Di Giuseppe will be protected.
- BINGO!

Sure, who do expose then Nestrasil or Nordstrom ?

I like Ekholm but I think he is also a product of the system. I do think they only protect 3 D though and I went with Ellis but I could easily see Ekholm being protected over him.

They can afford to lose a top 4 D over a a top 6 forward IMO.
- belcherbd

Johansen, Forsberg, Neal, and Smith are the only forwards I can justify protecting over Ekholm. None of Wilson, Aberg, Arvidsson, or Jarnkrok are good enough to protect over Ekholm. With prospects like Fiala and Kamenev- as well as the 3 aforementioned that don't get picked- on the horizon and their bottom-6 well stocked, I don't see how they can't afford to lose a top-6 forward (though I don't agree with calling Wilson such).

Conversely, who do they have that takes over for Ekholm? Carle? Not with his last few years. Granberg? If you're trusting a sophomore with very limited offense. They're really not that deep on D; their success has always been linked to the strength of their top-4.

Sure, who do expose then Nestrasil or Nordstrom ?
- belcherbd

The former makes more sense to me. Bigger frame, better offense so far, and found some success with Staal iirc. Nordstrom's style is duplicated and improved upon by guys like Teravainen, Lindholm, and Rask.

I personally would be more interested in seeing how the new metrics panned out relative to how the Penguins went from a .500 team, and one that had pretty lousy possession numbers (if i am not mistaken) to Cup Champions. In particular, with the guys acquired last year before and during the season.

Would taking the players stats in those categories, prior to their run in the second half the season, have led us to believe they would become a championship caliber team?

If it didn't what do we learn from that?

Would be an interesting case study with data probably available that would make it worth looking at.

Yeah...that would be a boring study but I feel like there are way too many variables in the Las Vegas equation(s).

I mean it's 'fun' to speculate...and of course, to use some logic in doing it...but ultimately there will probably be at least 5 events for each team that could alter their equations between now and 'protection day'.

Ryan:

This was a fun read. Hope you bring it back next summer when we have a better idea of team rosters and to compare how much the NHL can change in a year.

I can envision this being the busiest trade deadline we have seen in recent memory. There will be a lot of moving before then.

I can envision this being the busiest trade deadline we have seen in recent memory. There will be a lot of moving before then.
- Oneonta Penguin

I can see all kinds of maneuvering before the expansion draft. I wonder if there's any type of restrictions after the season but before the expansion draft? I think it's virtually impossible to predict what players will be available for Vegas because teams are going to do everything in their power to avoid losing talent for nothing. Even if the return isn't great.

If the Pens trade Murray because they literally can't get rid of MAF it wouldn't surprise me at all.

I can envision this being the busiest trade deadline we have seen in recent memory. There will be a lot of moving before then.
- Oneonta Penguin

I think that is very possible.

If Murray proves to be the guy they want him to be, there's no way they lose him in the Vegas draft.

They would find some way to deal MAF if Murray is truly their man.

I can see all kinds of maneuvering before the expansion draft. I wonder if there's any type of restrictions after the season but before the expansion draft? I think it's virtually impossible to predict what players will be available for Vegas because teams are going to do everything in their power to avoid losing talent for nothing. Even if the return isn't great.

If the Pens trade Murray because they literally can't get rid of MAF it wouldn't surprise me at all.
- madmike71

Teams won't care about losing talent. It's expected. What matters is minimizing the loss preferably to a 3rd line winger without huge upside.

Teams will maneuver to and not lose top 6 forwards, 1g, good 4d especially ones with higher upside.

GMGM isn't passing on Wilson if he's available.

I can see all kinds of maneuvering before the expansion draft. I wonder if there's any type of restrictions after the season but before the expansion draft? I think it's virtually impossible to predict what players will be available for Vegas because teams are going to do everything in their power to avoid losing talent for nothing. Even if the return isn't great.

If the Pens trade Murray because they literally can't get rid of MAF it wouldn't surprise me at all.
- madmike71

Again, that would be poor asset management. Pittsburgh had a chance to make this a non problem this offseason, but chose not to deal MAF.

