So... is about half of our support for certain players just to spite RW?
- Guile

Yes

Why would you trade him as opposed to exposing him? Every team is going to lose a player and who would you rather lose, 1 of the younger guys who is on the upside of his career and may help the team for the next 5-7 years or a 30 yo that doesn't really fit the style of play and shouldn't/won't be offered a long term contract when this 1 ends. We have to lose somebody and if you trade Hornqvist instead of leaving him exposed you end up being down 2 players instead of just the 1 that was drafted away.
- jaydogg1974

Depends what the return would be in a trade. I mean assume pouliot steps up this year and forces us to protect 4 dmen. We then protect Crosby Malkiewich Kessler and hagelin. So we would likely lose of the wbs 5. So it depends on whether you can get a better return for horn than the value of rust or Wilson

Depends what the return would be in a trade. I mean assume pouliot steps up this year and forces us to protect 4 dmen. We then protect Crosby Malkiewich Kessler and hagelin. So we would likely lose of the wbs 5. So it depends on whether you can get a better return for horn than the value of rust or Wilson
- sditulli

Sorry, but I do not believe we'll protect 4 D. Doing so gives up 3 more forwards than the standard model. I get that if we have 3 great young D, they "should" be protected, but then you risk 3 more forwards. To me, that is bad asset management.

I think at that point, we will do whatever the negotiations with Vegas is, to have them just not touch Pouliot, and we protect more of the roster.

It's funny how people ragged on me so badly for considering trading Hornqvist for a hefty return and many of you are willing to expose him in the expansion draft.

Sorry, but I do not believe we'll protect 4 D. Doing so gives up 3 more forwards than the standard model. I get that if we have 3 great young D, they "should" be protected, but then you risk 3 more forwards. To me, that is bad asset management.

I think at that point, we will do whatever the negotiations with Vegas is, to have them just not touch Pouliot, and we protect more of the roster.
- Guile

As long as its not someone that's can't miss like Murray, I have no doubt that we won't lose anyone we don't want to to expansion. If Murray gets exposed I don't see what we can offer to Vegas that they'd rather have. Our hypothetical low first isn't worth more than Murray.

It's funny how people ragged on me so badly for considering trading Hornqvist for a hefty return and many of you are willing to expose him in the expansion draft.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

I think people are realizing that they can't protect everyone and Hornqvist is older and fits for giving up a player based on salary and long term commitment... I'm not opposed but think it's a problem to address next year... After the Cup!

If y'all think referees suck in hockey, turn the Copa America Cup final on and watch it... That ref has destroyed the game...

As long as its not someone that's can't miss like Murray, I have no doubt that we won't lose anyone we don't want to to expansion. If Murray gets exposed I don't see what we can offer to Vegas that they'd rather have. Our hypothetical low first isn't worth more than Murray.
- Victoro311

If it comes down to the final days before expansion and it looks like Murray will be exposed you start to work out a trade for him. Then you tell Vegas we'll give you an asset (2nd or 3rd ?) to not pick Murray or we'll trade him. At that point a free draft pick would look good to an expansion team.

It's funny how people ragged on me so badly for considering trading Hornqvist for a hefty return and many of you are willing to expose him in the expansion draft.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Trading him now, vs exposing when hes got 1 year left...

I just find it hilarious that Ryan thinks he knows more than the scouts and the staff who drafted Hall. It's quite comical reading these blogs bashing an 18 year old who still has years to grow.

Sorry, but I do not believe we'll protect 4 D. Doing so gives up 3 more forwards than the standard model. I get that if we have 3 great young D, they "should" be protected, but then you risk 3 more forwards. To me, that is bad asset management.

I think at that point, we will do whatever the negotiations with Vegas is, to have them just not touch Pouliot, and we protect more of the roster.
- Guile

Yeah there'll be lots of things to work out by bext off season. I believe teams have to expose a certain number of players at each position that have played a certain number of games the year before or a combination of 2 years, and the players must be under contract.

If it comes down to the final days before expansion and it looks like Murray will be exposed you start to work out a trade for him. Then you tell Vegas we'll give you an asset (2nd or 3rd ?) to not pick Murray or we'll trade him. At that point a free draft pick would look good to an expansion team.
- willi

Interesting take. Never really thought of that rout.

Yeah there'll be lots of things to work out by bext off season. I believe teams have to expose a certain number of players at each position that have played a certain number of games the year before or a combination of 2 years, and the players must be under contract.
- willi

I had an idea where Vegas could still take players in their RFA years from teams, but in return, they'd have to give a draft pick for compensation. Not as extreme as an offer sheet, but like a mid-late pick. A lot of teams do good work to draft solid players out of the mid rounds, but now it could be for nothing.

All this talk of expansion & trading players before they can be exposed, what would people rather have; a weakened team to compete with but have caps space/picks/prospects or a competitive team comparable to the one that just raised Stanley in the hope of going back to back then exposing players (hopefully NOT Murray), to a draft that no one knows what will happen?

