prior statements and go for the Plan C group (Halak/Reimer/bernier)

I also don't want to unload Backs. Yet if Janko is ready, he is the prototype 3C needed for the next 5 yrs. And shouldnt play 4C minutes.

Yeah that's what I thought too, but I was told yesterday that since he was injured last season he wont have the necessary years of pro experience to be lost to expansion.

Again, I'd want to have this confirmed by the league (no Reillyesque (frank)ups allowed on this one).
- Saskabush

So the one regular season game Bennett played at the end of 14/15 makes him eligible I would guess...

So the one regular season game Bennett played at the end of 14/15 makes him eligible I would guess...
- dr_soiledpants

The 11 playoff games counted, that's why he would be eligible (there was even a minor debate after the 8th playoff game on whether Calgary should scratch him).

I wonder if this is the delay in getting a G. I also understood it as Gillies wouldnt count due to injury. If he does, then I retract all prior statements and go for the Plan C group (Halak/Reimer/bernier)

I also don't want to unload Backs. Yet if Janko is ready, he is the prototype 3C needed for the next 5 yrs. And shouldnt play 4C minutes.
- FLflames34

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.

The 11 playoff games counted, that's why he would be eligible (there was even a minor debate after the 8th playoff game on whether Calgary should scratch him).
- Saskabush

Oh right, I forgot about that.

FWIW theres probably a lot of rumors floating around.

Theres a guy reporting that Calgary offered a package based on the 6th pick for Murray. As a Pens fans that sounds like a fair deal. Though like Calgary think we prefer to just have a NHL ready guy whose floor is average NHL goaltender and ceiling is a question mark. Less risks than a pick.

But the whole Rutherford asking for the 6th for Fleury (which everyone agrees is silly). The conversation could have went down -
Calgary - What do you think about the 6th for Murray. We love that guy and fits with the age of our core?
Ruth - Nah. But I'd do Fleury for the 6th
Cal - No thanks. Think about Murray. I'm going to go spread some rumors I'm interested in Bishop to get you nervous. Circle back at the draft - what about 2 2nd's for Fleury.
Ruth - Ok let me come up with a list of 6 teams inquiring about Fleury. But we have a deal in principle.

FWIW theres probably a lot of rumors floating around.

Theres a guy reporting that Calgary offered a package based on the 6th pick for Murray. As a Pens fans that sounds like a fair deal. Though like Calgary think we prefer to just have a NHL ready guy whose floor is average NHL goaltender and ceiling is a question mark. Less risks than a pick.

But the whole Rutherford asking for the 6th for Fleury (which everyone agrees is silly). The conversation could have went down -
Calgary - What do you think about the 6th for Murray. We love that guy and fits with the age of our core?
Ruth - Nah. But I'd do Fleury for the 6th
Cal - No thanks. Think about Murray. I'm going to go spread some rumors I'm interested in Bishop to get you nervous. Circle back at the draft - what about 2 2nd's for Fleury.
Ruth - Ok let me come up with a list of 6 teams inquiring about Fleury. But we have a deal in principle.
- sditulli

We need names....

Curious on the vibe around here on that Murray for 6 rumour......

Curious on the vibe around here on that Murray for 6 rumour......
- The-O-G

Depends how you feel abt Gillies, and about paying a steep price to run Murray and Ortio out there. I am mixed on it, as I like Gillies. Probably lean towards no, but if it happened I would certainly not be upset.

Depends how you feel abt Gillies, and about paying a steep price to run Murray and Ortio out there. I am mixed on it, as I like Gillies. Probably lean towards no, but if it happened I would certainly not be upset.
- FLflames34

I'd (frank)ing hate it.....I need more of a sample size before I chuck out the 6th.

We need names....
- The-O-G

Ek-Lund...

As for the Murray for the 6th... I'm in the same boat. Wouldn't be overly upset if it happened although this draft group looks pretty good and who knows if something odd happens and one of the top 3 drops... would be tough to swallow.

Me thinks it will be a MAF/Bishop/Reimer deal/signing if anything and the 6th doesn't come into play.

We need names....
- The-O-G

Its a pittsburgh site. The Insider on Pittsburgh Sports. He's been saying Calgary has been making runs at Murray for a long time. No clue on how good his sources are.

From a value point seems like both sides are in the I wouldn't hate the trade camp. But neither fan base seems to want to pull the trigger.

But if you are willing to put the 6th in play for a young goalie then I am surprised it wouldn't also be in play for Vasilevski.

Curious on the vibe around here on that Murray for 6 rumour......
- The-O-G

No!!! No no no no no no!!!!!

Ek-Lund...

As for the Murray for the 6th... I'm in the same boat. Wouldn't be overly upset if it happened although this draft group looks pretty good and who knows if something odd happens and one of the top 3 drops... would be tough to swallow.

Me thinks it will be a MAF/Bishop/Reimer deal/signing if anything and the 6th doesn't come into play.
- geta02it

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

Depends how you feel abt Gillies, and about paying a steep price to run Murray and Ortio out there. I am mixed on it, as I like Gillies. Probably lean towards no, but if it happened I would certainly not be upset.
- FLflames34

Not that I think for a second we're getting Murray but no way would I run Murray and Ortio. If we did somehow get Murray, I'd go out and get an experienced 1b as the overall cap hit would allow it. Murray and Reimer ? Something like that.