you have to waste a roster spot on someone who you have no intention of playing
- homiedclown

The person won’t be “on the roster” when the season starts
Send whoever to the echl
It’s 1 contract & not a big deal in any way whatsoever
Another “Vet” goalie needs to be signed for the minors anyways

So protect Ullmark as a pending ufa.

Expose tokarski.

Or am I still missing something?!?
- Gr8daygo

He’s making a mountain out of a mole hill
It’s nbd at all
We’ll sign a goalie for the minors (who can be exposed or protected)… just like we did last time

He’s making a mountain out of a mole hill

- jdfitz77

go f@ck yourself


show me where it says you can protect a UFA


I have shown where you have to expose someone who is under contract or a RFA who you committed to


you really have become an a$$hole lately and I bet you get sh!tty tips if you ever get back behind the bar

We’ll sign a goalie for the minors (who can be exposed or protected)… just like we did last time
- jdfitz77

who was that smarta$$


what goalie did we sign the last time to meet an expansion requirement

https://www.espn.com/nhl/...ns/_/name/buf/season/2017


please guide us with your f@cking wisdom you miserable bastard


we bribed them to leave ullmark alone you simpleton

so if ullmark is not signed before the expansion draft, do with either have to sign a second goalie to expose either that goalie or Tokarski /or/ offer RFA Stefanos Lekkas a qualifying offer, which we really do not want to do

I am reading we have to protect a goalie no matter what


man this could make trading jonas burn a bit
- homiedclown

They have to expose a goalie no matter what. They can protect Ullmark or not protect one at all.

If they aren't going to resign Ullmark, it's a good opportunity to make a trade for a G. There's no problem here at all.

They have to expose a goalie no matter what. They can protect Ullmark or not protect one at all.
.
- Lunaion

where does it say we can protect a UFA?

it does say we have to protect 1 goalie

go f@ck yourself


show me where it says you can protect a UFA


I have shown where you have to expose someone who is under contract or a RFA who you committed to


you really have become an a$$hole lately and I bet you get sh!tty tips if you ever get back behind the bar
- homiedclown

It’s because they aren’t a ufas until July 28th.

Just like if Seattle talks with and signs a potential ufa prior to the expansion draft it counts as their pick.

Making the signed takorski the goalie that’s exposed.

It’s because they aren’t a ufas until July 28th.

Just like if Seattle talks with and signs a potential ufa prior to the expansion draft it counts as their pick.

Making the signed takorski the goalie that’s exposed.
- Gr8daygo

I don't see anywhere where that meets the criteria for who we protect


I do see we have to expose a goalie under contract or rfa


if we do not have to protect a goalie under contract, fine
I just do not see where it says if that satisfies or not the requirement for the goalie that an NHL team must protect

where does it say we can protect a UFA?

it does say we have to protect 1 goalie
- homiedclown

You quoted the exposure requirement, not the protection rules.

I could probably dig up something on UFA's somewhere, but the fact that you have the option to protect UFA's on CapFriendly's tool and Seattle has the option to select them is pretty good evidence alone. Seattle has a 48 hour period before the draft to negotiate with these guys ahead of the draft. Like Gr8 said, they aren't UFA's when the draft takes place. It doesn't take an explicit rule.

You quoted the exposure requirement, not the protection rules.

I could probably dig up something on UFA's somewhere, but the fact that you have the option to protect UFA's on CapFriendly's tool and Seattle has the option to select them is pretty good evidence alone. Seattle has a 48 hour period before the draft to negotiate with these guys ahead of the draft. Like Gr8 said, they aren't UFA's when the draft takes place. It doesn't take an explicit rule.
- Lunaion

I could not find protected rules that says anything about it, ufas, would expect something other then cap friendly for insight


then again probably didn't have a team in this position in 17, or now aside from the sabres

and I did not see any ufa protected in 2017

https://www.thedailygoalh...e-kraken-expansion-draft/
I don't know much about this maybe Lunaion can look, but does Ullmark meet the 40/70 rule, and does that affect his status.

Well this sucks Servino tore up his groin in his rehab start today and had to be helped off the field.

Every article I have read has the Sabres protecting Ullmark (pending UFA) and exposing Tokarski.
Jonas needed some 25+ games this past season to qualify for "exposure", hence why Tokarski was signed.

I could not find protected rules that says anything about it, ufas, would expect something other then cap friendly for insight


then again probably didn't have a team in this position in 17, or now aside from the sabres

and I did not see any ufa protected in 2017
- homiedclown

I did mention the special UFA negotiating rules for them as well.

I get why you want them to be in the NHL provided rules, but they really don't need to be. They aren't part of the exemptions, so they can be selected, if they aren't protected. They don't qualify for exposure

I did mention the special UFA negotiating rules for them as well.

I get why you want them to be in the NHL provided rules, but they really don't need to be. They aren't part of the exemptions, so they can be selected, if they aren't protected. They don't qualify for exposure
- Lunaion

Well that's cool no worries in that aspect.

https://www.thedailygoalh...-the-carolina-hurricanes/

Buckle up boys

https://www.thedailygoalhorn.com/nhl-teams-wisely-using-free-agency-to-protect-more-players-in-seattle-kraken-expansion-draft/
I don't know much about this maybe Lunaion can look, but does Ullmark meet the 40/70 rule, and does that affect his status.
- Buff36

There's no 40/70 rules for goalies.

There's no 40/70 rules for goalies.
- Lunaion

That's cool, Thanks

Well that's cool no worries in that aspect.
- Buff36

No worries at all. Just the opposite, it's an opportunity to acquire a goalie before the draft.

https://www.thedailygoalhorn.com/nhl-rumors-is-rod-brindamour-leaving-the-carolina-hurricanes/

Buckle up boys
- Anderdog

Could get interesting

No worries at all. Just the opposite, it's an opportunity to acquire a goalie before the draft.
- Lunaion

And I think they will and it will be Columbus

And I think they will and it will be Columbus
- Buff36

Once upon a time, they acquired Stéphane Beauregard before the expansion draft and protected him. That one had a happy ending when they dealt him to Chicago after the draft.

https://www.thedailygoalh...ikely-to-land-seth-jones/

Reinhart to LA rumor

https://www.thedailygoalhorn.com/nhl-rumors-is-rod-brindamour-leaving-the-carolina-hurricanes/

Buckle up boys
- Anderdog

Leaving for Seattle.

Leaving for Seattle.
- kingcong39

Can't believe he's going anywhere