Again, that would be poor asset management. Pittsburgh had a chance to make this a non problem this offseason, but chose not to deal MAF.
- Oneonta Penguin

I think it was smart not to deal him given the 'starter' is a rookie who will likely come down from his Stanley Cup high.

You have a motivated vet who can probably not hurt his trade value during the regular season unless he completely bombs...which i think is unlikely.

Competition in goal might not be such a bad thing and I think last year after Sullivan came in the bar was raised across the board. Expectations won't be lowered and it's in MAF's best interest, regardless of how many starts he gets, to be a professional and improve his value one way or another.

Well, if Pittsburgh loses Murray in expansion draft, Rutherford did a terrible job of asset and cap management. Pretty simple. Still think they arrange a deal with LV not to take Murray. It probably costs them a first round pick and LV chooses someone else, like DP.
- Oneonta Penguin

Why? - So we can keep Fleury?

After Murray gets his next contract we'd have 10 million tied up in goalies in 2017??

If Rutherford can't find a taker for Fleury, for FREE if he has too, he'll buy him out and eat the 2 million cap hit before he gives up a 1st and a guy like Pouliot

@jaydogg's bit about cost controlled players.

SThat's a really ticky tack argument that ignores relativity. The fact that RFA's can only negotiate with one team really does bring down their cost from what they would have gotten on a free market. Basically, the team with the rights just needs to give them the cheapest possible short term deal that the player will take before deciding its more worth it to hold out (very low threshold), or entice them with just enough dollars that they agree to a very team friendly long term contract. Examples:

Tarasenko is currently making 7.5 mil. Yes, isolated he is being paid like a top tier player, but he is arguably a top three wing in the NHL. He would make Patrick Kane money on the open market.

Aleksander Barkov is currently making 5.9 mil. He signed that this offseason where he is now officially tracking as a premier two way center in this league. That's worth several mil more than ~6 mil.

Aaron Ekblad is making 7.5 mil long term in a league where PK Subban and his 9 mil contract has set the UFA market price for #1 d men. That's a nice price tag for a guy that should be as good as Subban within the next two years.

Corey Schneider is making 6 mil a year. Lolz.

You can't just look at cap hits and say "Well this guy is being paid handsomely so he's not cost controlled." Everything is relative.

So yes. I would say that Monahan and McKinnon were certainly cost controlled. A 21 year old 1C who scores 30 goals and 60 points is gonna get 7.5 mil + on the free market. McKinnon is even younger and better, but the terrible situation in Colorado has hampered him. He still has the potential to be almost as good as Sidney Crosby and teams would trip over themselves to purchase a franchise center for no additional assets.

If it wasn't for restricted free agency, you would really start to see massive contracts go out to young top end talent as mediocre teams would try to acquire quick fix franchise corner stones that will be there for a decade through free agency instead of the grooling draft and development process which can take years and is a crap shoot.
- Victoro311

That's not entirely true. There are options with arbitration, decline & play in Europe & offer sheets. Blackhawks traded Saad due to the threat of an offer sheet so I wouldn't say the Blackhawks 'controlled' that situation. Arbitration will also 'dictate' a player's salary so that takes the 'control' away from the team. Then if all else fails player X goes away & plays in the KHL as an example - didn't the Blues have a player that did that?? Not sure what happens when they return though - would they still be RFA or UFA?

So the contracts are getting bigger younger. It's becoming a young man's domain $ wise, so I imagine that will reduce the $ older guys will be signing for. As that happens the 'control' will be less & less in my opinion as young guys will want more or want out. Or sign in Broadway...........

Why? - So we can keep Fleury?

After Murray gets his next contract we'd have 10 million tied up in goalies in 2017??

If Rutherford can't find a taker for Fleury, for FREE if he has too, he'll buy him out and eat the 2 million cap hit before he gives up a 1st and a guy like Pouliot
- TheGame316

I can't remember the Penguins using a buyout. They simply don't do it. They will eat salary before they use the buyout (Scuderi). Fleury will be traded, they will try to accommodate him as much as possible but in the end he will be traded.

There are a number of teams that could use Fleury. Buffalo and Ottawa could use him right now. Minnesota and Dallas would need to do some maneuvering. I am sure I am missing more.

