Your opinion isn't a fact. Fact is, mail in voting is perfectly fine. Sorry it hurts your feelings about your opinions on such matters.
- Mentalorgasm5

Well...if my opinion was a fact it wouldn’t be called an opinion, it would be called a fact, right? Hint; words and phrase such as “I think”, or, “it seems” are usually indicators that someone is only expressing an opinion, not stating something as fact. Also, always keep an eye out for the “I’m just stating my opinion...” that one is usually a very good indicator that someone is only expressing an opinion, not trying to represent anything as fact.
Don’t worry, my feelings aren’t hurt that others have a different opinion than mine. I guess I will try to pepper any future statements of my opinion with several “IMO”s to help avoid any confusion.

Sabres needed 6 goalies to satisfy expansion requirements.

This is strictly for that.
- Pegullaville

Where do you see this? All I can find is the following:

under contract in 2021-22, OR
who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2020-21

If they qualified Johansson, this alone would satisfy the requirement. This signing just tells me that they may pass on qualifying him.

Where do you see this? All I can find is the following:

under contract in 2021-22, OR
who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2020-21

If they qualified Johansson, this alone would satisfy the requirement. This signing just tells me that they may pass on qualifying him.
- TheSabresTaco

Or trade him this year.

Well...if my opinion was a fact it wouldn’t be called an opinion, it would be called a fact, right? Hint; words and phrase such as “I think”, or, “it seems” are usually indicators that someone is only expressing an opinion, not stating something as fact. Also, always keep an eye out for the “I’m just stating my opinion...” that one is usually a very good indicator that someone is only expressing an opinion, not trying to represent anything as fact.
Don’t worry, my feelings aren’t hurt that others have a different opinion than mine. I guess I will try to pepper any future statements of my opinion with several “IMO”s to help avoid any confusion.
- Ratsreign

I found this is somewhat effective...IMO of course.

Where do you see this? All I can find is the following:

under contract in 2021-22, OR
who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2020-21

If they qualified Johansson, this alone would satisfy the requirement. This signing just tells me that they may pass on qualifying him.
- TheSabresTaco

Both Ullmark and Hutton are UFAs at season end so they don’t count for the expansion

Where do you see this? All I can find is the following:

under contract in 2021-22, OR
who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2020-21

If they qualified Johansson, this alone would satisfy the requirement. This signing just tells me that they may pass on qualifying him.
- TheSabresTaco

I interpreted the signing on a 2 year deal to expose him in the Expansion Draft as well. Could be wrong too.

With respect to players elligible to be exposed for selection by the Kracken, can they draft UFA's? I'm thinking NO, but am unsure. If they cannot, then that must be a major factor in signing Hall and Reino to 1 year deals. As much as Covid economics

I interpreted the signing on a 2 year deal to expose him in the Expansion Draft as well. Could be wrong too.

With respect to players elligible to be exposed for selection by the Kracken, can they draft UFA's? I'm thinking NO, but am unsure. If they cannot, then that must be a major factor in signing Hall and Reino to 1 year deals. As much as Covid economics
- IonSabres

I’m assuming because Hutton walks they’d be able to expose him and Johansson?

UPL would be at no risk. So they just protect Ullmark and they are good, correct?

I’m assuming because Hutton walks they’d be able to expose him and Johansson?

UPL would be at no risk. So they just protect Ullmark and they are good, correct?
- sbroads24

U can’t expose a UFA, they’re no longer under contract
If Seattle signed one of our UFAs, that would count as their selection from our team though

*assuming it’s the same rules as with Vegas

We can expose Tokarski
Johansson would have to be extended (i believe) to count

I’m assuming because Hutton walks they’d be able to expose him and Johansson?

UPL would be at no risk. So they just protect Ullmark and they are good, correct?
- sbroads24

Maybe, I'm not sure what they think of Johansson, but assume they would want to resign and protect him to watch his development. I seem to remember him having a tough time early in each league he plays in, then figures it out and plays pretty good...hopefully he can figure out the NHL soon.

