06-13-2017, 02:47 PM
|
#441
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Protected list question. A goalie spot could be empty?
|
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 02:49 PM
|
#442
|
|
Taking a while to get to 5000
|
Nope, they have to protect one.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Toonage For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 02:52 PM
|
#443
|
|
Franchise Player
|
But it doesn't really matter because the Flames can protect Elliott or Johnson and it counts.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Geeoff For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 02:55 PM
|
#444
|
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeoff
But it doesn't really matter because the Flames can protect Elliott or Johnson and it counts.
|
oh, that's even better
|
|
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 02:58 PM
|
#445
|
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toonage
Nope, they have to protect one.
|
No they don't.
They have to expose one. They don't have to protect any.
|
|
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 02:59 PM
|
#446
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
Could the Flames use the empty goalie spot to get an asset? If another team wants to protect an extra goalie, temporarily trade the goalie's rights to the Flames, then protect him and trade back for a pick (as payment for protection) after the expansion draft? Probably a number of obvious reasons not to do that I'm missing, just thinking outside the box....
|
|
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 03:00 PM
|
#447
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
|
The league says that teams have to protect a minimum (e.g., they HAVE to choose 8 skaters 1 goalie or 7-3-1). Presumably it's to satisfy the NHLPA's demands.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Freeway For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 03:04 PM
|
#448
|
|
aka Spike
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Darkest Corners of My Mind
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
No they don't.
They have to expose one. They don't have to protect any.
|
Yup
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTeeks
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CMPunk For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 03:29 PM
|
#449
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepingmoose
Could the Flames use the empty goalie spot to get an asset? If another team wants to protect an extra goalie, temporarily trade the goalie's rights to the Flames, then protect him and trade back for a pick (as payment for protection) after the expansion draft? Probably a number of obvious reasons not to do that I'm missing, just thinking outside the box....
|
That is blatant circumvention.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
|
|
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 04:51 PM
|
#450
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinny01
Hope this list leaks today beyond just the obvious Phaneuf, Bieksa, Fleury
|
Sounds like Phaneuf and Bieksa BOTH will be protected. Phaneuf wouldn't waive his NMC and Bieksa was never asked.
Gonna be an interesting week.
|
|
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 05:29 PM
|
#451
|
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMPunk
Yup
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to IamNotKenKing For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 05:39 PM
|
#452
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Does anyone have a handy summary or a link to a handy summary that lists all the key dates coming up with the protected lists, Las Vegas roster announcement, entry draft, FA negotiating window, and the July 1 start of FA season? It's going to be a busy 2.5 weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Finger Cookin For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 05:42 PM
|
#453
|
|
Everyone's Favorite Oilfan!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Jose, California
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751
Sounds like Phaneuf and Bieksa BOTH will be protected. Phaneuf wouldn't waive his NMC and Bieksa was never asked.
Gonna be an interesting week.
|
Anaheim has a deal in place already with Las Vegas so they didn't need Bieksa to waive it.
|
|
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 05:48 PM
|
#454
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finger Cookin
Does anyone have a handy summary or a link to a handy summary that lists all the key dates coming up with the protected lists, Las Vegas roster announcement, entry draft, FA negotiating window, and the July 1 start of FA season? It's going to be a busy 2.5 weeks.
|
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2017/6/1...golden-knights
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-13-2017, 05:59 PM
|
#455
|
|
Franchise Player
|
It'll be interesting to hear if any players hear about being available from anyone other than their organization its front office in that 17 hour window before the protected lists are made public. There probably will be some leaks.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2017, 07:48 AM
|
#456
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
|
No fun!
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2017, 07:52 AM
|
#457
|
|
Taking a while to get to 5000
|
lol...but that leaked.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2017, 08:50 AM
|
#459
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
|
I put this in another thread:
So he thinks Tre will expose the 25 year old big, fast winger who scored 15 goals and will probably cost about $1.5 million against the cap and protect the 32 year old big, slow winger who scored 13 goals and costs $4.5 million against the cap?
Yeah, that seems plausible.
EDIT: Read the article more closely, and I get what he's saying. He thinks Calgary MIGHT leave Ferland available for Vegas to take instead of Brouwer in order to get something out of it. Like for instance a goalie in exchange for Stajan or something along those lines.
Last edited by Roof-Daddy; 06-14-2017 at 08:54 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2017, 08:50 AM
|
#460
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepingmoose
Could the Flames use the empty goalie spot to get an asset? If another team wants to protect an extra goalie, temporarily trade the goalie's rights to the Flames, then protect him and trade back for a pick (as payment for protection) after the expansion draft? Probably a number of obvious reasons not to do that I'm missing, just thinking outside the box....
|
Trading him back would seem like a problem but it sure seems the cost of acquiring a goalie who's going to be exposed should be cheap.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:23 AM.
|
|