Again, that would be poor asset management. Pittsburgh had a chance to make this a non problem this offseason, but chose not to deal MAF.
- Oneonta Penguin

I don't think rutherford got much of an offer on fleury. Maybe he also didn't push for a deal. At this point I'd rather have fleury than done a questionable deal that takes money back.

That's not entirely true. There are options with arbitration, decline & play in Europe & offer sheets. Blackhawks traded Saad due to the threat of an offer sheet so I wouldn't say the Blackhawks 'controlled' that situation. Arbitration will also 'dictate' a player's salary so that takes the 'control' away from the team. Then if all else fails player X goes away & plays in the KHL as an example - didn't the Blues have a player that did that?? Not sure what happens when they return though - would they still be RFA or UFA?

So the contracts are getting bigger younger. It's becoming a young man's domain $ wise, so I imagine that will reduce the $ older guys will be signing for. As that happens the 'control' will be less & less in my opinion as young guys will want more or want out. Or sign in Broadway...........
- Aussiepenguin

Its still restricting younger player salaries. And the CBA will continue to transfer money from young players to old players.

Saad is a much better player than Ladd, Lucic, etc. They've all signed for the same amount. Offer sheet compensation is also kind of reasonable on a $6 million deal at only a 1sst, 2nd, and 3rd. At the same $$$$ I'd definitely prefer giving up a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to have the much younger player.

The differences are not huge because of offer sheets, but it does provide teams with some negotiating leverage. I would guess the leverage of offer sheets keeps rfa salaries about $1-3 million below UFA yearly deals. But the bigger difference is the ability to choose where you play. Offer sheets can be matched so freedom movement is severely restricted.

Just wondering.............

If player X signs with (let's just say.....Florida), & they are then relocated to (let's say...... Quebec). Is there any grounds that player X has to make his contract null & void & become a UFA if he wants? After all he signed to play in Florida, not Quebec. He's not being traded, so there's no justification on him having to relocate especially if he has a NMC??? Or is the fine print in the contract that he will have to play with that organisation no matter where it's located for the duration of his contract?

Now, looking at that question, if player X has no NMC & is put up for adoption by Vegas, has he any grounds to refuse as he has signed to play at (let's say Pittsburgh), & is being forced to relocate - not traded as there is no trade taking place??? If player X was me & I was forced to relocate my life where I didn't want to & it wasn't a trade, I'd be pissed!!

Now I understand that this has all been looked at, but I cannot see how the NHLPA can advocate support for players being forced to relocate if they are chosen by Vegas.

Its really not beyond the realm of possibility that at least one really good team runs into really big goalie problems/injuries this year. Its very possible a team could want/need MAF at some point. A lot can happen between today and next summer. I'm glad that the Pens start the year with both MAF and Murr.

That's not entirely true. There are options with arbitration, decline & play in Europe & offer sheets. Blackhawks traded Saad due to the threat of an offer sheet so I wouldn't say the Blackhawks 'controlled' that situation. Arbitration will also 'dictate' a player's salary so that takes the 'control' away from the team. Then if all else fails player X goes away & plays in the KHL as an example - didn't the Blues have a player that did that?? Not sure what happens when they return though - would they still be RFA or UFA?

So the contracts are getting bigger younger. It's becoming a young man's domain $ wise, so I imagine that will reduce the $ older guys will be signing for. As that happens the 'control' will be less & less in my opinion as young guys will want more or want out. Or sign in Broadway...........
- Aussiepenguin

Yeah you're certainly not wrong and I forgot to mention those. Offersheets are incredibly rare though and barely worth mentioning. That only happens when the team that owns the rights to the player is legitimately so cap strapped that there's no chance they can match. Like your Saad example. Chicago could only really afford to give him a ~4 mil AAV short term bridge. There were a couple teams who were willing to give him ~6 mil long term so it was the perfect storm for an offer sheet. MOST times, GMs are unwilling to offer sheet unless they think they know with 100% certainty it will work because of the stigma attached to OSs. Personally I think that's dumb as (frank) and should change. It perplexes me that no one OSed Tarasenko and he ended up only getting 7.5 mil long term. He's getting paid just over standard first line level long term and he's a top wing in this league at 24. Easily one of the most team friendly contracts out there.

