Am I winning?
- LeftCoaster

Right now, think it’s flipped back and forth all week but i havent checked for a few days. Got out on the boat a few times in this beauty waether.

If jebsen gets bowey and a 2, what does tanev get?!

Right now, think it’s flipped back and forth all week but i havent checked for a few days. Got out on the boat a few times in this beauty waether.

If jebsen gets bowey and a 2, what does tanev get?!
- neem55

Gudbranson to anywhere for a 2nd

Gudbranson to anywhere for a 2nd
- LeftCoaster

Matthew Sekeres
‏

@mattsekeres
Following Following @mattsekeres
More
Name to keep an eye on with the #Canucksat at #NHLTradeDeadline is prospect W Jonathan Dahlen (acquired from Ottawa for Alex Burrows two years ago). My understanding is Canucks have shopped him, soured on him a bit after seeing him in his first AHL year with @UticaComets.

Matthew Sekeres
‏

@mattsekeres
Following Following @mattsekeres
More
Name to keep an eye on with the #Canucksat at #NHLTradeDeadline is prospect W Jonathan Dahlen (acquired from Ottawa for Alex Burrows two years ago). My understanding is Canucks have shopped him, soured on him a bit after seeing him in his first AHL year with @UticaComets.
- VANTEL

Interesting, he’s pretty soft from what I’ve seen but has skill.

Interesting, he’s pretty soft from what I’ve seen but has skill.
- Nucker101

He is not playing tonight but says injury . He was healthy last game

Gudbranson to anywhere for a 2nd
- LeftCoaster

Would be pretty nice, jensen is not mich better imo. Better defesively, but guddy is a type you want in the playoffs despite him being a bottom pair guy

McDavid 2 games
- VANTEL

What a joke.

Actually his ELC will still be in effect in June of 2021.

* One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played in at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

Also, he's not under contract yet for 2021/22.
- LeftCoaster

That's part of the rules for what each team must expose, not what's exempt.

That's part of the rules for what each team must expose, not what's exempt.
- YeOldTimer

Exactly. This season is 1 year pro, and he has 2 more pro seasons between now and the expansion. We will have to protect him.

Matthew Sekeres
‏

@mattsekeres
Following Following @mattsekeres
More
Name to keep an eye on with the #Canucksat at #NHLTradeDeadline is prospect W Jonathan Dahlen (acquired from Ottawa for Alex Burrows two years ago). My understanding is Canucks have shopped him, soured on him a bit after seeing him in his first AHL year with @UticaComets.
- VANTEL

I like him, but if we can get a good defensive prospect for him that is fine. Dahlen for Fabbro?

I agree I don't expect him to play over 9. I was genuinely surprised to hear JB say it though, perhaps it's something he felt he needed to say in terms of placating the player while they're still unsigned
- NorthNuck

That exemption spot has a high degree of value and can't be wasted. There will be teams that have too many eligible expansion draft candidates and will want to trade them for some return if at all possible. So you might be able to get another defenseman as an upgrade at below market value by trading some of your forward prospects and/or draft picks. But if JB burns that year of Hughes' eligibility then he'll lose that opportunity. Even if you can't make a trade, keeping your #5 NHL defenseman for depth makes your team stronger than it would be if you lose that guy for nothing.

Also, Seattle will be competition in your division to you don't want to make them any better than absolutely necessary.

trying buddy! It’s going to go down to the wire, made a couple moves here.
- neem55

Worst case scenario is we sign him to 3 years and give him protection. Bieksa was signed and protected and it forced the ducks to expose Theodore (I believe). Edler shouldnt be needing protecting when Seattle has its draft imo.
- Codes1087

I'm sure Edler wants the NMC so he can't be traded out of town but also because he doesn't like the prospect of being claimed in the expansion draft. Good reason to keep his extension to 2 years with a NMC. He wouldn't be picked if he's not under contract and they can renegotiate a new extension 2 years down the road if that's in everyone's best interests. Pay him more cash now to offset the shorter term if need be, but don't burn one of the exemption spots.

