The Flames Expansion Draft Protection/Exposure/Exempt Thread

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Nope. See the mock draft thread to see some of the salaries so far. If you're taking only ELC players, you might end up below the cap floor, but that's pretty hard to do and still ice a roster that has any chance of competing. There are going to be a few salaries in the 4-5 million range and that should put you over $42 million.

But don't forget, the 30 players selected aren't going to apply to the cap, only the 20-some players on the roster apply to the cap. So you need every player to make $2 million on average to hit the floor.

Gotcha. But you can sign UFA's etc. to meet the actual salary cap.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Will CP explode if Troy Brower is protected....

If you thought LV had serious interest in Brouwer maybe you do protect him and then talk trade. It strengthens your bargaining position vs. exposing him.

Of course then it comes down to who is bluffing who.

[Ducay]

Flames need to start a disinformation campaign about how much they are trying to re-sign their UFAs for to try and convince LV they're worth more than they are.

"Wow, Lazar is holding out for $6m and Calgary didn't protect him! We better take him!"

[Iggy Snipe]

Flames would not get anything for Brouwer in the trade market because of his price tag. Over paid for a guy who was a no show all year, and then decided to no show in the playoffs too.
Flames would feel like they won the lottery if Brouwer gets picked up by Vegas. I think it would be a dream come true for the Flames. I am not sure how much interest Vegas will have, but what I am sure of is the Flames will not protect Brouwer.

[Vinny01]

Do the Flames have to protect a goalie? As of right now they do not have anyone to protect.

In my opinion these are locks
1. Gaudreau
2. Monahan
3. Bennett
4. Backlund
5. Frolik
6. Ferland
7. Lazar

1. Giordano
2. Hamilton
3. Brodie

Goalie: ?

They could make a goalie move prior to expansion. Fleury maybe?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Do the Flames have to protect a goalie? As of right now they do not have anyone to protect.

In my opinion these are locks
1. Gaudreau
2. Monahan
3. Bennett
4. Backlund
5. Frolik
6. Ferland
7. Lazar

1. Giordano
2. Hamilton
3. Brodie

I'm not certain if they have to protect one, but they do have to expose one, and I believe Rittich meets the standard.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I'm not certain if they have to protect one, but they do have to expose one, and I believe Rittich meets the standard.

Not Rittich - its that other guy. McCollum or something.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Do the Flames have to protect a goalie? As of right now they do not have anyone to protect.

In my opinion these are locks
1. Gaudreau
2. Monahan
3. Bennett
4. Backlund
5. Frolik
6. Ferland
7. Lazar

1. Giordano
2. Hamilton
3. Brodie

Double post

[simonsays]

If I'm Vegas, I'm taking: 5 NHL caliber centers, 8 NHL defencemen, 2or3 Goalies (depending on what they feel they can get in FA, but if a true starter is available (ie: Murray) then they'll take all 3), and about 8 NHL level wingers. That's 23 or 24 NHL level players, give or take. There will likely be about 6-7 AHL tweeners selected as well. Depending on who/what they value out of the gate, Shinkaruk/Kulak could easily be selected. Even if Brouwer is exposed I don't know if he'd be taken as it all depends on the cap/floor implications from their other selections.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Not Rittich - its that other guy. McCollum or something.

I don't think you have to have someone to protect, but you have to have someone to expose. McCollum fits that category.

You can choose to protect UFA candidates if you want to.

[Weitz]

Don't forget almost every team has a contract that they want Vegas to take (Brouwer). On the radio this morning they said they will likely take 3 maybe 4 bad contracts and it will be a bidding war for offers for them to take your problem. Likely to reach as high as a 1st rounder they were saying.

[Strange Brew]

Is it possible they take Bartkowski? Unlike other players we are exposing he is not on a bad contract. And unlike prospects we'd be exposing, he has shown he can play in the NHL albeit not at a very high level.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is it possible they take Bartkowski? Unlike other players we are exposing he is not on a bad contract. And unlike prospects we'd be exposing, he has shown he can play in the NHL albeit not at a very high level.

I doubt it because they will have a plethora of 4-7 Dmen to pick from, the majority of them much better than Bartkowski.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Don't forget almost every team has a contract that they want Vegas to take (Brouwer). On the radio this morning they said they will likely take 3 maybe 4 bad contracts and it will be a bidding war for offers for them to take your problem. Likely to reach as high as a 1st rounder they were saying.

In the world of Dustin Browns the Flames don't really have an issue to that level.

Brouwer for the next three years isn't ideal, but the team can get through it. I don't see Brouwer going to Vegas along with a high end asset, but a minor asset and Vegas actually wanting the guy in the room for that period of time.

Will they? Probably not, but McPhee's history with Brouwer makes it possible.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you thought LV had serious interest in Brouwer maybe you do protect him and then talk trade. It strengthens your bargaining position vs. exposing him.

Of course then it comes down to who is bluffing who.

But, Brouwer has a limited no trade clause. It would come into effect if you protect him then try to trade him (if LV is one of the 15 teams on his no trade list).

[Roof-Daddy]

To be honest, if Vegas has interest in Brouwer, you leave him exposed, let them take him and thank your lucky stars.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

To be honest, if Vegas has interest in Brouwer, you leave him exposed, let them take him and thank your lucky stars.

Even if you expose him, they will want a sweetener to select him.

Maybe better to give the impression you don't want to lose him. Although if he isn't officially an expansion draft selection, he doen't count towards the $42 million or so they need to get to in the draft.

Brouwer's contract certainly isn't Dustin Brown bad, but you'd have to go team by team to see where it fits in terms of awfulness. He has the distinction of being both overpaid and older, which makes it worse than say a guy like Eberle IMO.

[Tinordi]

If you can swap Brouwer out and use the money to sign Versteeg you should do it.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Even if you expose him, they will want a sweetener to select him.

Maybe better to give the impression you don't want to lose him. Although if he isn't officially an expansion draft selection, he doen't count towards the $42 million or so they need to get to in the draft.

Brouwer's contract certainly isn't Dustin Brown bad, but you'd have to go team by team to see where it fits in terms of awfulness. He has the distinction of being both overpaid and older, which makes it worse than say a guy like Eberle IMO.

They may want a sweetener, and maybe Tre would do that.

Me? No thanks.

Go ahead GMGM and pick from Brouwer, Stajan, Bouma, Chiasson, Bartkowski or one of the lesser prospects in our org like Kulak, Wotherpsoon, Shinkaruk or Poirier.

I certainly don't protect Brouwer and leave Lazar or Ferland dangling.

I said in another thread somewhere, that after doing a quick mock expansion that I noticed most f the salary I had taken on expired within a year or two, which will have them chasing their tail trying to reach the cap floor for a few seasons. That will certainly increase the likely hood of them doling out some very bad contracts. For that reason I can see them not being scared at all of taking on Brouwer's 3 remaining years. I even fear that they might help the Kings out by taking one of their awful contracts as well, like Brown.

[Tinordi]

And so what if most teams have bad money on the books? It doesn't mean you need to have bad money. Brouwer's contract limits the Flames from acquiring a top flight goalie and a guy that they thought they were getting by signing Brouwer which is a top six RW.

It is way more difficult to contend with alot of gristle on the roster than without. If the Flames are indeed going to contend they need to shed all of Stajan, Brouwer, Bouma and replace them with cheaper and critically *better* players. Exhibit A is Anaheim who's depth guys ran a lap around the Flames' depth guys.