Calling Mr Pach....this could be an interesting blog...Sabres early projection for Expansion Draft Protection.

U can’t expose a UFA, they’re no longer under contract
If Seattle signed one of our UFAs, that would count as their selection from our team though

*assuming it’s the same rules as with Vegas

We can expose Tokarski
Johansson would have to be extended (i believe) to count
- jdfitz77

Is the sequence of events as follows?
- Expansion Draft
- Prospect Entry Draft
- UFA

If that is right, then are the Kraken able to select UFA's prior to other teams?

Trying to make sense of this all

I interpreted the signing on a 2 year deal to expose him in the Expansion Draft as well. Could be wrong too.

With respect to players elligible to be exposed for selection by the Kracken, can they draft UFA's? I'm thinking NO, but am unsure. If they cannot, then that must be a major factor in signing Hall and Reino to 1 year deals. As much as Covid economics
- IonSabres

I don’t think Seattle can draft ufa players, they would have to negotiate with/sign them as an ufa. I think it does play a part in teams only signing guys for one year, makes the protection list much easier to make, although it comes with some risk of losing some ufa player to a higher bidder during the next free agent signing period. It will be interesting to see if any of these one year deals get extended before season’s end.

U can’t expose a UFA, they’re no longer under contract
If Seattle signed one of our UFAs, that would count as their selection from our team though

*assuming it’s the same rules as with Vegas

We can expose Tokarski
Johansson would have to be extended (i believe) to count
- jdfitz77

With respect to Johansson, he's an RFA at the end of the year, so he is still under team control and elligible if he qualifies against other parameters (games played?)

Is the sequence of events as follows?
- Expansion Draft
- Prospect Entry Draft
- UFA

If that is right, then are the Kraken able to select UFA's prior to other teams?

Trying to make sense of this all
- IonSabres

Who knows this year?
Last time, Vegas was allowed to sign UFAs early if they wanted

With respect to Johansson, he's an RFA at the end of the year, so he is still under team control and elligible if he qualifies against other parameters (games played?)
- IonSabres

That seems like it could be right,
but I’m not positive

At any rate....
we’d only need to expose 1 goalie,
so Tokarski fills that need for us

I don’t think Seattle can draft ufa players, they would have to negotiate with/sign them as an ufa. I think it does play a part in teams only signing guys for one year, makes the protection list much easier to make, although it comes with some risk of losing some ufa player to a higher bidder during the next free agent signing period. It will be interesting to see if any of these one year deals get extended before season’s end.
- Ratsreign

It would make sense to me that even our 1 year, UFA elligible players would still need to be protected if they intend to retain them.
I say this based on the league timeline in a normal year, as follows:
- League year ends June 30th
- Expansion Draft in late June, before the normal Entry Draft
- Entry Draft in late June
- June 30th, last day of League Year
- July 1st, new League Year
- July 1st, FA opens

So, guys like Rhino, Hall would be property of the Sabres under contract at the time of the Expansion Draft...and would need to be protected if the Sabres don't want to risk them being selected by the Kracken.

It would make sense to me that even our 1 year, UFA elligible players would still need to be protected if they intend to retain them.
I say this based on the league timeline in a normal year, as follows:
- League year ends June 30th
- Expansion Draft in late June, before the normal Entry Draft
- Entry Draft in late June
- June 30th, last day of League Year
- July 1st, new League Year
- July 1st, FA opens

So, guys like Rhino, Hall would be property of the Sabres under contract at the time of the Expansion Draft...and would need to be protected if the Sabres don't want to risk them being selected by the Kracken.
- IonSabres

I didn’t read through this,
so I’m not sure how much help it’ll actually be
I’m sure it gives the basics at least though

https://en.m.wikipedia.or.../2017_NHL_Expansion_Draft

That seems like it could be right,
but I’m not positive

At any rate....
we’d only need to expose 1 goalie,
so Tokarski fills that need for us
- jdfitz77