That exemption spot has a high degree of value and can't be wasted. There will be teams that have too many eligible expansion draft candidates and will want to trade them for some return if at all possible. So you might be able to get another defenseman as an upgrade at below market value by trading some of your forward prospects and/or draft picks. But if JB burns that year of Hughes' eligibility then he'll lose that opportunity. Even if you can't make a trade, keeping your #5 NHL defenseman for depth makes your team stronger than it would be if you lose that guy for nothing.

Also, Seattle will be competition in your division to you don't want to make them any better than absolutely necessary.
- YeOldTimer

Yes there are definitely 0 good reasons to play him over 9 games, there are only good reasons not to.

I agree with not wanting to help Seattle be any better than necessary but I also think that it won't matter too much. We'll be on a big upward climb towards competing with the best teams within a year or 2 of them coming into the league and I highly doubt they wind up catching lightning in a bottle the way Vegas did.

I'm sure Edler wants the NMC so he can't be traded out of town but also because he doesn't like the prospect of being claimed in the expansion draft. Good reason to keep his extension to 2 years with a NMC. He wouldn't be picked if he's not under contract and they can renegotiate a new extension 2 years down the road if that's in everyone's best interests. Pay him more cash now to offset the shorter term if need be, but don't burn one of the exemption spots.
- YeOldTimer

I doubt Edler goes for a 2 year, he will want 3. You can theoretically put it to him this way.

If you give him more dollars and no NTC in the 3rd year of the contract, he will likely not be claimed regardless. Either he will drop off and be hugely overpaid for where he slots in the lineup, in which case Seattle won't want him, or he will retain his value and be playing higher, in which case we protect him.

I doubt that conversation happens but it's a worthwhile argument imo

I'm sure Edler wants the NMC so he can't be traded out of town but also because he doesn't like the prospect of being claimed in the expansion draft. Good reason to keep his extension to 2 years with a NMC. He wouldn't be picked if he's not under contract and they can renegotiate a new extension 2 years down the road if that's in everyone's best interests. Pay him more cash now to offset the shorter term if need be, but don't burn one of the exemption spots.
- YeOldTimer

100% agree. Still prefer one year but I'll take 2

I like him, but if we can get a good defensive prospect for him that is fine. Dahlen for Fabbro?
- Retinalz

Wonder if Minny would've traded Zucker for a healthy Virtanen + Dahlen + some random pick/prospect

That's part of the rules for what each team must expose, not what's exempt.
- YeOldTimer

I know, he doesn’t meet those rules, yet.

Exactly. This season is 1 year pro, and he has 2 more pro seasons between now and the expansion. We will have to protect him.
- Retinalz

Honestly he might not be in the organization in two years and his development has been poor. Why worry about it too much? It’s not like he’s been the Pettersson of our young defence.

I would hazard a guess there will be a better player Seattle’s interested in.

Briesbois playing with an edge tonight according to Corey H. Honing his skills

I know, he doesn’t meet those rules, yet.
- LeftCoaster

That paragraph only stipulates what the Canucks must make available to Seattle. Basically at least one experienced, NHL D man who's under contract for the following season. It has nothing to do with Hughes' eligibility or exemption. So if they burn up Hughes' exemption by playing him more than the allowed number of games this season, they will be facing the prospect of losing a guy like Stetcher or Hutton instead of a guy like Pouliot or Beiga.

That paragraph only stipulates what the Canucks must make available to Seattle. Basically at least one experienced, NHL D man who's under contract for the following season. It has nothing to do with Hughes' eligibility or exemption. So if they burn up Hughes' exemption by playing him more than the allowed number of games this season, they will be facing the prospect of losing a guy like Stetcher or Hutton instead of a guy like Pouliot or Beiga.
- YeOldTimer

That wasn’t in regards to Hughes, it was about Juolevi.

Like I said, Juolevi might be in the AHL or on another team. Not worried about him. Hughes is a different story.

3-0 Comets

0:56 UTI Tanner Kero (21) ASST: Reid Boucher (26)
1:55 UTI Reid Gardiner (1) ASST: None
7:09 UTI Guillaume Brisebois (3) ASST: Kyle Thomas (1), Vincent Arseneau (1)

That wasn’t in regards to Hughes, it was about Juolevi.

Like I said, Juolevi might be in the AHL or on another team. Not worried about him. Hughes is a different story.
- LeftCoaster

Yeah, let's wait until OJ actually becomes worth losing sleep over before working about his exempt status.