I see a GM worried about winning another cup - that's fine by moi! Who knows what will happen this time next year.

I just find it hilarious that Ryan thinks he knows more than the scouts and the staff who drafted Hall. It's quite comical reading these blogs bashing an 18 year old who still has years to grow.
- drummer829

FWIW, I've read a few other opinions saying a couple of those D were a little confusing considering how the Pens just won the cup. It's not just RW. Hell Ruth himself even said a couple of those guys are "throw back" kind of defensmen.

For me, I'm not opposed to having some size on the back-end as long as they aren't a complete joke in other aspects of the game. I agree it's waaaay premature to pigeon hole these kids before they've had a chance to prove anything.

On a different tangent, who thinks Panarin will resign with the Hawks if they aren't considered a contender?

I thought I read somewhere he went to the Hawks to win a cup. If he's that shallow & the Hawks can't win, what are the chances he goes elsewhere - to a contender??

On a different tangent, who thinks Panarin will resign with the Hawks if they aren't considered a contender?

I thought I read somewhere he went to the Hawks to win a cup. If he's that shallow & the Hawks can't win, what are the chances he goes elsewhere - to a contender??
- Aussiepenguin

Maybe the pens can win another cup and he'll ask to play with his buddy malkin

FWIW, I've read a few other opinions saying a couple of those D were a little confusing considering how the Pens just won the cup. It's not just RW. Hell Ruth himself even said a couple of those guys are "throw back" kind of defensmen.

For me, I'm not opposed to having some size on the back-end as long as they aren't a complete joke in other aspects of the game. I agree it's waaaay premature to pigeon hole these kids before they've had a chance to prove anything.
- madmike71

If the Caps for example had more speed which they can get, & still have their size & aggression, then other teams will need to match them. Time will tell if last year was just a fluke for them, but if they come back bigger faster & as mean then teams (read as Pens), may need those types of players. Speed is great, but when you play a team as fast but bigger & meaner, things may get difficult. Another example would be if Tampa got a little meaner, with their speed they may be able to take that next step.

Maybe the pens can win another cup and he'll ask to play with his buddy malkin
- drummer829

Nothing but the cap stopping him. Funnily enough, if we win again I bet more of Geno's 'friends' turn up wanting a start!

My god, GOT never fails to deliver.

Sorry, but I do not believe we'll protect 4 D. Doing so gives up 3 more forwards than the standard model. I get that if we have 3 great young D, they "should" be protected, but then you risk 3 more forwards. To me, that is bad asset management.

I think at that point, we will do whatever the negotiations with Vegas is, to have them just not touch Pouliot, and we protect more of the roster.
- Guile

Can't think number of players you get to protect. Either way you only lose one asset. If pouliot ends up being more valuable to us than our 5th forward then you protect pouliot. As of today we probably won't protect pouliot but let's see how the year plays out. If at the end of the year he looks like daleys top 4 replacement then you protect him. Got to protect a cost controlled top 4 versus an old forward with 1 year on his contract or Hagelin who is fully paid for what he does. The wbs 5 all look like fringe top 6 so I'd rather lose one of them than a top 4 dman.

If the Caps for example had more speed which they can get, & still have their size & aggression, then other teams will need to match them. Time will tell if last year was just a fluke for them, but if they come back bigger faster & as mean then teams (read as Pens), may need those types of players. Speed is great, but when you play a team as fast but bigger & meaner, things may get difficult. Another example would be if Tampa got a little meaner, with their speed they may be able to take that next step.
- Aussiepenguin

These kids are 3 or 4 years away.....minimum. People were freaking out about this draft, but I simply can't get worked up over these kids attributes or deficiencies. This Penguin team will look entirely different by the time these players are pushing for NHL spots. The Pens will be extremely lucky if a couple actually become NHL players.

On a different tangent, who thinks Panarin will resign with the Hawks if they aren't considered a contender?

I thought I read somewhere he went to the Hawks to win a cup. If he's that shallow & the Hawks can't win, what are the chances he goes elsewhere - to a contender??
- Aussiepenguin

Well he's a RFA. He's not gonna really have a choice in the matter. If he really wants to leave I'm sure that he can take the Hawks to arbitration which he'll win it this year is anything like last year and the Hawks will be forced to trade him because they can't afford his contract.

Well he's a RFA. He's not gonna really have a choice in the matter. If he really wants to leave I'm sure that he can take the Hawks to arbitration which he'll win it this year is anything like last year and the Hawks will be forced to trade him because they can't afford his contract.
- Victoro311

i dont suddenly think the hawks are gonna plummet though.

Well he's a RFA. He's not gonna really have a choice in the matter. If he really wants to leave I'm sure that he can take the Hawks to arbitration which he'll win it this year is anything like last year and the Hawks will be forced to trade him because they can't afford his contract.
- Victoro311

His bonuses already are hurting the Hawks this year