As far as Europe goes, that's not a very popular option either, especially for NA players who don't speak the languages over there. Its less fiscally lucrative in other leagues, and its not like you can escape your crummy situation in the NHL, play in Europe for a year, and then come back as a UFA if you still qualify as a RFA. Teams still hold your RFA rights. Vladimir Sobotka (the guy you're referencing) can only come back to the Blues even though he's 29, because the Blues went to arbitration with him before he fled and was technically given a contract or something like that. His situation is quite strange.

So any way you look at it, RFAs don't have much leverage at all. The only real way to exercise leverage is by signing OSs, which rarely come, or they can risk (frank)ing up their NHL career by going overseas in a less prestigious league and a lot of times being paid with questionable currency.

Yeah you're certainly not wrong and I forgot to mention those. Offersheets are incredibly rare though and barely worth mentioning. That only happens when the team that owns the rights to the player is legitimately so cap strapped that there's no chance they can match. Like your Saad example. Chicago could only really afford to give him a ~4 mil AAV short term bridge. There were a couple teams who were willing to give him ~6 mil long term so it was the perfect storm for an offer sheet. MOST times, GMs are unwilling to offer sheet unless they think they know with 100% certainty it will work because of the stigma attached to OSs. Personally I think that's dumb as (frank) and should change. It perplexes me that no one OSed Tarasenko and he ended up only getting 7.5 mil long term. He's getting paid just over standard first line level long term and he's a top wing in this league at 24. Easily one of the most team friendly contracts out there.

As far as Europe goes, that's not a very popular option either, especially for NA players who don't speak the languages over there. Its less fiscally lucrative in other leagues, and its not like you can escape your crummy situation in the NHL, play in Europe for a year, and then come back as a UFA if you still qualify as a RFA. Teams still hold your RFA rights. Vladimir Sobotka (the guy you're referencing) can only come back to the Blues even though he's 29, because the Blues went to arbitration with him before he fled and was technically given a contract or something like that. His situation is quite strange.

So any way you look at it, RFAs don't have much leverage at all. The only real way to exercise leverage is by signing OSs, which rarely come, or they can risk (frank)ing up their NHL career by going overseas in a less prestigious league and a lot of times being paid with questionable currency.
- Victoro311

I think the arbitration path is also favourable to good players. It's taken out of the teams hands & can be a way out for players. I think that's why teams will do what Tampa tried to do with Drouin - underplay the good players if they can so they can force a cheap contract onto them. In that respect they are definitely cost controlled & it's a joke that GM's get away with doing that to players careers.

I think there will be more offer sheets or threats of in the coming years. Murray may even find himself in the middle of 1. Imagine if Flower gets traded then Murray is offer sheeted with a ridiculous contract? Ok we get compensated but don't have a starting goalie!

Some people seem to not understand, and get overly worked up about, this exercise and the conditions under which it was done.

Even though offer sheets are rare it doesn't mean they do not effect the market. If a team was notorious for being cheap with their rfa's I would definitely send offer sheets at them to push up their cap issues. But I can't think of a team that's been notrious for low balling their rfa guys.

If chicago was just being cheap with saad I'd definitely throw an offer sheet at him. Maybe not at $6, but certainly at 5.4 - only a 1st and 3rd compensation. No problem giving that up and forces chicago to pay him something.

But arbitration is fairly important too.

Some people seem to not understand, and get overly worked up about, this exercise and the conditions under which it was done.
- jmatchett383

Thankfully, you seem to understand.

I don't think rutherford got much of an offer on fleury. Maybe he also didn't push for a deal. At this point I'd rather have fleury than done a questionable deal that takes money back.
- sditulli

Agreed. It's a tough situation if nobody wants him or his salary. I think a deal could have been done with Dallas, but Ruth didn't want to take back one of their ugly salaries. I think he's right for waiting and seeing how the season goes.

I still think Dallas is a good possibility, they just need to eat some salary of Niemi for us to take him. If their season starts falling apart because of goal tending, they'll be desperate.