[GDT] Vegas Golden Knights Expansion Draft

[OzSome]

Surprised Engelland did not wait for free agency and signed for $1M a season and $1M signing bonus. I guess he didn't think he could get lucky again and signed for the same or a little lower when he signed with the Flames. I guess he just wanted to stay living in Vegas. We will miss his leadership and toughness. I know the reason some people doesn't like Engelland was because he was overpaid a little.

[schooner]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Murray wouldn't hold much leverage though.

His leverage comes from knowing he is screwed either way. Vegas either makes a deal with him and gets a decent return, or they play hardball, and Murray makes a deal elsewhere.

[Canada 02]

Interesting strategy by Mcphee. 12 players over 30 years . I guess they are established NHLers, and potential trade chips.

If it were me, I would have selected more younger players with upside.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Poe969

This team could have been a lot better. Screw them picks, I would have taken the better players.

I see you're from the Daryl Sutter school of management.

Your roster would decline every year.

Vegas actually has a chance to improve every year.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Anduril]

Definite long terms goal by Vegas in collecting picks spread over the the next few years. Good or bad, that's still currency that is flexible for anything from moving up the draft to taking making a major deal for a key player with term.

[PlayfulGenius]

I don't understand this approach from McPhee and Co... why take a deal to lay off Vatanen (and others)... just pick the player and flip him on the open market... strange approach

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Lindholm was protected and was never going to be available.

Did you mean Manson? I view Manson and Theodore as pretty close in value. I'd take both over Vatanen.

Also as pointed out before by SureLoss if the Ducks/VGK didn't work out a trade then ANA likely buys out Bieksa, trades Vatanen, protects Manson and Silfverberg and then VGK gets crap all.

If I had to rank the Ducks defense' value I'd be thinking:

Lindholm
....
Fowler/Manson/Montour
Vatanen
....
Larsson/(Theodore)
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
Holzer/(Stoner)
Bieksa

For them to squeeze out of this one losing their IMO 7th and 9th most valuable pieces is some banditry.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

I don't understand this approach from McPhee and Co... why take a deal to lay off Vatanen (and others)... just pick the player and flip him on the open market... strange approach

Because Vatanen would not have been avail. Anahiem would have traded him.

So in no world does LV get Vatanen. So why would they not work with Anaheim to maximize their return?

[N-E-B]

I think what Vegas is doing is smart. They realize that the best teams are built through the draft. They stocked up on picks today and they realize that defenseman are the most valuable players and loaded up on them to trade them for even more picks.

Vegas has no intention of being a good team next year, despite what they say publicly. They're building for the future, not next year.

[1qqaaz]

I also think Shea Theodore is just as good as Manson. He's a better skater, a better passer, and he probably has a higher ceiling.
His 8 points in 14 playoff games was nothing to sneeze at.

Vegas was smart to plan for long term success. That may have been the only real way to go. At the same time, it looks like they got a lot of character vets for proper youth development.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

So the Rangers and Caps gave nothing to avoid losing Raanta or Grubauer? I would have thought they had more value than Lindberg or Schmidt. Interesting.

[flamesrule14]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

So the Rangers and Caps gave nothing to avoid losing Raanta or Grubauer? I would have thought they had more value than Lindberg or Schmidt. Interesting.

Same for Mrazek. Don't even know who the guy they took is. But still how do you not take Mrazek and flip him or something. Bad season I know but got to be worth something. A couple odd choices they made for me anyways.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

So the Rangers and Caps gave nothing to avoid losing Raanta or Grubauer? I would have thought they had more value than Lindberg or Schmidt. Interesting.

Picking up too many goalies may have had tank implications. With Dahlin and Svechnikov on the table you can't risk accidentally pulling a Brent Sutter Flames Special 10th In The West, especially with the unpredictable Fleury possibly heating up.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

I don't understand this approach from McPhee and Co... why take a deal to lay off Vatanen (and others)... just pick the player and flip him on the open market... strange approach

Vatanen would never have been exposed if they hadn't worked out the deal. They would've dealt him, bought out Bieksa or got him to waive, protected Manson and Silfverberg and VGK would've gotten someone nowhere near as good as Theodore

Meanwhile Ducks fans seem convinced Vatanen will be dealt due to cap issues

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by flamesrule14

Same for Mrazek. Don't even know who the guy they took is. But still how do you not take Mrazek and flip him or something. Bad season I know but got to be worth something. A couple odd choices they made for me anyways.

Rumor was Det offered Mrazak around the league and no one wanted him.

Teams apparently don't think he is the answer

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by flamesrule14

Same for Mrazek. Don't even know who the guy they took is. But still how do you not take Mrazek and flip him or something. Bad season I know but got to be worth something. A couple odd choices they made for me anyways.

Who's to say Mrazek had any value league wide after the year he had? I think fans and reporters overestimate the value goalies have sometimes. There's very few teams that had room for a starter and you aren't going to pay Mrazek 4 million to back up. Probably CGY, WPG, ARI all liked other goalies moreso and thus there was no trade market for a guy like Mrazek

Very few goalies have ever been traded for a significant asset. Off the top of my head Luongo, Schneider, Varlamov, Andersen are the only ones I can think of. And they were top young goalies when they were dealt

[Roof-Daddy]

Mrazek first 77 games - 0.925sv%
Mrazek last 67 games - 0.897sv%

Plus it's come out that he may be a bit of a malcontent.

Nobody wants that for $4 million cap hit.

[Lil Pedro]

Was expecting the Knights to field a better opening day roster; they look pretty bad from this expansion draft. Their saving grace is the amount of draft picks they acquired this year, most notably the first rounders. That said, I can't see this team winning more than 20 games next year. MAF will be a solid backbone for them, but their defence is underwhelming and they will struggle to score goals from their forwards. Interested to see what they do with their excess forwards, D and goalies. I can see them trading Method to DAL for that third overall picl. Don't forget that Vegas also signed that KHL star too, which may help.

[Fire]

I think the VGK keeps Neal until the trade deadline and trades him for picks/prospects at that point. Easier to get good draft picks at the trade deadline and gives the team a better chance of scoring some goals this season.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Who's to say Mrazek had any value league wide after the year he had? I think fans and reporters overestimate the value goalies have sometimes. There's very few teams that had room for a starter and you aren't going to pay Mrazek 4 million to back up. Probably CGY, WPG, ARI all liked other goalies moreso and thus there was no trade market for a guy like Mrazek

Very few goalies have ever been traded for a significant asset. Off the top of my head Luongo, Schneider, Varlamov are the only ones I can think of. And they were top young goalies when they were dealt

Agreed. Goalies who are average on the ice and good in the room (and probably more plentiful) are going to be more desirable than those who are streaky and bad in the room.