It does as long as Sabres want and need to protect 2 goalies in Ullmark and Johansson...which also impacts the type of protection list they employ (I think)

Well...if my opinion was a fact it wouldn’t be called an opinion, it would be called a fact, right? Hint; words and phrase such as “I think”, or, “it seems” are usually indicators that someone is only expressing an opinion, not stating something as fact. Also, always keep an eye out for the “I’m just stating my opinion...” that one is usually a very good indicator that someone is only expressing an opinion, not trying to represent anything as fact.
Don’t worry, my feelings aren’t hurt that others have a different opinion than mine. I guess I will try to pepper any future statements of my opinion with several “IMO”s to help avoid any confusion.
- Ratsreign

Well when there are actual facts about what you are discussing, frankly, it doesnt matter what you think or feel.

So keep your opinions about voter fraud inside that conspiracy mind of yours, since its complete rubbish.

Well...if my opinion was a fact it wouldn’t be called an opinion, it would be called a fact, right? Hint; words and phrase such as “I think”, or, “it seems” are usually indicators that someone is only expressing an opinion, not stating something as fact. Also, always keep an eye out for the “I’m just stating my opinion...” that one is usually a very good indicator that someone is only expressing an opinion, not trying to represent anything as fact.
Don’t worry, my feelings aren’t hurt that others have a different opinion than mine. I guess I will try to pepper any future statements of my opinion with several “IMO”s to help avoid any confusion.
- Ratsreign

Or an "alternative fact," I spose

I didn’t read through this,
so I’m not sure how much help it’ll actually be
I’m sure it gives the basics at least though

https://en.m.wikipedia.or.../2017_NHL_Expansion_Draft
- jdfitz77

Yup it does, thanks.

-At least twenty of the thirty players selected by Vegas had to be under contract for the 2017–18 season, and they were required to select a minimum of fourteen forwards, nine defensemen and three goaltenders.
-Vegas was granted a 48-hour window prior to the draft to sign any pending free agent (RFA or UFA, one per team) that was left unprotected.
-If a team lost a player to Vegas during this signing window they did not have a player selected from their roster during this draft.

Sabres would need to protect their UFA candidates if they want to ensure they can resign them (until FA starts).
If Sabres choose to protect Johansson and Ullmark, then they have fewer skaters they can protect.
Of course, if they wanted to, like they did with Ullmark they could work a trade of an asset so the Kracken do not take Johansson.

It does as long as Sabres want and need to protect 2 goalies in Ullmark and Johansson...which also impacts the type of protection list they employ (I think)
- IonSabres

Can only protect 1 goalie no matter what
Ullmark & Hutton are both UFA
So we could protect Johansson
Expose Tokarski
Sign Ullmark AFTER the expansion draft

But I’m not really worried about losing any of our current goalies
None of them are “franchise” players, except maybe UPL (way too soon to tell though)
I wonder if we have to protect UPL though?
He did play some AHL games last year, & I’m sure he will this year too

If Ullmark plays really well this year,
then I’m sure we’ll at least try to sign him
In that case, we’d protect him
And if Seattle took Johansson, that would be fine

The QAnon cum sponges are out in full right now.

Both Ullmark and Hutton are UFAs at season end so they don’t count for the expansion
- Pegullaville

But you can still protect a pending UFA (Ullmark) and expose Johansson as long as you qualify or re-sign him.

I interpreted the signing on a 2 year deal to expose him in the Expansion Draft as well. Could be wrong too.

With respect to players elligible to be exposed for selection by the Kracken, can they draft UFA's? I'm thinking NO, but am unsure. If they cannot, then that must be a major factor in signing Hall and Reino to 1 year deals. As much as Covid economics
- IonSabres

I think you're right. I just don't see why they would go through all of that unless they have plans for JoJo

I think you're right. I just don't see why they would go through all of that unless they have plans for JoJo
- TheSabresTaco

I heard through the grape vine that there's talk of Jojo and Mitts for Kuemper







I started the talk just now but still